You are here

IGF 2020 - Day 5 - OF46 Beyond Personal Data: Literacy, Sovereignty and Rights

The following are the outputs of the real-time captioning taken during the virtual Fifteenth Annual Meeting of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), from 2 to 17 November 2020. 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:  Distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the open forum number 46, it is organized by AICOMS, Telkom University.  Thank you for the opportunity to have this open forum today. 

I am Suryo Adhi Wibowo, moderator for the current open forum.  The title of the open forum is Beyond Personal Data: Literacy, Sovereignty and Rights.  Before we start, maybe the IGF operator will brief about the technicalities for this online meeting.  Maybe you can help us from the technical aspects of the online meeting.

I will explain about the technicalities:  the first, attenders, you can use the Q&A for question and answering and maybe you can raise your hand and talk directly to the speaker and we will give permission to talk directly to the speaker.  The other thing, you can use the chat in the Zoom application.  Okay.

Maybe let us begin with the keynote speech by the director of ICT application governance, Indonesia Ministry of Communication and information technologies.  She is also the Chair of the ID IGF.  Please.

>> MARIAM BARATA:  Thank you. 

Distinguished guests, first of all, on behalf of the Indonesia Ministry of ICT and the ID IGF, I would like to show appreciation to the UN for hosting this important and timely online event which invites government, private sector and Civil Society.  Ms. Marilyn Cade helped us a lot in the Indonesia government and her presence will be greatly missed, it was a blast for us to have her contribution. 

Distinguished participants, ladies and gentlemen, the internet has become a powerful, liberating medium and it is borderless cyberspace providing limited opportunity for freedom of speech and expression as well as economic developments.  On the other hand, many aspects of the internet governance security, personal data protection, literacy, other, they're still needing to be discussed further.  These are the reasons why Indonesia hosts the 8th IGF in Bali and even during the IGF 2019 in Berlin, the Minister even expressed willingness of Indonesia to host the IGF again.  The President of Indonesia even works directly, activities for a country consisting of around 17,000 islands with a population of more than 250 million, to provide internet access to all of them, it is a must, not only because Indonesia committed to the standard but also because activities, including online activities in schools and universities are being held online due to the pandemic.  At the same time, the government is also increasing the awareness of cybersecurity, personal data protection and other aspects that should be taken care for a safe, secure cyberspace.  Distinguished participants, ladies and gentlemen, Indonesia is hosting this open forum event with the topic of personal data, literacy, sovereignty and rights, the discussion will be focused on two main topics, internet governance, digital economic ecosystem.  The first topic is making sure that the internet governance which was followed by numerous discussions in many forums of the ITU, ICANN and others, can we develop properly and accept globally for the benefits of all countries. 

The second topic, I believe it is more and more important topic due to the pandemic situation as mentioned previously, Indonesia as well as many other countries are developing their ICT infrastructure and applications significantly.  It should be sure that these activities will support the economic development of its country.  The science, technology and industrial activities in the countries, both in software and hardware should benefit from the ICT developments.  At the same time, the economic activities developed with the ICT should be a part of the digital economies, eCommerce, and many other, they should benefit the country’s economic development.

Distinguished participants, ladies and gentlemen, we're pleased to be able to offer a multisector ‑‑ multistakeholder forum for this open discussion.  I would like to close my speech with the hope that this IGF helps with the advancement of the internet for the benefit of all countries, societies and people.

Thank you..

I give back to you, Bhredipta Socarana.

>> MODERATOR: The next speaker, Mr. Arthit Suriyawongkul from Thainetizen and he's an expert on digital policy and researcher.  We would like to present the floor to you, Arthit Suriyawongkul.

Please.

>> ARTHIT SURIYAWONGKUL: I will share the screen again here.  Okay.

You can hear, right?

>> MODERATOR: Yes.  I hear you clearly.

>> ARTHIT SURIYAWONGKUL: Do you see the screen?  The keynote?

>> MODERATOR: I cannot see.

>> ARTHIT SURIYAWONGKUL: It should be here.  You see this one, right?  The full one, right?  It is confusing.

>> MODERATOR: Maybe you switch ‑‑

>> ARTHIT SURIYAWONGKUL: I have another one.  Sorry.  I have the shared screen and then ‑‑

>> MODERATOR: Perfect.

>> ARTHIT SURIYAWONGKUL: Can you see the presentation?

>> MODERATOR: I see the presentation.  Now I see two slides.

>> ARTHIT SURIYAWONGKUL: Two slides.  Okay.  That's strange..

I will start.

The topic I'm going to talk about today, it's about ‑‑ I think a lot of people are talking about it, the privacy, the personal data, the information collected because of different security measure, right, during the pandemic.  I will try to give some perspective let's say for further discussion.  I borrowed the idea from the European Single Market.  In the context of what I just mentioned, it is not only about the rights and freedom, it is all about the economic opportunities, the market as well.  Let's see how these things can be considered together.  I borrowed the idea of the four freedoms from the European Single Market.  These four freedoms which I think all of the people have heard about, or maybe experienced themselves in some forms.  It is about free movement of goods, capital, so it is in‑person, and in‑person this is worker, citizens as well.  All of these ideas, in order to actually have a truly single market, goods, capital, persons, they should be allowed to move freely in the same market despite political borders, whatever.  This right was translated in different regulations and initiatives to support the free movement of main things and they actually use pillars of the single market.  For example, there are things like euro tariff, it is basically the way that allows people to use one single mobile phone number, mobile phone plan and go to Member States and still make a call without paying the roaming charge. 

Trying to borrow that idea that concern about free movement of goods, capital services, people, I would like to use that framework and invite everybody to think about what kind of things could limit the free movement, what kind of data that you probably have to offer or give away during the transportation of goods, of capital, of services, of people.  I think a lot of people who travel already experience this, we call it border controls, right.  When you cross a border from one country to another, there are different security check, bodycheck, document check, the passport, visa, if you go with luggage, that's checked as well all done for security.  These measures, they get more and more strict especially the context after different terrorist attacks in the past, especially like 9/11, it changed the landscape of life and travel.

Same as the current COVID, it has changed a lot on how people travel from one country to another.  Myself example, stuck in Dublin, I cannot go back to Bangkok because of these measure, I have to wait for approval from my own government for them to say ‑‑ they have basically a quota for people going back to our homeland.  So the attacks, they have changed the way we control how things travel and linked to this, terrorist attack, even the example of movement of goods, there is a link.  In 2001 I think some people still remember the attacks in the letter, in the U.S., people randomly got a letter with white powder or something and eventually some of them contained Anthrax, a disease.  It actually created a panic in the public and consequently, the U.S. postal service has actually installed a detector to take care of this.  It is a case of letter bombs in a lot of countries.

In Thailand, since 2015, you are required to have an ID card when you go to the post office, you have to show a ID card if you want to send any parcel.  It used tonight case that you could ‑‑ when you sent a parcel, the only address that you will give in the past, it is the address of the recipient.  Since 2015 you have to give the sender address as well.  Sender address used to be optional if you want to get the parcel back in the case of there is no recipient, you actually got the return.  If you put the sender address there.  That was optional.  Currently it is mandatory.  That's personal security as well.  In order to send goods, there is personal data involved here as well.  This can create a social will as well, if you can ‑‑ a public record as well, if you send what or how many grams or the frequency, someone sends something, right, to someone, you can actually create a social network and send for payment as well.

We see that using cash, it is decreasing in a lot of cities because of premises like restaurants, supermarkets right now prefer contact lists or payment because of the health and safety reasons and also food delivery and shopping and payment as well.

The difference is, cash payment, it is anonymous compared to other payments that have your ‑‑ some ID attached to it.  In terms of services, for example, work, work from home, study from home, there is an example, right now I'm literally in my bedroom.  We somehow, the borders between the public spaces and private spaces, right, working space, home, it is quite blurred at the moment.  Sometimes it is not only about the room itself, it is about the desktop as well.  Previously there were some chats that I shared with my friends and because of my incompetency basically in the technical of screen sharing, I could expose some of the conversation with my friends to the public. 

The apps in the U.S., schools use with students, right, they require sometimes unnecessary surveillance.  The last example, it is the most popular one people are thinking about, it is the contact tracing, moving, keeping track of people, not only the movement, they're keep track of who you are as well.  This is used to create the social network of people that you know, people that you spend time with, right.  I think just like using the freedoms as a framework of movement of goods, capital, services, people, we can see how our life in the market actually changed and this change oftentimes comes with increasing amount of the personal data that's collected just in order to do the transaction.  These transactions, they're movement, trials, it used to be the case of the intensity of controls most of the time at the borders.  The thing here because of the pandemic, it is not only that the controls are more intense at the border, the numbers at the border itself also increasing as well.  For example, for checkpoints for travel, it used to be the case that you only had it at the national border, but right now in some countries they do actually check at other borders as well and even at the gates of mall, or going into the restaurants, they actually ask you to write down your phone number, the data, the numbers at the border has also increased as well.

This is almost lie mi last one.

With these measures, the number of measure, number of borders were increased, we see a lot of things happening here, things like public ‑‑ when the data, when this go across the border, for example, our contact tracing app, it has been developed and used by the Ministry of Public health.  Things like the regulation about the data exchange, it is into the clear.  Currently we have one law for the personal data inside of a government.  For the personal data in the private sector, it is ‑‑ it is not that harmonized.  There are cases in terms of social mobility and access to work.

Some of the people, they found that fortunately they can work from home.  I have some friends who are living here, living here in Dublin, they want to actually move back to Bangkok or other provinces in Thailand because of the current situation and they found if they actually want to go back to that place they can no longer work because they work in data and because Thailand doesn't actually have the data protection law that's compatible to the standard with GDPR, they cannot work from Thailand.  Some of their Spanish friends, German friends, they can actually go to their home and work from their E.U. Member State country, but for non‑E.U. Member States, they don't actually have the options.  All right.

There are cases that use this control of security measures against COVID, this control, against the freedom of assembly as well because from the ID we can trace it, if you have a mental health history, we don't allow you to actually enter the process.  This happened last week in Bangkok.

There's a lot of stuff going on with the cross‑border things, the data, involving the data, discrimination, so this is the last ‑‑ basically I think just like the questions that I have received, because of the means and the modes of transportation have been changed.  Borders have been changed and are increasing as well, same as the controls at the borders, how the data protection has evolved, they catch up with the new reality.  In terms of the market itself, the economy itself, in terms of social mobility, accumulation of social capital, social capital in terms of education, economic capital, how isolation has effected these and which groups are effect the most.  This is interesting as well.  This is ‑‑ we have been thinking, this is ‑‑ yes, this is based on the data, the personal data, some of them, but the consequences is not only about the privacy, it is actual going beyond the privacy as well.

Thanks.

>> SURYO ADHI WIBOWO: It is interesting to hear your presentation regarding people and borders.

Maybe we can move to the next speaker, the CEO of DotAsia organization.  He will give the presentation, around 10 minutes.  I would like to welcome Mr. Chung.  The floor is yours. 

>> EDMON CHUNG:  Building on what was just talked about, I don't have a presentation here, picking up on the increasing number of orders that are kind of private border, if you will that we're going through every day, and this merging between public space and private space, it is something that I think is at the heart of many of the things that we talk about, privacy.

Again, building on previous speakers, it is not just about personal data at this point, it is not just about privacy, there are cross‑border issues and stuff.  The part that I want to do to spin, to focus on, they are whether it is privacy or a lot of the things that we deal with online problems today, fake news, hate speech, freedom of expression, it all comes in what many people are starting to call privately owned public spaces that happens online.  These privately owned private spaces is quite interesting.  They are the Facebook, the Twitter, Tik Tok, whatever, social media that you have which acts almost like a public space, people protest, people talk over it, treating it as a public space.  In fact, it is privately owned.

The type of accountability, it is very different than a public space whereby the balance of freedom of expression versus hate speech, other incitement of violence, other issue, it is different and the expectation of privacy is also different.  If you're in a public space, obviously, the expectation of privacy, it is not high, however, the type of expectation, it is different because if you're in person, you won't have an ID that shows on top of your head and that everyone can see who you are and what the number is.

Online, it is very different.  These ‑‑ I think a lot of the issues that we talk about comes from these privately‑owned public spaces and the lack of accountability for them.

Ultimately, they're ran by corporations.  These spaces obviously ran for profit, they're customer driven.  When we talk about customers, it is not no longer the users.  Users don't pay, those that pay are the advertiser, including political advertisers and other motivations that are driving corporate decisions on these types of issues on privacy.  Of course, much has been talked about, the collecting and keeping of data, almost feeling the more data the better that at least has been the motto for the last 10, 15 years and while GDPR did a little bit to increase the cost of keeping data, which I think is a good thing, because ultimately, when we think about it, it is about whether that data is being kept at all.  The key aspect of privacy, it is not so much ‑‑ a lot of times, people kind of ‑‑ both corporations and governments and many, many people get twisted around when we talk about privacy, it is they twist it into saying the security of someone protecting access to your data.  In reality, when you talk about ‑‑ when we talk about privacy, we really want to talk about data sovereignty which is you own that data and if I don't ‑‑ if you're not ‑‑ if you don't really need my data, you're not supposed to keep it in the first place so that you don't really need to.  The talk about increasing security to protect you, protect your privacy, it is a bit of an oxymoron. 

The bigger question is whether that data is necessary, and a lot of times when we talk about the security, it is ‑‑ whether it is the Trump clean network, we border in the question of not just about data security but this type of national security or how or why this data is kept, why it needs to be kept very securely is about this type of security.  Earlier this year, here in Hong Kong, we have this national security law for Hong Kong, it was enacted in mainland China which all three of these initiatives are really a situation where it is twisting what starts with privacy into what we tried to think about security into what we think about as national security, but more importantly the extraterritorial nature of these type of initiatives, what it is trying to do is control things that are cross‑border, you know, by a particular jurisdiction, hoping to, you know, impose a kind of jurisdiction across the world and dictate the world.  That, to me, is one of the bigger problems that we need to really think through.  That's where I think the multistakeholder model needs to come into play.  In order for it to be interesting, you know, and I'm, you know, being the big optimist, yes, I am talking about potentially a multistakeholder governance model that can look at a general situation for be privately owned public spaces.  That's a huge wish.  I think ultimately that's what we probably need. 

In order to do that, there are two things my mind that's very important.  One, it is the general model of these apps, and the COVID contract tracking apps is a best example.  For the longest time, companies like Google, Apple, many app providers keep saying that user data, the reason why they want all of this type of user data is for the good of the user, for the user experience, they keep, collect the behavior data up to the Cloud and they do calculations and give you the service that you want.

What the COVID app actually told us, especially with the apple/Google model, that's not necessarily the model.  What that model say, is that the data can actually stay in your device, everyone can keep their own data, the algorithm is transmitted to the device and calculations are being done in the device so that, you know, the user actually retains control over its data.  I think that's going to be a huge step.  Now that the biggest guys are saying this model actually work, we should demand it as user, we should demand it.  It is not just users, I think that even governments want to demand it.  Other ‑‑ if all of the app, if most of the apps have this model, this sovereignty issue, it is reduced.  The data, it is not uploaded to some Cloud, some other cross‑border, everything still on the device.  The more applications that use this model, the more jurisdiction returns to be meaningful and the more data sovereignty for the user returns to being meaningful.  Another thing that's important to build on, it is open standards.  Right now all of these standards, Facebook, Twitter, so on, yes, they have APIs but they're not built on open standards. 

What I mean, when you send an email from Gmail to Outlook, it works.  But if you set up something on Facebook, it is not easy to move to another place and you can't send messages around.  The reason that's important, is to put the customer back into the driver seat as in, you know, if the social media platforms, if these type of privately owned public spaces are utilizing open standards, customers can move and exodus from a particular platform.  Today, that's not possible.

Together with these, I think that forms an interesting basis for a potential multistakeholder, global multistakeholder model that can then come in and look at the technical aspects of maintaining these two parameter, the model of the data, you know, with retention at the client and the open standards.  That would give us a fighting chance for a multistakeholder model looking at privately owned public space in that slice whereas in a global situation, and then the local jurisdictions can take over as they are now and, of course, I don't think ICANN is the greatest organization, but at least it is an example of how a slice of technology, technical focus coordination, it can help a larger piece of policy support across the world.

I guess with this, I close by saying this is the issue ‑‑ the issue of personal data, it is just one part of things.  I think the bigger problem, all of these problems circle around privately owned public spaces and as we cross these spaces those policies need to be in place and are not quite there yet and hopefully, you know, this could add to a step towards more interesting things.

Thank you.

>> MODERATOR: Thank you.  Thank you, Edmon, for your speech.

Now we have reached the time for open discussion in the forum.  I will start by addressing the question from the Q&A session.

Each question can be discussed together by a participant in the forum, for anyone interested in answering or discussing the question please just respond or use the Q&A feature in the Zoom.

>> (Poor audio quality).

>> MODERATOR: I'm sorry, your sound is interrupted.  I will take over.  There are some problems.

The first question, it is from Egypt, how is access to electronic evidence effected by cross‑border mobility of people and particularly over Asia, are there existing or national level classifications or definitions of data, traffic data, content?  Maybe Edmon can answer this. ‑‑ sorry.  Sorry.

I will read the question again and maybe you can answer.  This is also from Egypt infrastructures Chris, public space, is there an indicator of the four steps and as a user, how are the roles as you're citing it.

The third question, it is how we consider the strength in the process of the data subject that lies in the idea of qualifying data as property, when is the data considered to be personal data. 

Maybe the panelists, Edmon, Arthit, maybe you could answer, please.

>> EDMON CHUNG:  I will jump in.

The first one, I'm not familiar enough with, I hope others may be able to jump in. 

The second question, on privately owned public spaces, I think when ‑‑ how I see it, it is that when we ‑‑ when we talk about data sovereignty, just like in normal life, when we talk about sovereignty, you have to have a personal sovereignty and then a build up to a nation sovereignty that's at least by classic definition and classic political theory.  That's the same information, you have to have personal data sovereignty for it to make sense for national data sovereignty just as I explained, if your personal data sovereignty is not kept, that data, it is not with you physically or with your device, then, you know, it is no longer something that can be bounded by any kind of boundary, border, geographic border boundary, data sovereignty doesn't make sense in that case except for jurisdictions looking to over reach.  The time you want to talk to data sovereignty, you would absolutely have to talk about data of certain subjects that are being held outside of the jurisdiction.  I think they come hand in hand.

>> ARTHIT SURIYAWONGKUL: I can add a bit on this.  Sorry, I'm not that expert in the first question as well so I will go to the second question.

When we are talking about data sovereignty here oftentimes it comes together with the attempts of a lot of governments to push for that so‑called data localization, the legal requirement, if it is data about the person of this nationality, the data about matters of national interest, whatever, it should be kept inside of the country.

My view is that it is a goal aligned with what Edmon just said, we at the sovereignty level, I think people should have ability to choose to stay in the safe they feel safe as a person, as human.  The same thing should go with personal data as well, if we ‑‑ we should be able to choose where we like stay.  Right.  We should be able to choose where I work, the data should stay as well.  If it feels like ‑‑ if I feel like my data should be best kept in Thailand, I should be able to choose that.  If I choose my data should be in Hong Kong, Singapore, I should able to choose that as well.

The legal infrastructure should support me to fulfill this right and freedom.  In terms of national, legal infrastructure, right, you shouldn't limit the security of individuals.  If it is the case that keeping the data, it is actually better for citizens, I think that the Government of Our country should support that and when talking about this, it is not really promoting only one country to be ‑‑ in the data center, there is competition in the market as well and the same cashed data, piece of data, there can be many copies, another thing about data security, it is actually about our ability.  It means if you have copies, you can have more ability of the data.  I think this can go together, the freedom of choosing where to keep your data and also in this market competition, it can go together, and it comes back to the security of individuals.  It actual builds up to the national security.  It is nothing without the people.  It should be with the people.

>> MARIM BARATA: Help me with the question?

>> MODERATOR: Yes.  Please.  You can unmute.

>> ASHWIN SASTROSUBROTO:  This question, it is a long time issue.

First of all, regulation, like GDPR, it is on the basis of a multilateral agreement, and in Asia, we don't have yet that type of multilateral agreement.  Now, I think ‑‑ well, I'm a member of the group of the Indonesia IGF and this is really important, a very good question, because this will ‑‑ I can put this one in a proposal for the ministerial meeting, if you can have GDPR, why not an Asian agreement like GDPR, like that, but, of course, on a different type of regulations.  That's number one.

Secondly, in many countries, well, at least that I know, the definition of personal data is not yet fully designed.  This something we should agree first, what kind of personal data we should define.  And don't forget that ICANN still has open who is data to the public, although there is some ‑‑ some decisions in German for example that is still being discussed whether the data should be open north.  These are the kinds of things we have to consider at least in Indonesia and, of course, perhaps I think also in Asian countries.

Now, the next, let me check the question again.  How we can have the cross‑border ‑‑ cross‑border information about the data.  I think that this is very much depending on the agreement of the countries.  This is also important if we go to internet data usage.  Some of you may remember, this is also a problem of a global problem, where if data is stored in particular countries, it may or may not be possible for other countries to ‑‑ most of you are already familiar with this because with the development of the act of the U.S., that this demonstrates how difficult it is to get the data even from your country, in your country, to get the data which is stored in other countries.  These are the types of things, issues that we should consider together and perhaps IGF is a place where global internet governance can be discussed openly, together, how a criminal in country A sends the data in country B and country A should be able to get the data from country B even though the dataset operator of the place where they put the data is still in country A.  This is the kind of things that I think IGF can work together.

Bearing in mind, we already discussed this with the WSIS 1 and WSIS 2 and at the time, some of you may remember, we have the Working Group on internet governance to set up to solve these kind of problems and perhaps we can still continue to discuss this.

Again, once more, thank you for the questions.  I think it will ‑‑ I will propose this to be put on the table of the next ministerial ICT meeting.

Thank you.

>> ARTHIT SURIYAWONGKUL: I could actually answer as to ‑‑ the answer about ‑‑ where is that?  Yeah.

No.  I'm sorry.

There was questions about are these models suitable for others in general.  I think just an example that I just gave about how people ‑‑ citizens of the E.U. Member States, they can actually during the pandemic time, they can go back to their home and work from their home country because there's a compatibility, there is the harmonization of data regulation, data protection regulations across all Member States in the European Union.  This is a very good example.  I think working from home, whether during the pandemic or not, it will be increasing.  Without the data protection, personal data protection I think it is going to be difficult for people who are roaming around in different countries to actually get access to customer data, to contracts, to whatever is involved, the personal data of citizens, in different countries.  Just to give you an example, if I actually worked for a company in Bangkok, right.  In one day, maybe some companies in Singapore ‑‑ maybe in one day the Singapore government has a data protection law that said the export of the Singaporean citizen data should be allowed to the country that has the law on data protection, that may be ‑‑ I'm from an office in Thailand, I can no longer work on that dataset says WSIS.  So I think this can be obstructions for the economy as well as our economic community as well.  I think in order to actually go forward with this, the data digital market, digital service, data protection as a mechanism, as a regional mechanism, it is actually the thing that we should at least consider that there may be too many obstructions for the businesses of operations.

>> MODERATOR: Thank you.

>> EDMON CHUNG:  There is a question in the Q&A I would like to quickly respond.

Do I have anything in mind for the governance model for publicly owned ‑‑ privately owned public spaces.  Yes and no.  Yes, as I mentioned, I think something like in ICANN thing, that would have ‑‑ if we can successfully slice off a technical portion of these privately‑owned public spaces like the data model and the open standards component of it and with some support from jurisdiction, it is possible.  Of course, it is a very long shot.  The question is whether the platforms would really be bound by these decisions of the multistakeholder entity being set up, the platforms, how they play and how we enforce that.  That's all very difficult.  In my mind as a very early shape, yes, I do, how it might actually happen, I have no idea.  I'm throwing this idea out into the wild and if there are enough interests then maybe it would shape into something interesting.

>> MODERATOR: Thank you.

We still have 5 minutes, maybe we can respond to more questions.

>> ARTHIT SURIYAWONGKUL: There is one question asking about the possibility of basically if it is better to have only one internet from ICANN, maybe to have maybe more than one internet, right, from I don't know, whoever.  Actually I think we can link this back to what was suggested about the open standards.  I think we can actually have as many internets that we would like to have as long as those internet can talk to each other based on open standards.  Actually even mixing all of those many internets as one internet anyway.  In the end, when we talk about internet, it is not about physical network, but about the ability for people to actually talk across network based on internet.  It is about open standards, you can have as many internets as you like, but you have to have people actually talking to each other openly based on open standards.  That's my take.

>> ASHWIN SASTROSUBROTO:  It is interesting.  We have heard about many proposal of the development of another internet and I'm ‑‑ I'm with you, Arthit, okay, as long as they're interconnected, but to get the interconnection, you have to have some sort of an agreement on the protocol, the protocol of the guy way, so on, so forth, owes they won't talk.

In this case, IGF is a perfect place to talk about that work with the internet connection, although perhaps ITU could also talk about it.  Thank you.

>> EDMON CHUN:  On that question, building on what was mentioned, I think ‑‑ I don't think the way to think about it is having different ICANNs and different internet, what I was suggesting was not that at all.  ICANN has a specific purview, the domain names and IP addresses.  What I'm suggesting, it is ICANN for something else, in this case, for privately owned public spaces in a particular technical coordination of that, not necessarily creating a different internet.  I want to clarify that point.

>> MODERATOR: Thank you.  Maybe we can answer one more question briefly I think.

This is from Nadia, how is internet security developed in under developed countries, how can we get and give support.  Maybe answer briefly.

>> EDMON CHUN: I didn't get that particular question?  'Twas ‑‑

>> MODERATOR: It was from Nadia, the question is ‑‑ Edmon ‑‑

>> ARTHIT SURIYAWONGKUL: To who?

>> MODERATOR: Edmon.

>> EDMON CHUN:  Sorry about that. 

To get attention and support, well, I think, it is a tough question as in, of course, sounding it here at the global IGF is a good starter.  I think if I understand your question in its context, internet security, I think this is ‑‑ this is something that more resources from around the world should be directed into.

 

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) 229 173 411