Setting the scene: What impact does Internet governance have on our lives? Internet governance from a European perspective – Opening Session 2011
30 May 2011 | 8:45-9:45
Programme overview 2011
With 10+ years of the Internet Corporation of Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), 5+ years of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), and 3 years of the European Dialogue on Internet Governance (EuroDIG), what has been the impact of the multi-stakeholder model in governing the information society? Did public policy decision-making change? Have our lives benefited?
People
Co-moderators
- Ana Cristina Neves, Knowledge Society Agency (UMIC), Ministry of Science, Technology and Higher Education
- Lee Hibbard, Council of Europe
Short welcome
- Nebojsa Vasiljević, Assistant Minister for Information Society
Video message
- Alice Munya, Host of the 6th IGF in Nairobi
Session report
In the broader context and debate on Internet governance there is a need to better focus and concentrate on issues that matter to the end user. Whereas Internet governance dialogue can be sometimes perceived as “fluffy”, it should impact on decision making concerning public policy issues; over the years, such dialogue has proven useful. Most importantly, we are witnessing the results of free communication, most recently in the Arab countries.
The multi-stakeholder model challenges governments top-down management of Internet issues. That said, the relevance of multi-stakeholder dialogue must be elaborated. The recent E-G8 in Paris demonstrated that powerful countries and companies are interested in the Internet and seek to find ways to increase their influence. Participation numbers at meetings of the IGF are growing, yet it still remains a challenge for participants to explicitly influence decision-makers’ agendas. The IGF was considered relevant, having changed decisionmaking processes with its concept spreading to regional and national levels.
How are users affected in their every day lives? Many people are less concerned about how the Internet is governed, but they do care how it affects their daily life and work conditions. Young people – as digital natives in the information society – are not yet sufficiently involved in Internet governance debates yet could contribute especially on topics such as online social media. Therefore, IG policy shaping forums such as the EuroDIG bring these issues more effectively onto the political agendas. The question of access to, and affordability of, the Internet and related services are special concerns for young people. It is noteworthy that more and more people are using cloud services without necessarily realising it. Therefore the roles and responsibilities of providers of these services needs to be better defined.
The need for a global identity was another topic debated. Today, people have difficulties in relating/identifying themselves with a certain entity. Multistakeholderism is a response to the global nature of the Internet by providing a way to participate ‘locally’ in decision-making. It is a new way to organise interaction and understanding among each other – either under conditions of proximity or worldwide by networking with others – which has changed our lives significantly albeit not re-invented it.
Transcript
Provided by: Caption First, Inc., P.O. Box 3066, Monument, CO 80132, Phone: +001-719-481-9835, www.captionfirst.com
This text is being provided in a rough draft format. Communication Access Realtime Translation (CART) is provided in order to facilitate communication accessibility and may not be a totally verbatim record of the proceedings.
>> LEE HIBBARD: Ana, co-moderator?
Okay, everybody. We are going to start this first session.
Hello and welcome to the 4th edition of the EuroDIG, the European Dialogue on Internet Governance. I see many familiar faces and I really welcome you all.
We are going to start with a few words from our Serbian friends and colleagues and hosts of this event. Assistant Minister for Information Society, you have the floor.
(Applause)
>> ASSISTANT MINISTER FOR INFORMATION SOCIETY: Ladies and gentlemen, dear colleagues. I would like to welcome you at the beginning of this morning’s session, which is held prior to the official opening that is scheduled for some time later.
In any event, I want to wish you a pleasant work and to start your activities in this session in the right way.
Thank you very much.
(Applause)
>> LEE HIBBARD: Okay. I’ve got too many machines with me. I apologize. Thank you.
Okay. This first session is a short session in order to ask ourselves a few basic questions about Internet Governance. And before I do that, I want to say my name is Lee Hibbard from the Council of Europe and I’ll be your co-moderator with Ana Cristina Neves.
>> ANA CRISTINA NEVES: Hello. Good morning. I’m from the Knowledge Society Agency.
Is it working, really?
>> LEE HIBBARD: Yes.
>> ANA CRISTINA NEVES: And from the Ministry of Science, Technology and Higher Education from Portugal.
>> LEE HIBBARD: Okay. I want to thank the Assistant Minister, first of all, and I’d like to thank all the new people here. This is a session for newcomers, but not only newcomers. For people who are involved in Internet Governance. There are different levels of discussion about Internet Governance. And I think this first session, which is entitled “What impact does Internet Governance have on our lives, Internet Governance from a European perspective,” is really about the tangible things which matter. It’s not just about the dialogue. It’s not just about talking abstract terms about what is Internet and how do we govern Internet.
So, I just want to say a few words about what is happening in Europe and outside of Europe. Internet Governance is being discussed from the point of view of principles. The Council of Europe has principles, the United States has launched some idea for principles which will be discussed in the OECD later in June in Paris. There is a new strategy in the US for cyberspace. Carl Bildt, the Foreign Affairs Minister, he will speak later by video link, prerecorded. He is talking about a new strategy for cyberspace. And only last week in Paris, there was the G8. Before that, the EG8, in which you had a dialogue between governments and primarily businesses.
Last week, too, there was discussion in the United Nations about enhanced cooperation and other matters.
And this week, in Geneva, in the human rights council, Frank La Rue, special representative on Freedom of Expression and Information, will present his reports on Human Rights on the Internet, particularly Freedom of Expression. So all of this is about Internet and its governance.
What do we mean by governing the Internet. Ana?
>> ANA CRISTINA NEVES: Okay.
Well, well, I think that we need a framework to better understand what we are talking about because there are ICANN, there is Internet Governance Forum, there is EuroDIG, and there are plenty of national and divisional IGFs. So, my point is that more than ten years after the creation of ICANN, that I think that everybody knows that is the Internet Cooperation of Assigned Names and Numberings. More than five years after the creation of the Internet Governance Forum and more than three years after the creation of this European Dialogue on Internet Governance, together, with the multiplication of several national and regional IGFs, what has been the impact of the model in governing the Information Society? Did public policy decision-making change? Have our lives benefited? Changed?
The world Senate on Information Society boosts the model and provided a new framework, the Internet Governance Forum. And I’d like to underline this word “Forum.” To develop economic and social development and there is a way to achieve the development goals. Soon it also becomes a level of economic, social and political development in general, and an instrument for political liberty and emancipation.
Many stakeholders from developed, developing and emerging economies were involved and are involved. The agenda was a blueprint and generated different interpretations of what the multi-stakeholder dialogue and policy making is, which was enriching.
But, the inception of the multi-stakeholder models of Internet Governance, which includes governments, society, technical and academic communities, business sector, began with ICANN in 1998.
Lee?
>> LEE HIBBARD: Yes. Thank you.
Okay.
What is happening? This is a session, it’s not too calculated. It’s about feeling what we understand about the Internet. I would ask you, because this dialogue is with you, it’s your feelings, I want to try to capture in this short time we’re together. Is it fluffy dialogue? Are we talking about fluffy things which have no end, no meaning? I want to ask you, is this a nice definition?
This is what people in 2005 thought Internet Governance was. I’m not going to read it. But it’s there for you to see, in 2005. Has it changed? Is it something else? Should we revise the definition? What are your feelings? What are the realities?
There are 544 registrations for EuroDIG this year and 12 remote hubs, three of which are outside of Europe, and I’d like to welcome the hubs, and I hope we can have some feedback from Ginger. But what does that mean? You’re here registering for this event. What does that mean? Why are you here?
And to start that, while you think about that, both those who are involved and also our Serbian friends, I’d like to ask them to queue the video clip. We have a message from the Internet Governance Forum host for this year in Nairobi, Alice Munyua – if the technical things work.
Sound?
Well, she looks nice, Alice. This was taken in Geneva, about a week ago.
No sound?
Okay. Start
again.
>> ALICE MUNYUA: My name is Alice Munyua. I’m from Kenya. I’m chairing the Kenya Internet Governance steering committee that will be your host for the 2011 Internet Governance Forum. The Internet Governance Forum for the 2011 Internet Governance Forum, which is the 6th, is going to be taking place on the 27th to the 30th of September this year in Nairobi at the UN offices. And the theme is “Internet is a catalyst for change, access, development, freedom and innovation.” And this is particularly important, considering that the 6th IGF is going to be taking place in a developing country and in an African sub Saharan developing country for this matter.
So I’d like to congratulate EuroDIG for holding your 4th regional IGF forum and to say it’s particularly important to not just global IGF but to other regional IGF because it’s a great model for support and participation and engagement. We look forward to your input at the 2011 IGF. We look forward to the messages that you’re going to be bringing and your input in Nairobi. And we look forward to welcoming you.
Thank you.
>> LEE HIBBARD: Okay. Great. Thank you, Alice.
So what I retain from that is that you, the EuroDIG, it’s a model. It’s an input to other regions in the world. So it’s an important thing for Europe but it’s also important for other regions of the world which have other regional IGF spaces. And so it’s mutually reinforcing. It’s talking about how to govern the Internet. Is it becoming a necessity, a duty as part of our world of interconnected spaces? Is it a way in which we need to – is it becoming a fundamental right? Is the rise of IGF becoming a fundamental part of our Democratic architecture, just like the legislature, the government, et cetera? Is it a new fifth power?
I’d like to ask the floor now, I’d like to come to the floor. This is for you. What is your understanding about this dialogue? Is it fluffy dialogue?
I have colleagues here in the EuroDIG team and I want to find you. Is Jovan here? I don’t know if he is here. If not, I’d like to ask you what you think. Are there any comments? Chengatai. Secretariat to the Internet Governance Forum. You’re right in the middle of everything. What is your understanding?
>> CHENGATAI: For your question, did it change decision-making? I think it’s changing decision-making. You can see it by the rise of the regional and national IGFs. People are getting more and more involved, even the users. They are not giving it just to the governments or to the lawmakers to make the laws and the rules for the use of the Internet and the governing of the Internet. We can also see it in the attendance, I’m sure. In EuroDIG it’s increasing. With the IGF as well, it’s increasing. We had over 1400 participants last year and 49 percent came from developing countries. And the IGF last year was in Vilnius, so I think that was a great thing.
>> LEE HIBBARD: Thank you.
>> CHENGATAI: For the changing factors, I think it’s also very important to know to underline that it’s up to the participants. Because the only people who are going to change it is the participants themselves. What they take from the IGF, they take it home, and they have to strive, make the connections, engage the governments, and tell them that they also want to be heard and want to be involved in the decision-making process.
>> LEE HIBBARD: Thank you.
Okay. Other people? This is your chance. We have people from the ICANN community involved here. I’m looking at some of them. Don’t be shy. Mike Silber, Erika Mann, Wolf Ludwig, we have many people. You’re in the ICANN community. Is this fluffy dialogue? This is the bread and butter for Internet Corporation of Assigned Names and Numbers. Who is going to take it?
>> Well, I’ll ask Olivier Crepin-LeBlond.
>> LEE HIBBARD: Your name and country and affiliation. You can stand up if you wish.
>> OLIVIER CREPIN-LeBLOND: I’m a member of the ICANN. But it’s not with this hat I will talk. It’s more because I’m French. And I think why it’s important to be here, because it’s contrary of what happened in Paris last week. We don’t need the EG8. Internet is not just for the rich countries and not just for the people who have money to put on the table to participate.
So I think we have to reinforce EuroDIG and the IGF in general, and I can say that we need to reinforce ICANN also. But we really need to do that, because if not we see where we are going in this world with the EG8. It’s the wrong way. Thank you.
>> LEE HIBBARD: Just stay there, Olivier. I want to ask you, you’re involved in another space, pull it down from the sky. What does it mean in terms of concrete tangible results for us?
>> OLIVIER CREPIN-LeBLOND: I’m the chair of the at-large advisory committee in ICANN. I’ll not speak on behalf of thet, of course. I can’t of course. But my take is that it’s a particularly important dialogue to have this multi-stakeholder discussion. However, it doesn’t seem to be mainstreamed yet and I hope at some point it will become the mainstreamed way of communicating and of developing the Internet and developing the policies worldwide.
It appears that governments at the moment are not sure yet what to make of this, one of the reasons being that they are used to a top down structure, and we’re a bottom up system. It’s people, individual users, it’s businesses, it’s people who use the Internet who actually decide what they want in the future and who can discuss things together.
There is a big question always between policy shaping and policy making. ICANN does policy making, because it actually coordinates the domain name system. So there are some concrete results and decisions that need to be made at the end of the day that will affect millions of people if not billions of people worldwide.
The IGF is policy shaping. The discussion takes place, the decisions are made elsewhere, but the discussion and dialogue is particularly important when the decisions get taken at the end
>> LEE HIBBARD: So it’s not just fluffy dialogue.
So I want to go to the people who are not in those session, who are not in the spaces regularly, meeting in different countries and different regions in the world. Everybody, who is benefiting? Is the public benefiting from these decisions? Olivier, you are saying that, really, but what Internet Governance issues affect you on an everyday basis do you think?
We have a lot of young people here this time. I’m happy to welcome the European Youth Forum and the New Media Summer School and I’d like to ask the young people, if you may, if you have a microphone –
>> ANA CRISTINA NEVES: And maybe from Serbia?
>> LEE HIBBARD: And from Serbia of course. So get ready.
>> ANA CRISTINA NEVES: Who is from Serbia here?
>> LEE HIBBARD: This is the young people here.
>> AUDIENCE: No. we are not from Serbia.
>> LEE HIBBARD: Serbians, get ready. And young people are we benefiting? Triin Adamson from the New Summer School.
>> TRIIN ADAMSON: I’m from YU as well, which is a youth organisation. Basically, so far, young people have not benefited so much because we haven’t been involved in the dialogue with all the stakeholders. But, thanks to the opportunity to be now involved in the EuroDIG for the third time, I believe that we’re starting to benefit more and more and more. But, still, the very key point is that young people need to be involved in the dialogue, to benefit full.
>> ANA CRISTINA NEVES: And benefiting how?
>> AUDIENCE: If we have a say in all those decision-making processes, then we can be part of developing the Internet world and the new media, which is also important to us, because we feel that this is a way how to involve young people to the society.
>> LEE HIBBARD: Okay.
>> ANA CRISTINA NEVES: So for the decision-making, what do you think you need to influence?
>> AUDIENCE: Basically, the easiest way to influence is just to be part of the dialogue and have our say and have our say so that it actually is taken into consideration and has a value.
>> LEE HIBBARD: Thank you, Trina. I’d like to go to some of our Serbian friends. I hope you can speak about this. Do we have Vlada or Denis in the room? But I want to know about Serbian Internet Governance? I see Jovan.
>> ANA CRISTINA NEVES: Are there Serbians here?
>> LEE HIBBARD: There are plenty of Serbians. Please we want to have what is Balkan and what is Serbian about the Internet Governance. I ask you to raise your hand. Meryem Marzouki is in the audience.
Just while you think about that, I want to pass to Jon Karr. He is involved in a number of initiatives to protect children. On an everyday basis, is Internet Governance in a practical sense helping to protect children online?
>> JOHN KARR: Hello. John Karr from the European NGO alliance for child safety online. If you look at the EG8 last week, although I agree very much that it’s regrettable that it came across as a rich country’s dialogue, I don’t think it would be accurate to say that the issues that were discussed in Paris last week were not equally of concern to countries that are not part of the EG8.
And one of the questions that President Sarkozy certainly mentioned with great force was the question of the impact of the Internet and the way in which different types of materials and so on are available on the Internet and their impact on children, the adverse effects on children. And the truth is if you speak to most people around the world, parents in particular, for them the Internet is a utility. It’s like the gas, electricity. Their primary interest and concern with it is not how it is governed but what it does and the impacts it has on their lives and the lives of their children.
And in that connection, the issues about, you know, as I said, the impacts on children, bullying, child pornography, the whole range of issues there are of huge and political and practical importance to families and governments and so on. You don’t get the sense that those are the burning questions that you often encounter at meetings of this kind, where discussions about the roll out of IPv6 and other infrastructure type questions predominant. But that is the nature of the techy question of the participants.
But to answer your question, fluffy questions or questions that influence real people, I think we need to go further.
>> LEE HIBBARD: So you’re saying that Internet Governance should protect children, but it’s not there yet.
>> JOHN KARR: That’s right. And the debates within the IGF and Euro IGF doesn’t reflect what the people outside of this community think is important.
>> LEE HIBBARD: Including the Serbian community. So I hope we will have Serbians speaking.
>> ANA CRISTINA NEVES: Let me ask one thing. Are you talking more of protection or empowerment of children?
>> AUDIENCE: Both.
>> MODERATOR: Yes, the lady there. Your name? Sorry, your name please and your –
>> IVANA: Hi. I’m Ivana, I’m from YI, I’m from the region of Serbian.
>> LEE HIBBARD: Excellent.
>> IVANA: But I think this can be helpful. I’m also representing young people here, coming as a young person. And regarding the Internet Governance itself and what is happening in the region, I can say from my experience that it’s also about how allowed we are in the participation. Do we have access to the Internet? And do we have also the ability – does everybody have it or is it privileged to somebody who can afford it?
I mean, this is very important to state, at least the place where I come from, I come from a country just to the south, Macedonia. And here we have the New Media Summer School for people discussing Internet Governance and it was one of the issues that we mentioned. It’s about the participation and who has the right to participate and who has the right also to participate in the dialogue itself and I think it’s important that it’s hope for everybody.
>> ANA CRISTINA NEVES: And what do you think is the multi-stakeholder model? What do you think is the multi-stakeholder model?
>> IVANA: What is the model?
>> ANA CRISTINA NEVES: What does it mean?
>> IVANA: Well, it’s a definition that will probably mean that it’s providing a space for everything from each stakeholder to be equally engaged in the decision-making. So this is by definition and theory. but how it works in practice, it’s what we here came today to see. And I hope and believe that it will be open for everybody. That everybody will have the chance to say what the Internet Governance means for them and what is their need. Because –
>> ANA CRISTINA NEVES: Very good.
>> IVANA: Because we are all users.
>> LEE HIBBARD: Thank you. Your name please first and where you are from.
>> MYA: Hi. Mya Bouvich. I’m also from Serbia. But it’s a tricky issue. Probably I echo most of your feeling when I say that I’m more than from Serbia. I’m also a citizen from Canada. I feel like I’m from Sri Lanka and I lived there for a long-time and I sympathize with what they are going through. And so I feel like I’m a citizen of the world as pretty much everyone today is.
I had the difficulty, it was a split second, but I had the same difficulty about how am I registering? A private person, trainer which is interested in the investment of the Internet or as a person who is heavily involved in the nongovernment sector and attending conferences in that capacity? Or someone who works as a consultant for the local government and also needs to know where the e-Government is developing. I’m sure each and every one of you and everybody who is attending online has these multiple personalities when we sign up our names. And in that regard, I’m sort of a spy and a supervisor. I came to see what you guys are doing.
And I think we have to look at definition and throw in at least one more word in there, and that is the individuals. Everything that you have in the – that we have in the definition is about organisations. Fluid, less fluid, more formal, less formal, but it’s all organized. The Internet is available to individuals. The individuals are moving it forward. Using it. Asking things of it. Waiting for things to happen. Making things happen. And in that sense, that is what I feel is missing in the definition. And not just theoretically, but I think we need to work more on the Internet in all the forums. We need to work for on enabling the identity issues on Internet to become what they really are, the global identity. We need a global identity definitely.
I have Serbian papers, Canadian papers, United Nations papers. It doesn’t suffice. My real identity is on the Internet, but it’s not there yet. I don’t have a document approving it. That’s why we have to work.
>> ANA CRISTINA NEVES: Civil society is a broad concept. I think that it will involve organized and nonorganized citizens. It includes NGOs, and the individual Internet user. I don’t know. I’m asking.
>> LEE HIBBARD: Meryem Marzouki. Civil society. And while the microphone is going to Meryem, we have Jose in the room. And also Oksana is in the room. Leonid, Martin, I see you. Meryem please.
>> MERYEM MARZOUKI: I’m from Paris but I’m also mainly here as an activist with the European Digital Rights, which is the European association of almost 30 National Associations from all over Europe.
And since we are working on digital rights and trying to advance digital rights for more than 15 years, I would probably take a more advanced stand here, although I wouldn’t go as far as the provocative statement of Lee, is it fluffy dialogue or not? I think it’s a different dialogue.
For instance, let’s talk about national or original IGF. They are probably very, very useful in emerging countries, or in countries in local restriction. I would take the example of Tunisia after the revolution. It’s very important in such a context to have this kind of dialogue with all the different stakeholders.
But for us in Europe, and even at the global setting, frankly, I’m not sure these dialogues are changing a lot of the situation. It’s good to have dialogue. It’s good to try to understand each other. But on the ground, I mean, in our daily works, we still have to run campaigns, all style campaigns, to try to defend our rights, be it on issues related to Freedom of Expression or to the protection of privacy or other issues related to intellectual property rights, et cetera.
So I’m not sure these dialogues are really advancing. And as we have seen last week, with the G8 and the EG8, the more powerful governments are still running the world. And maybe more than the more powerful governments, the biggest multi-national companies are still running the world. So we can have this dialogue, but we still have to fight the old way.
>> LEE HIBBARD: Just like John Karr said, it should change things but it’s not there. Is it really, in reality, in the Ukraine changing, is it changing things in the Ukraine? Oksana.
>> OKSANA PRYKHODKO: Oksana Prykhodko from the Ukraine. I’m the organizer of the Ukrainian IGF. We have really a lot of changes in Internet Governance issues. But I would like to draw attention to another aspect of the European Dialogue on Internet Governance.
Our first Ukrainian IGF was not possible without your personal participation. It’s important for us, because I would like to stress the role of the Council of Europe in this issue.
Just yesterday we discussed this question with Wolfgang. He said that the Council of Europe has the best practical instrument for Human Rights standards in the Information Society and a practical instrument to protect these rights, due to the European Court on Human Rights. But in the developing countries, we lack knowledge about the role of the Council of Europe, about your work in the CDMC, about your information and division and so on.
And another aspect is European Union activity regarding economical aspects of Internet Governance. In two weeks they will have a digital agenda in Brussels, and again, it’s very important to involve developing countries in these activities.
>> LEE HIBBARD: Thank you very much, Oksana.
>> ANA CRISTINA NEVES: It was interesting to perceive the role of the Council of Europe for you. It’s not the same for other countries. Because the Council of Europe of course is one of the very important elements here. But there are so many others. So it’s not only the Council of Europe. It’s the Member States as well, it’s the business sector as well, it’s the civil society as well. So for you, it’s interesting that the movement was boosted perhaps with the Council of Europe’s help. So, it’s interesting to see these differences.
>> LEE HIBBARD: Thank you, Ana.
I’d like to pass the floor to Jose who has come here from another sector of the population, sort of the retired sector. The surfers after being at work. You’re not involved in any Internet Governance Forums at the moment. This is brand new. So what is your feeling from your point of view, from your sector?
>> JOSE: Thank you. Internet is a broad concept. It’s affecting to everybody. So I understand that it’s a matter for all persons, because we are living and we need to relate to the people. And it’s important to follow all the discussions about this matter and to use this technology, because it’s affecting the economy, the way of living, and this is the reason why it’s important to have both the bottom up and to have the opportunity to raise questions at forums like this, to raise the problems that we can or how to improve our lives. So it is important to participate in this kind of forums, it’s important. We try to improve our way of living.
>> LEE HIBBARD: I hope that we can have more of this engaging in the dialogue now and also in the future. I think it’s very important.
We have comments from the floor. And I’d like to pass to the European Commission, Andrea Glorioso, who wants to say something in this respect. Andrea? Thank you.
>> ANDREA GLORIOSO: Andrea Glorioso from the European Commission. I’d like to go back to the organisation question, whether this is some fluffy dialogues. I do not think they are fluffy dialogues, but I do think that we need to, if you look at the definition that you have there on the screen, what struck me on the definition is the word “shared.” It’s about developing shared principles, norms, rules, et cetera. Now of course we would like every time to have shared principles, norms, solutions, objectives, goals, but this is not always possible. And this is a reality that in the world we have to take into account. The priorities of Europe are not always the priorities of other parts of the world. And it’s my feeling, not only personal feeling I have to say, that in order to move the discussion, which I don’t believe is fluffy, but I think it’s fair to say is not having as much of an impact as it might have, to move this discussion and to make sure, to use your jargon, it’s front loaded. It gets on the agenda of the real decision makers. We will be in disagreement in different parts of the world and different sectors and we have to tackle them. A discussion is not consensus. Consensus is one of the outputs of discussion. It’s good to have it. But sometimes we have to realize that we need to politely fight with one another. And I think EuroDIG is particularly important from this point of view. Because it shows, it brings the European perspective.
Now, as an officer of the European Commission, my priority – and I know I’m politically incorrect – is not global welfare, but it’s European welfare. And I use the term “European,” even though I come from the Commission, in a very broad term. I don’t want in this moment to distinguish between various kinds of countries and cities. So this is an angle and I know that the session following is about European priorities.
I do hope that this year’s EuroDIG – and I congratulate your organizers for the wonderful work you have been doing – I hope that this year’s EuroDIG will focus on what our priorities are and what do we need to do individually and collectively to make sure that our priorities are on the table and are duly considered.
>> LEE HIBBARD: Thank you.
>> ANA CRISTINA NEVES: Let me just ask one thing to Andrea. Because of something that sebastian said that was interesting about G8 and the importance of G8 for Internet and something that you said about the policymakers. Do you want to comment on the statement made by Sebastian about the G8?
>> ANDREA: I had to say for full disclosure that I was one of the Serpas of the G8 so I can’t go into depth in commenting on that process. I have to say – and I think it’s good to be blunt from time to time. It’s naive to think that G8 or G20 countries forcing that matter are not going to become really very interested on the Internet. I said G8 and possibly G20. But I work in the G8 so my interest is on the G8.
I think it’s naieve to think those countries are not going to be very interested in what happens in that space. I think actually we should use that opportunity, because frankly I think that what – to be even blunter. I was surprised that everybody got so upset and interested about the EG8 forum, which was in the end an event. And I didn’t see as many comments on the actual G8 communique on the summit, which was the real output of the process. If you read that declaration, what you can read there is that the G8 leaders, and it’s there on the definition of themselves, G8 leaders say the Internet is important. It’s a positive force. But we need to make sure that it remains a Democratic force.
Their point of view is that in order to remain a Democratic force, government, public authorities in general have to have a clear role in there. Because they represent citizens. You may or may not agree.
>> ANA CRISTINA NEVES: It’s not so much about civil society, technical and academic communities, does it?
>> ANDREA: I don’t want to dominate the communication.
>> LEE HIBBARD: Thank you. I know Jovan Kurbalija from DiploFoundation, tell us, please.
>> JOVAN KURBALIJA: It’s good to hear such great input from the EU, and it’s not an official wave, it’s a new wave of officials of the European Union who are giving us real input in simple understandable language.
As Lee said, I would like to bring discussion to some sort of demography of this room. You heard who we are. But it’s important to see also who all of us are here. And I will make a quick survey. Please raise your hands. The first question is how many of you are users of the Facebook? Raise your hands.
(Showing of hands)
Quite a lot. Okay. Almost I would say 50 percent. Twitter?
(Showing of hands)
Slightly G mail?
(Showing of hands)
I think we have more or less 100 percent coverage of the room when it comes to these tools.
Now, second question is how many of you are users of cloud computing?
(Showing of hands)
Well, I would say 20 or 30 percent. There is a trap. The question was a trap.
>> ANA CRISTINA NEVES: People don’t know.
>> JOVAN: And you will see in a few minutes why I made intentional trap with this question. Obviously all of you are users of cloud computing. Because Facebook, YouTube, gmail, and most of the current services on the Internet are loaded in cloud computing.
But, why these different answers are revealing. They are important for Internet Governance, because you perceive Internet as users, as all of us. This is one hat that we wear. As you can see because of my hair style, I have to wear hats often.
The other hat, which you wear as a person who is aware of cloud computing, what is it all about? It’s somebody who takes care of policy, legal and economic aspects of the Internet. Therefore you have to know where your data is stored, what is the status of your data? What is the level of privacy? What is happening when you click to that famous button “I agree?”
And it brings me back to the – one of the core issues of our discussion over the next two days. It is addressing the question of Internet Governance from different perspectives. And somebody mentioned earlier – my compatriot who has the same problem with the sort of identity crisis like myself, I left Serbia 20 years ago, lived in Malta 11 years ago and now I’m based in Switzerland and now I’m a citizen of serbia. We have multiple identities. Even we don’t move from our city where we live, but we have multiple identities. And this is the reason why multi-stakeholders are important. Because sometimes when we discuss why we need business community, civil society, governments around the table, people take it for – as an ethical value, as a nice value to have inclusion. But it’s getting very practical. Because we have to reflect different identities and different ways that we use – in which we use the Internet.
And for very simple reasons, implementation of any convention treaty, declaration, ultimately depends on us. Government have difficulty imposing all of the rules. Use of the Internet is integral to our day-to-day habits. When you post the photo, when you share the joke, when you start gossiping on Facebook, it’s intimacy and nobody can easily impose some legal rules in the traditional way of international organisation government. And this is the reason why such spaces are extremely important and this is the reason why all of us should contribute as much as is possible.
Usually I get longer than –
>> LEE HIBBARD: Thank you.
>> ANA CRISTINA NEVES: Just – sorry on the – I think that was from – maybe Patrik can help us with the concept of cloud computing, because I think it’s important.
>> LEE HIBBARD: Briefly. We have five minutes left.
>> PATRIK FALTSTOM: So just quickly. The reason why I think your question is a double trap is that I don’t know how to answer that question, because the term “cloud computing” is undefined. And what you’re talking about is instead I think the – the – a question of what kind of rules and rights you have as a citizen and what you have as a customer to some kind of organisation. Because as a customer, there are sort of – you have that okay, click button.
But what I wanted to say, we will talk about this more this afternoon, but what I wanted to say is that I think, personally, the reason why I think this dialogue is good is because each one of us – and me coming from Cisco, I will still continue to make decisions in my own context as a responsible person working for Cisco, to maximize the revenue for our shareholders. Governments will do the same, civil society will do the same. People will choose if they are going to click that button.
But to be able to make the best decision, specifically long-term, we need to understand in what context we are making that decision. And that context is turning more and more global and that is why we need to understand more of the needs of also the other stakeholders, so we’re making a decision that is more suitable and will save us. Because historically we could make the decision in a much, much more local context, within our own stakeholder group, and that is not possible anymore.
>> LEE HIBBARD: Thank you. We have a remote participant.
>> ANA CRISTINA NEVES: Lee? Sorry.
>> JOVAN KURBALIJA: Patrik used the term “a customer.” Fine tune your radars for the linguistical aspect of discussion, which is usually language carries a lot of meaning in shaping. So it could be an interesting sociolinguistic exercise if you are finetuned to the different discussions.
>> LEE HIBBARD: Thank you, Jovan.
We have a comment from Manika Urmert, a journalist from Germany, who brought us back to the idea of is it fluffy dialogue?
>> What happens, back to John Karr’s mention of child protection? So what were the solutions the G8 had on protecting children or is just mentioning it enough? What kind of forum would be able to shape balanced rules for the net? So she would like to have everyone think about examples of actual rules or changes or drafts that have been made that didn’t just mention the topic, but are effective.
>> LEE HIBBARD: Thank you. Let’s hold that thought. But I’d like to know if there are any businesses in the room. We have Marco Pancini from Google. And Cristos Velasco. I’d like a quick perspective from companies.
In Switzerland, for example, there is a decision to – and asking Google to blur the faces more and the license plates of cars in Switzerland more. Is Internet Governance dialogue helping to resolve that between a company and a government? Are there any business people in the room? Do you want to raise your hand? Yes?
>> MARCO PANCINI: Thanks. I’m Marco Pancini. And it’s important for us to be here to listen to the feedback of the society. We feel this is the right forum for this kind of interaction. We value very much the feedback of the user on our services. If we don’t have the privilege to be chosen by a user every morning when they access to our service, our mission would be exhausted, would be over. So I see a value in the Internet Governance Forum.
I see value on something that was said before, that it’s important to see where the discussions are made, even if the decisions are made in some other place. But at least if when policymakers are taking consideration, the feedback coming from the civil society, from forums like the IGF, this would be a great achievement and this means that this process is not just fluffy dialogue.
So from this point of view I’m very happy to be here.
>> LEE HIBBARD: Thank you. Ana?
>> ANA CRISTINA NEVES: Well, on this issue?
>> LEE HIBBARD: Yes. I’d like to know the reaction of governments. We are over time. And I excuse Vlada for just two or three minutes. But what is the government’s take? Is it failing when you have situations like Google Street View? A government, judiciary and a company working together or not working together, connected or disconnected? Is it working? Frederic Donck.
>> FREDERIC DONCK: So I think we have a problem here. Things are not as okay as they seem. On the left-hand side we speak about decision-making procedure here. But here, we speak about a multi-stakeholder approach. And a multi-stakeholder approach, if there is a dialogue, as in a forum, but when a decision has to be made then it becomes much more complicated.
This can be seen, for instance, at the UN. I’m vice chair of the scientific committee for development and telecommunications. And in our committee we saw that it was difficult for some governments, especially those who are not very Democratic, to accept, to work on an equal footing with other stakeholders. And I believe that governments have a lot to do in this respect and they have a long way to go in order to achieve equality – and equality of all stakeholders that is.
In some cases, this dialogue does work, but when we talk about public policy issues, it is a very thorny issue for governments. And I believe that we haven’t actually found the right solution.
You quoted a specific case, Google Street View. This is an issue that has been dealt with by a court in Switzerland. And that is something which we haven’t actually reviewed. We speak about governments, businesses, civil society, but we don’t really speak about the role of judges and judges are independent from governments.
So, there again, it is another problem which we haven’t dealt with.
>> LEE HIBBARD: Another group?
>> ANA CRISTINA NEVES: There is something that Frederic said that was very interesting.
>> LEE HIBBARD: Yes?
>> ANA CRISTINA NEVES: It’s about governments on equal footing, and some countries don’t accept that. So, my question some minutes ago about G8 and G20 was exactly this one, because in G8 it’s very easy to find the consensus. But in G20 I think it’s much more difficult. You mentioned Frederic as well as committee on science and technology for development. The committee in the United Nations is responsible for the management – for the – for the coordination of IGF Internet. So my following question is because of this enormous problem that we have between developed countries and developing countries, with this equal footing. Is it Internet Governance failing?
Someone from government.
>> LUGE MAGADANCE: Well, I’m Luge Magadance from Portugal. As a matter of fact, we have basically a difficult – I don’t think the speech is so much between developed and developing countries. It has more to do with different ways governments and civil society and other stakeholders place themselves in the public policy arena, and that happens in the developing and developed countries.
Now, the question mostly is that this is – there are complex problems, complex directions because there are different interests, and you actually have to share a lot of discussion for having the understanding, the full understanding of the different positions, of the different problems, of the different possible solutions. And that takes time and it’s not so easy to transpose in, let’s say, an automatic fashion to decisions and to actions, because synthesizing a plurality and the richness of varied ideas is of course very difficult and we have still to learn, actually, how to do that better than you are doing right now.
>> LEE HIBBARD: Thank you very much.
We are out of time. So, we need to wrap up this session. We need to wrap up this session with a few closing remarks and wrap up from I think one of the founders, fathers of Internet Governance, if I may say; maybe I’m wrong, Wolfgang Kleinwachter. And while you’re coming to the front or to – if there is a microphone for Wolfgang. Is it hard for you to hear the words “fluffy dialogue failing?” It should do things but it’s not necessarily doing them yet?
>> WOLFGANG KLEINWACHTER: Thank you very much. It’s very difficult, after such a broad range of issues, to summarize this. It’s too complex. But I think one thing is for clear for everybody: That on the one hand the Internet changes our life, but it does not reinvent our life. We are dealing with the issues. We are dealing with things around 200 years or longer. Freedom of Expression was an issue in the French revolution in 1789 and it was an issue in the 19th and 20th century. In the former communist countries it was an issue for more than 50 years and now it’s back on the agenda.
Now we have a different environment how individuals can express themselves and the recent developments in North Africa have shown what are their results if people express themselves freely.
Or issues like innovation. Now we have a situation that everybody can innovate and create anything. There is innovation without permission. In the past, you needed a lot of capital or permission or bureaucratic procedures if you wanted to do something. This has changed. So the issue is the same, but the environment has changed.
Issues like privacy, and in the past you could define rather clearly what is your private life. This is gone now. It means everywhere it’s a camera or a mobile phone. You know. And as soon as you are linked to a certain device, you lose your privacy. So you cannot protect anyone in the traditional way.
Intellectual property, social contacts, the way how you search for issues. With every click on the search engine, you inform the owner of the search engine about your interests, preferences, priorities, and so far, you know, the world is changing. We are dealing with the old issues, but we have to deal with them in a new way. And one consequence from this is that the way how the world was organized in the past has also changed. That means for government, for people who are setting rules, norms, or, you know, creating frameworks, they have to understand that if they are dealing with the old issues which have a new environment in a traditional way, this will fail. That means we have all the consequences then for the way how this world is governed. And the multi-stakeholder dialogue is one option.
What Patrik said, each stakeholder remains in his stakeholder family according to the traditional procedures and principles. He works on remaining governments. The private sector remains private sector. Civil society remains civil society and the technical community remain technical experts. But if they understand each other better, how they are taking what they are doing, you know, this paves the way for much more – for better decisions, which they are making in their environment.
If you take just an example, if lawmakers have no idea about the technical dimension, how the Internet works, then they will make laws which do not work. So I think this is really – this happens in various countries, including in my own country, in Germany, a local rule is adopted by the Bundastadt which didn’t work. But this can be avoided and we can reach a better understanding if each stakeholder stays with its own role but makes decisions in the light of other stakeholders. And this creates a new level of trust and understanding among the various stakeholders.
A final comment, which goes back to the question of the role of the individual, I think the lady from Serbia asked it in the beginning of the session. Who has the right to participate? And the answer is everybody. There is no entrance barrier for this group, for Internet Governance. Everybody has a right. And if you go back to the declaration of Human Rights, it says always, you know, everybody has a right to Freedom of Expression. So it’s an individual right. And I think the Internet is an enabling – it’s a liberating technology which gives the power into the fingertips of each individual of this globe. And if you understand this, then you are well prepared for the future.
Thank you very much.
>> LEE HIBBARD: Thank you very much, Wolfgang.
(Applause)
Thank you. You should have the last word. But I just want to say that Letitzia Gambini, she is a youth person, still thinks the discussion here is fluffy. So, let’s finish.
Time is over. We have to go to the next session. So thank you very much. Thank you, Ana. And thank you, Vlada. We have to change sessions. Don’t go away. It’s seamless. Vlada. Thank you.