Digital society at stake – Europe and the future of the Internet – PL 01 2014

From EuroDIG Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

12 June 2014 | 11:30-13:00
Programme overview 2014

Session subject

Search for common principles of and approaches to a sound Internet Governance agenda for Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals. Also see current discussion

Session description

Building on a number of recent sets of principles, including, inter alia, the NetMundial final documents, the panelists will:

• Articulate their personal stances on the issue of a European Internet Governance agenda and how it will affect the Internet’s development;

• Discuss whether the said agenda could be jointly developed through common efforts and what it is going to take for all the parties to engage in meaningful cooperation to bridge the existing and potential chasms;

• Explore the multistakeholder-based approach to fostering the Internet’s advancement and roles of individual stakeholders in the process, as well as in the Internet Governance ecosystem;

• Attempt to identify commonalities and explain how to overcome differences with regard to the above

• Take questions from the audience, including remote participants.

The session will end with a wrap-up by the focal points.

People

Format of this working group at EuroDIG

Plenary

Protocol. Discussions

See current discussion

Further reading

Messages

Reporter: Avri Doria, Independent researcher

  1. The Internet is global and the periodic talk of an European Internet is counterproductive at best.
  2. Europe is committed to human rights but has diverse views on how to balance these rights and how to enforce them.
  3. Multistakeholderism means all stakeholders have equal footing in discussions, though one of the stakeholders may take the lead in implementation and deployment of the decisions.
  4. It is unclear whether or how democratic oversight of surveillance is possible. Multistakeholder work is needed to deal with transnational issues, that (re-)balances the various aspects of security in the context of human rights.
  5. The Internet is a paradise lost – while it is unclear that paradise ever existed, we want it back. We should not accept limits on our on-line freedoms too easily.

Possible ways forward:

  1. Continue working to expand the dialogue into a multilogue.
  2. Continue the work on capacity building, especially for European political leaders
  3. Pick a European policy goal and focus during the year between now and the 2015 EuroDIG to produce an input to both the IGF and the EU. E.g.: Concrete steps for finding our way back to the Internet we want.

Video Record

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kaGFHPySjI

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.


>> THOMAS SCHNEIDER: Yes. So welcome back. We are trying to not accumulate time in being late, so thank you for coming in.

We have the panel, plenary 1, which is called, like the event itself “Digital society at stake. Europe and the future of Internet.” We have Leonid and myself, Thomas, who will try to navigate us through this debate.

I’ll be brief. We have a big panel but they will speak for themselves. I’ll present the people on the panel. We have Lorenzo Pupillo from Telecom Italia. And another Italian, Cristina Monti, from the European Commission. Axel Pawlik from RIPE NCC. Jorg Schweiger from DENIC. Rikke Frank Jorgensen from Danish Institute of Human Rights. And Robert Shlegel from the Russian Parliament, and his interpreter, because he will speak in Russian. This is the panel. You’ve got the title.

I give it over to Leonid for very quick comments.

>> LEONID TODOROV: First of all, we will discuss whatever issues except for security. We have a gentleman’s agreement with the panel 5 organizers; we will leave security for them. That is for everyone to remember.

Second, we will go like this. Initial comments, or whatever statements from the panelists, three minutes each. Please observe the time.

Whatever further bullet points, comments, or any remarks, up to two minutes for each participant.

Questions from panelists and questions taken from the audience, one minute for each Question.

And, please, while asking questions, introduce yourself distinctly for the record.

And as Thomas said, we have a Russian panelist who will speak Russian. He has an interpreter. So we will give them double-time. Both of them. So that his comments will be interpreted for the audience.

And, finally, as a Russian, this is not Democracy in this room, these are my rules, and please observe them. And I will cut short anyone who will be really willing to do some lengthy presentations or comments or whatever.

Thank you. So now we are going to start.

So the issue is the digital society at stake. The future of the Internet in Europe. We will start in the alphabetical order.

So I guess, Cristina, that is you. Thank you. Three minutes.

>> CRISTINA MONTI: Thank you and good morning, everyone.

I would say that we need broadly supported principles as they help finding the European dimension and finding the common ground at the global level. The European Commission recently outlined its vision in its communication on Internet governance and policy adopted in February of this year and which is now being discussed by the European Parliament and the Council. The communication contains the main elements of our contribution to the global debate. In it, we reaffirm our approach that only in a world where the Internet is firmly anchored in the defense of human rights and Democratic values, and where the same values and rights that apply offline are also protected online, can we all be net beneficiaries of the digital revolution. And the European Commissioner, Vice President Kroes, stated that fundamental human rights are not negotiable.

We support the real multistakeholder model with the full involvement of all relevant actors and organisations. And I think that now, after years of standstill, there is now a window of opportunity in front of us as Europeans. We should use the momentum generated in NETmundial and the recent announcement of the US Government on the transition to produce real changes. And the Commission has called on all stakeholders to do their bit. You heard it in the video message of the Commissioner.

Now to the real question of our debate. What is at stake? I see two main sides to this problem. On the one hand, we are a witness of a changing global political landscape where there are more and more active emerging powers. Many of them are pushing for new governance structures and reject multistakeholder approaches.

On the other hand, the multistakeholder model needs to be improved and strengthened. It must be based on clear rules to defend fundamental rights and Democratic values.

On top of them, trust is affected in the Internet. All these elements together put at risk the stability of the Internet ecosystem. And ensuring stability and security of the Internet is, in a way, our number one priority. Because we can talk about freedom of expression and freedom of information, but first we need to ensure the ability to access information. If you lose physical connectivity, if there is a failure in the system for whatever reason, then you have a real problem, especially in societies like ours, which are now heavily dependent on ICTs.

And then there is also the risk of building new walls to fragment the Internet along national borders, depriving us of the benefit of the Internet. This seems anachronistic, but the risk is real. Maybe the other panelists can confirm this.

>> LEONID TODOROV: Time. Thank you. Rikke? I told you, no Democracy. Please.

(Laughter)

>> RIKKE FRANK JORGENSEN: I would like to speak to two points. The first is the vision or the peculiarity that Europe can bring to the global Internet governance debate and then some concrete proposals. First, one of the strengths of Europe in the Internet governance debates at the global level is really our human rights system. We have one of the strongest regional human rights systems in the world, including the European Court of Human Rights and its case law. We have two regional organisations. First, the Council of Europe, and the European Commission that has done tremendous work in this field. From the Council of Europe, we both have legally binding documents and a number of standards setting documents. Also most recently we have a guide on human rights for Internet users.

At the EU level, as most of you are aware, we have a number of policies in this field. We have the data protection regime, and we have pretty strong positions on Internet governance. So I think as someone who has participated in the global debate on these issues for a long time, I think it’s really time that Europe step up and really join the forces we have on human rights from the Council of Europe, from the European Commission, and bring these agendas much stronger forward.

What could that mean in concrete terms? One concrete proposal could be that the two bodies to a much larger extent strategize and develop policies together in the global processes. One concrete proposal could, for instance, be that Internet Governance mechanisms, such as ICANN. ICANN, it can undergo human rights impact assessments, which means at a concrete level that rules and procedures related to Internet governance are subject to assessments of their human rights impact, the human rights compliance, including recommendations on how various aspects of their rules and procedures can be strengthened.

And another concrete proposal could be to enhance and focus specifically on access to remedies for Internet users – Internet users in Europe, but also of course worldwide. Access to remedies is a fundamental part of International human rights law. But as we all know, there are a number of challenges related to actually enforcing those rights. So that could be a second point.

>> LEONID TODOROV: Excuse me. Time. So who is next? I guess Axel. Yes. Your turn.

>> AXEL PAWLIK: All right. So, to come back to what Cristina said, what is at stake for the Internet? I think, basically, it’s the Internet as we know it, that is open, that is functional, that is safe. And that is what we all have to work to.

And when I hear “Europe,” and yes, this is EuroDIG, but the region goes further than that. It goes into the Middle East and parts of central Asia, as we say. What we did over the last 25 years, before I was here at RIPE NCC, was build trust and outreach. And in the beginning, it was engineers talking to each other and the goal was to make this thing function. So there is implicit trust in that. In the beginning, on the one dimension we went into the region, went east, and as a RIPE Committee we went into Russia and into the Middle East and helped establish local communities that can engage on a local and regional level.

And that now brings me to multistakeholderism, where we say multistakeholder is sort of a great idea, but it’s open to interpretation here and there. What we would like to say is the way we work is open. It’s transparent and inclusive. So yes when we started as engineers 25 years ago, it was already multistakeholder. We didn’t know the word yet, and nobody cared. So it was just engineers, but still it was open and inclusive. Suddenly, about ten years ago, we heard that the Governments are interested in talking about the Internet. So, that is scary.

So we started to reach out and engage and try to build trust and help understanding of each other’s issues and concepts, misconceptions, also. When I sat in one room with four FBI agents saying “I want you to call back those address ranges,” no. This is not how it works and I cannot do this and I’m not sure I should do this.

But let’s talk about what your needs are and how our community functions and how the technology functions. That’s essential that we go and talk to each other and Governments and regulators. We have roundtables that we use to engage with Governments and regulators. We have once a year a meeting that we do with law enforcement agencies from around the world and with participation from the other regions as well.

That is important. The good will, the going out and trying to understand what the other’s positions are and how we can play to them.

>> LEONID TODOROV: Thank you. That’s it. Jorg, your turn.

>> JORG SCHWEIGER: Right. I think the first thing I would like to point out that, for me, we are not talking about a certain part, the digital of our society. I think at least in the developed countries we are talking about society as a whole, because in a way we are connected. We are part of the Internet, even though we might not be online right now or an active user. Just think about mobile phones or smart meters, or just think about somebody posting a picture with you on it. So basically, at least in Europe, I’d like to stress there is no such thing as an isolated digital society. But it’s society as a whole we are discussing about.

And societies, for sure, they do need law. They need rules and principles. But as the Net has become such a vital part of our social, economic and political life, influence in governing the Net is sought across a broad variety of groups by Governments, Civil Society, and business. And for sure, each of them with very different interests amongst them and often within certain parts of those groups.

So what could the solution be? The solution could be that we can either come up with an agreed upon set of values and laws and rules on those, which are globally effectuated and enforced, and I think this is very much unlikely or likely to be incomprehensive. Or we could just accept certain islands, resulting in contentions like protecting or escaping those islands – think about filtering. Or to counter what is coming from those islands – think about malware. Or we could try to unite a group as large as possible, Europe, for example, to agree on values, put them into action, enforce them and just hope to appreciate those islands by setting a working example.

>> LEONID TODOROV: Thank you.

>> JORG SCHWEIGER: You are being a nucleus of rough consensus.

>> LEONID TODOROV: Sorry. Robert?

>> ROBERT SHLEGEL: Thank you very much. Give me a microphone, please, if possible. Thank you.

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I’m sorry I’m not a woman. I’m not a Civil Society representative. But I’m going to bring my spice into the discussion. Otherwise, we are going to fall asleep.

Talking about the future of Internet, it’s not there. In terms of the global space that we are having today, it has to do with the fact that every country today defines on its own how to govern this space. International law in this area is nonexistent. I don’t know how it is possible to see an elephant in this room. I see an elephant who is asking me a year and a half since Snowden came up with his revelations: What has changed? I know that nothing has changed, and Big Brother is watching.

Well, I’ve heard today that NETmundial was the top achievement since the beginning. I think it was the less transparent event so far, because I and my colleagues sent out ten comments and didn’t receive any feedback. I think it’s a kind of imitation, a simulation of a way to make decisions in terms of what we really need.

I, like many of you, belong to the church of multistakeholderism. But I don’t believe in fairy tales. No matter how often you say multistakeholderism, multistakeholderism, it won’t happen. I think the most urgent task for today, for us, is to lay down the legal framework for Internet governance through the Council of Europe. We need to do everything to give each stakeholder a legal right, a legal status to do whatever he or she needs in the Internet. That’s why at the moment we are working at the Education Media Commission with the PACE on a special report on the best practices that are available in this area for today.

Thank you.

>> LEONID TODOROV: That’s it. Thank you. Well, Thomas, any comments from you?

>> THOMAS SCHNEIDER: I think Lorenzo.

>> LEONID TODOROV: Where is the digital society at stake? The issue that we put in the title? Where is the future of the Internet? Anybody else? Robert and Jorg talked about that. Please.

>> LORENZO PUPILLO: I think it comes from the fact that today we are living in an interconnected world. There are benefits and challenges. Because you are in Europe and this session is about the future of the Internet in Europe, I think we should start considering that today the EU, in the globalized competition, is lagging behind compared to the dominant U.S. ICT industry. We should start from that and should change policies. If we continue to the top 25 Internet companies by market value, only one, the last one, the 25th is European.

We are lagging behind in terms of structure, at LET, the new mobile net. For this reason, we have to now take the opportunity of what’s happening today. There is a market that is growing for cloud computing, mobile payment, city services, a number of things.

>> LEONID TODOROV: One minute. – you’ve got two. Go ahead. Sorry. My fault.

>> LORENZO PUPILLO: This requires changes in policy along four lines. First of all, in terms of innovation. Innovation is the key. So we need policies much more focused on innovation. Start up programmes, only a few of them. 50 percent should be focused on Internet companies and should be a broadband European problem.

Second, we need the complete digital market and we need a change of policy, because today the policy of the European labour would be much more concerned with reducing prices and not suggesting and supporting the investment.

We need also creation of a level playing field with the US from over the top. This is something that even Civil Society is asking for, in terms of privacy rules, for instance.

We need also to have a more consolidated market. This is clear, because today the European – they place too much European Commission, the policy, they place too much emphasis –

>> LEONID TODOROV: Now it’s really time. Thomas over to you.

>> THOMAS SCHNEIDER: To answer your question about your disappointment, we asked them to, from each stakeholder from their perspective or personal experience, to give us some feeling about what they think. Because if you talk European digital society is at stake, there is an underlying assumption that there is something in common in Europe in its digital society. And we were basically asking them to say from their view what makes European society unique, what is different in other areas, what do we think is different in other areas. But it also shows that Europe is a very heterogeneous thing. We have different actors, something like the European Commission, which is not a national Government but it’s unique to Europe. Some countries are a member of this structure and others are not. So on and so forth. It’s quite a complicated thing.

We have challenges on human rights, where people and – and that came out quite clearly in Berlin in the prep meeting, and also Mr. Steinmeier alluded to it. People are afraid that we are losing our values and things that we trusted in the last 50 years. We are losing power and efficiency to enforce human rights. And the question is how – do you recognize each other in what your colleague said, or do you think we haven’t touched a point at what can we do in order to save a common vision or value if it exists? Do you think it exists or is it a construct? And how can we move forward?

Yes, Robert, please.

>> ROBERT SHLEGEL: To start, let us think, what is Europe? European Union is one thing. Europe from Lisbon to Vladivostok is a different area.

I also think that there is not such a thing as digital society. There is a society, a general society, and digital is part of it. Very soon, every subject, every object surrounding us will have a chip in it. Your mobile phone can watch you today. Now, perhaps this is what makes us so vulnerable, so exposed. And I think priority number one for a Government is to protect citizens. But how can we do it Internationally? Because Internet is transborder.

>> LEONID TODOROV: I’ll cut you short here. That was a comment.

Anyone else? Jorg.

>> JORG SCHWEIGER: I think that we do have a common cultural baseline and background, and that is giving us Europeans the opportunity to unite and to agree on certain values. And I think what is at stake is that we lose momentum in seeking legitimacy globally, all over the world. We as Europeans can give a positive example. We can move on to get things going. Instead of looking for an endorsed consensus all over the place, we probably need to just have rough consensus and get something done. Develop a solution that is agile, that could be developed further.

How about 90 percent solutions and setting up good examples for everybody else?

>> LEONID TODOROV: Rikke.

>> JORG SCHWEIGER: Otherwise, what would happen is that we would get into a situation where the rules, the common rules we would need are not set at all. Or, B, are set by somebody. Just think about top over services in the global work, where data protection is not respected, is just set by different companies.

>> RIKKE FRANK JORGENSEN: Obviously there is huge diversity in Europe. But if we try to focus on some of the commonalities, we have a human rights system. We have human rights structures in Europe that are comparably well developed compared to many other places in the world. It’s also a fact that at the moment, and for recent years, we are not really able to give practical reality to these values. Among other reasons, for the nature of the Internet and the global information domain that we are in. This is not to say that there are not huge problems with human rights protection within Europe, but if we focus on Europe as part of the larger picture. For example, data protection, the right to privacy, is a core human rights stipulated in law in Europe. We don’t have extra territorial protection of that right at the moment.

It’s basically dependent on a state protecting its citizens within its own territory. So when the territory is global, we don’t have protection mechanisms at the moment that can give that protection to citizens.

That’s a very concrete problem.

>> LEONID TODOROV: Yes. Thomas? You had a –

>> THOMAS SCHNEIDER: Thank you. I think it’s time to invite everybody to join the debate. And we have two microphones. Lines here. So please – this is the ICANN model that we took over for resources. So...

>> LEONID TODOROV: And we also have the remote participation.

>> THOMAS SCHNEIDER: Okay. We are here. This is the panel. We all have nice faces.

So please, take the floo, join the debate. As Jorg has already – before I give the floor to Axel, this notion of consensus, this was the result of NETmundial, but not everybody was willing to join a consensus. Is this the solution, because we can’t implement solutions globally in a UN setting, where you have to wait until the last one agrees? Do we need to go for rough consensuses that come from the technical areas and try to implement this in a political system as well?

Axel, with your experience from the technical cooperation with the diverse Europe, what is your point on this?

>> AXEL PAWLIK: You are watching my phone. Is it bugged. Rough consensus on the running net? Yes?

I think the problem – the fact of life is that Europe in itself is already rather diverse. And if you look beyond the borders of core, it becomes even more complicated. And again, there are many things that are at stake. If you look at the IGF – the Engineering Task Force, for instance. Many, many people globally coming together and fighting for safety, security, privacy on the Net, permission free innovation and principle. Without that, it won’t work.

And I do believe that there are roads for everybody in there. And I sort of agree that the digital society is just all of us, more or less, in this part of the world at least.

So there are roads for everybody. And certainly regulators and Governments need some help from us occasionally to make good laws. And blocking and stuff doesn’t work so well. On the other hand, speaking for the techies among us, we do need some help with making good operational rules and policies ourselves. And it’s good to understand what the needs of law enforcement are and of Governments at large. So again, talk to each other and then be tolerant of differing world views, but still fight for the Net. >> MODERATOR: Nice. Thank you. We have one courageous speaker, please present yourself and then start.

>> AUDIENCE: Oksana Prykhodko from the Ukraine. I have two short questions.

>> LEONID TODOROV: Just one, please. Thank you.

>> AUDIENCE: No Democracy.

>> LEONID TODOROV: The queue is not that long.

>> AUDIENCE: Okay. Not everybody understands the language. Maybe we can try to use the language of Mani. Do you have any calculation what is not profitable to control Internet or to govern the Internet? And now Democracy?

>> LEONID TODOROV: And if the Big Brother is watching us, then who is the Big Brother? That is the question. So the question of money, anybody willing to respond? Robert?

>> ROBERT SHLEGEL: There are two key words that apply to what is going on. First is monopoly. Today whether we want it or not, the United States represented by ICANN has this monopoly or may be trying to preserve it.

The second word is skills. And instead of transparent and clear cut mechanisms, like making decisions or voting, we have to use rough consensus. I think humanity is blessed with a much longer experience than just the last 20 years of Internet development. We have International institutions, we have a lot of experience in decision-making. Global level decisions do not have to be taken by full consensus, the simple majority will do. We can go the way of reforming IGF and select representatives from Internet providers and other operators –

>> LEONID TODOROV: Sorry. It’s time. It’s time. Okay.

>> AUDIENCE: I’m Bertrand de La Chapelle. I’m the Director of the Internet and jurisdiction project. I just want to collect one statement or make a remark about a statement that was used and that is used too often in meetings, which is the Snowden revelations have made people lose faith or trust in the Internet. As far as I’m concerned, I’ve not lost trust in the Internet. I’ve lost trust in the behavior of some Governments and the capacity of parliamentary oversight to do oversight. That is completely different.

That being said, we’re talking about digital society. And to respond to Mr. Shlegel, of course there is no such thing as the digital society on the one hand and the rest of the society on the other side. The fact is and the reason why the topic is on the agenda is that our society is becoming digital in all its dimensions. It’s bringing such big transformations that one of the big challenges is precisely how do we prepare and accompany those transitions? We see it in the fate of taxi drivers, and I hope that the position of parliamentarians in general against multistakeholderism is not equivalent to the resentment of taxi drivers against Hugo.

But what is at stake today is the challenge of finding frameworks to organise the coexistence of different laws in shared, online spaces. And we need new frameworks and new cooperation mechanisms.

>> LEONID TODOROV: Thank you, Bertrand. See, the swike is learning fast. This is the Russian way. I’m sorry. That is good. Thank you, Thomas.

>> AUDIENCE: I’m from the Institute for Foreign Internal Criminal Law. I have a question to Mr. Shlegel. I understand that you will need the Council of Europe frameworks to govern the Internet. I would like to ask you how this correlates with the fact that, for example, Russia is blocking the Council of Europe initiatives on cybercrime and cybersecurity, telling that the Council of Europe is not universal enough and not International enough and it’s just a regional organisation. And the fact that trying to bring this on the ITU level, again for the sake of universality. So how does this coincide with your opinion that the Council of Europe is not International enough.

Thank you.

>> ROBERT SHLEGEL: Thank you very much for your question. During the break, Mr. Franken and other colleagues from the Council of Europe were having a discussion about this particular topic. Cybersecurity is a separate topic that will also be discussed here.

I think the problem lies in the fact that we don’t have defined boundaries in cyberspace. Some believe that there is no sovereignty in cyberspace. For example, China is of the camp. So if it goes on like that, very soon we won’t have a global net, we will have a set of intranets, and that’s the worst thing that can happen.

To your second question, in my view, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe or the United Nations may be the tools, the instruments that can create the legal framework for governance. But they should not have hands on the Government. One of the existing bodies, like ICANN, or like organisations can get such a function. But before they do that, we need to get together and write down in detail who is responsible for what.

Thank you.

>> MODERATOR: Thank you. Cristina –

>> CRISTINA MONTI: Just a reaction from comments from the audience. The Snowden revelations have been a wakeup call for Europe. So there is a problem and we need to fix it.

And I just wanted to point out that the European Union, in addition to our communication, we propose concrete actions and commitments that of course we would be ready to realise with the rest of the stakeholders, because we are not alone in this. We are working on the European Union front on several areas.

Also, I listened to the concerns of the European industry representative that we are lagging behind. But we are doing our bit. We are now working on the connectivity continent proposal, which aims at making a single market in Europe a reality.

We are working on the revision of the privacy and data protection framework and also the directive on network and information security.

So we are doing our bit in Europe and I think this is the added value that we can bring to the global debate. We are here at EuroDIG because it’s important to listen to the input provided by all stakeholders, also the technical community. We cannot aim to have the same rules – in Europe, we are advancing. It’s painful because it’s a complicated process, but we are trying to do this. And we need the support of all stakeholders on that.

On the International front – of course we don’t have the same rules. But at least a level of –

>> LEONID TODOROV: Sorry. I have to cut you short. Paul, do we have any remote participants with questions? If you just...

>> REMOTE MODERATOR: Yes. There was one question on Twitter – or two. One question by Ellen from IFLA. “The EU has a strong human rights framework. How to reconcile this with Regulations that can restrict this with human rights.” And another question was related to cybersecurity, “to what extent is this debate on Internet governance and shared values interfacing with the debate on cybersecurity?”

>> LEONID TODOROV: Cybersecurity aside, just one quick thought. Just one question relevant to our discussion throughout Europe. Does it mean that we are all in this room the only participants of our own show and nobody cares in Europe?

Thank you. Okay.

>> Lorenzo wanted to take the floor and we have talked a lot about human rights, but the word “monopoly” has been mentioned. Of course it’s one thing, and this is also linked to the face of economic downturn in Europe. If we are all using services from other continents, because they are so good, so efficient and so comfortable, and we are not seeing progress or innovation enough in European industry, is that – does that become a challenge to our human rights system as well? And what can we do or what – you already made some points. How do we overcome this problem that the European industry is not as visible or not as used as it could be?

>> LORENZO PUPILLO: Well, I will answer to that. I want to go back to the question that was asked by Bertrand. The transactional nature of the Internet requires a new framework. But we have to make sure that there are regional issues and global issues. I would say, for instance, privacy, I do consider privacy regional issues. We have a basic difference between Europe and the United States. In Europe, we consider privacy wide citizens. In the U.S, instead there is the prevalence to consider privacy for the consumers.

And so we are strongly supporting the change of a law regarding privacy in Europe, because we think that European consumers, wherever they are in Europe, should be, no matter which company is offering them service, should be treated in the same way. So that means that because they are served outside of Europe they should be protected, as the European law requires.

But on the other issues, like cybersecurity, probably we need a different approach. The best ways towards the right combination between soft law and hard law. And so here the issue may be what law to approach, also, in cybersecurity, like International Treaties. But this is another matter.

>> LEONID TODOROV: Please, there was a question. Please.

>> AUDIENCE: (inaudible) Ukraine, and a representative on a personal capacity. I heard something, I think Robert said it, and it actually made me feel alarmed, about the United States having a monopoly on the Internet. The question is to all of the members on the panel. I don’t think the statement is true. The last time I checked, Russia operates dot Moscow and Amsterdam based other IP addresses, and pretty much all of the players on the Internet are not controlled by the US Government. In fact, somehow we don’t think the United States has monopolized the United Nations. Does anybody feel that the United States Government has a final say on what they can or cannot do? Do they feel like the United States has control over their businesses? Because if it’s an elephant in the room, I want to know its shape.

>> LEONID TODOROV: Now it’s come. The moment of truth. At EuroDIG, we are discussiang the United States. What a sad story.

Anyway...

>> ROBERT SHLEGEL: I would like to re-address this question to Leonid, because he comes, as you know, an NGO that governs domains of .rn and .of. This is my revenge for cutting us off so soon.

>> LEONID TODOROV: I’m a Russian. I’m smart enough. So let me pass this question to a colleague of mine from DENIC.

>> JORG SCHWEIGER: The moment of truth. For me, if you refer to the role of the US Government in the IANA, then I think the IANA function has a very limited role. So I would certainly agree to what you said before. There is no drastic control of the Internet by the US Government, from my point of view.

On the other hand, and now we’re coming back to the historic revelations, there have been some misuse and some control that was probably unlawful, we just do not know that, and American citizens do not know that, either. But that is the thing where control is put into action, put into place. But we’re not talking about this kind of control.

>> LEONID TODOROV: Thank you. We have another voice from the floor.

>> AUDIENCE: I’m from the University of Helsinki, speaking here as a young person.

I claim that we the youth are the main user group, at least a very distinct one. We are the ones that are building the form of the Web, societal form of the Web. We feel oppressed and we are not able to change the digital life we have built. Digital society is at stake if we, the youth, the pioneers, are not heard how to firmly establish our stakeholder position.

Thank you.

>> THOMAS SCHNEIDER: Good question. Okay. Do you want to answer, Rikke?

>> LEONID TODOROV: Okay. The youngest person on the panel.

>> ROBERT SHLEGEL: I’m going to say a horrible thing. Well, almost everyone in Russia, young and not so young, has a mobile phone and practically everyone uses Internet. My mom comes from an older generation, but she is a daily user of Internet. I don’t think we can single out the youth as a separate stakeholder. There is no such thing. Yes, there are young people who are Internet users, but they are just part of the population. If we set up to protect human rights on the Web, we should do it regardless of the sex, of age, and other characteristics they may have.

>> LEONID TODOROV: Good ace up the sleeve. That is a good job for a lawmaker.

We have a question from our remote participant.

>> MODERATOR: This time from a remote up in the Ukraine. “Are we discussing the implementation of the NETmundial principles in a local or regional level? And if this is the case, what would be the procedures to do so?”

>> LEONID: Anybody on the panel want to, maybe the Commission or... what are you doing with NETmundial, with the outcome?

>> CRISTINA MONTI: Just to say that we think it was a good moment, it was a successful step of multistakeholderism. Of course there are things which can be improved, but overall it was positive. And we think overall it is in line with what we also put forward in our communication.

Now we have to be practical. So we are assessing the way ahead. Now we have to think about the strengthening of the IGF and fora like EuroDIG. And we think it’s important that European industry and other stakeholders support also financially and not financially this kind of platforms. Because without the IGF, it would have been difficult to have a NETmundial experience, for instance. And then of course we want to go on with the globalisation of ICANN and IANA. So we are trying to push the process forward.

And then there are other proposals, for instance, one important contribution we would like to give is the launch of the global Internet policy observatory as a tool for the global community to advance our common agreement on topics and be able to discuss with all stakeholders. Because there is a problem sometimes, many participants in the process feel disengaged or excluded because the process is so complex. And sometimes it’s difficult also to understand the added value of multistakeholderism. That’s why we need to have tools to understand the issues and facilitate things.

>> LEONID TODOROV: Thank you, Cristina. So the IGF Secretariat now can sleep well. So the European Commission has just committed to sort of help financially.

>> CRISTINA MONTI: We have always supported the IGF. We invite the industry also to do that.

>> LEONID TODOROV: That’s good. Thank you. Well, Rikke, I guess. >> THOMAS SCHNEIDER: Rikke is waiting for quite sometime.

>> RIKKE FRANK JORGENSEN: One thing that the United States Government as well as industry could do was to turn this human rights commitment into something that is much more practical. We recently have had one of the first privacy judgments from the European Court of Justice related to data protection. Now we have a course ruling stating that data retention can be a legitimate mean to fight cybercrime. However, in the current way it’s implemented, it is not. It is a clear violation of privacy rights.

How many other examples of that do we have across Europe that have never been tested before a court? And here I think European States with their strong human rights tradition could really show the way by voluntarily having key Internet policy legislation and practice undergo independent human rights assessment for their implications.

>> LEONID TODOROV: That’s a good start.

>> AUDIENCE: My name is Janis Karklins. I was a participant of the New Media Summer School with a group of people talking about the Internet since Sunday. I have a question about something Lorenzo said. He talked about innovation, and I want to link this to access to the people for the Internet. Most of the time it is linked.

I want to know your point on net neutrality, and because when we don’t – if we don’t have net neutrality, we will have less innovation because small businesses and startups will not have the possibility. And I want to know what is your point that the access to the Internet should be a service for the public so that we can have safe innovation and participation of everyone.

>> LORENZO PUPILLO: Thank you for this question. First of all, I think it’s important especially for young people to understand this, when we look at the net neutrality, we should avoid the mistake, especially politicians or policymakers sometimes make, to look at the future of the Internet with the eye of the past. Okay? In other words, when the Internet today is something completely different from what used to be. And we should understand there is a great difference in terms of people and application.

Years ago, the application was surfing the Net and email. Now we have a totally completely new set of applications and we should be – we should design to keep open the Internet, as the messages coming from NETmundial. But allow also for companies and consumers to use new services.

>> LEONID TODOROV: Thank you. Sorry. Robert?

>> ROBERT SHLEGEL: I supported my colleague.

>> LEONID TODOROV: That’s okay. Just in support.

>> JORG SCHWEIGER: I’d like to combine the answer with reference to net neutrality to the question we had before. Should we implement value? And my answer would be yes, we should. The problem or challenge about that is everybody could agree to a certain value. Let’s say, for example, privacy.

But if you go down to detail, then it’s complicated. For example, the NETmundial statement points out that under privacy you shouldn’t be subject to unlawful surveillance. So what does that mean? So what we have to do is we have to agree on something that is really effectuateable, and there is the problem. And with respect to net neutrality, for example, this is the reason. Because net neutrality hasn’t found its way into the NETmundial statement. It’s just not there. Because we couldn’t agree on this very abstract term. And it’s going to get a lot harder to fill in and to be very concrete about all these values, and that’s what; lays in front of us.

>> LEONID TODOROV: Coming from Robert, because we have to take another question.

>> AUDIENCE: Claudia Selli from AT&T.

I have a question for the European Commission. Cristina, in your remarks you say that many are rejecting the multistakeholder approach and there is a need for a new model of governance. What is the Commission doing to address this issue? I don’t know whether you responded already to this question before, but maybe if you can elaborate a little more. Thank you.

>> CRISTINA MONTI: Well, indeed, we see that there is a discontent on the current way the Internet is managed. And many, many countries are opting for what we could say is the easy solution; that is, governmental control. And we think that part of the problem is due to the complexity of the institutional framework and of the different range of topics covered by Internet governance.

So for us, the response – part of the solution is maybe twofold. First of all, reaching out. We need to involve all stakeholders. Reaching also out to those countries, understanding their concerns because they are legitimate concerns, and so this is the first aspect.

The second aspect is capacity building. Many of these countries, but not just the governmental level, lack the expertise that really follows and understands all the different impacts and repercussions. So here capacity building is crucial. So we have a number of programmes also to do that.

And again maybe I mentioned before the global Internet policy observatory, which is an initiative we are trying to make a reality together with other players. And we think that is a useful connection.

Later today I’ll talk about it in a flash session. So if somebody is interested, I would be happy to give more details.

>> LORENZO PUPILLO: This issue raised by others and the European Commission require, I think, a bit of deepening. Even in the NETmundial document, again, the question opened, there was this idea of although we all support strongly the multistakeholder approach, we need to understand that there is – it’s open to debate on the different roles of the multistakeholder. And when one thing starts, another one finishes. I think this really needs to be addressed. And I think we should move forward and try to understand that we should try the way, even the mechanism, to allow let’s say one face of discussion that is equal footing, which all the major components discuss or to do.

But then we go on the operational side. For instance, one of the players on the human rights, the state, on technical issues, the private sector and other issues with Civil Society, should take the lead.

We all know the multistakeholder model geometry. We should try to allow also this differentiation.

By the way, I invite all of you to come to the IGF to Istanbul.

>> LEONID TODOROV: Robert?

>> ROBERT SHLEGEL: Well, I went to Brazil with high expectations, hoping to see all the Ts crossed and Is dotted. But what I was faced with, the attempts of the organizers at any price to push ahead with the document which had been probably preprepared, and that is probably why it didn’t contain net neutrality. Internet is a huge space and it’s also a very appetizing piece. Bureaucracies that was built around it at the beginning, as any bureaucracy, it’s trying to propagate itself. And that’s why we see ICANN mushrooming here and there. I do believe Internet governance is possible in the existing framework. And IGF is a very good case in point. And by the way, that’s laid down in the NETmundial documents.

>> LEONID TODOROV: So we have another three questions to go. Thank you. We have another three questions starting from the left.

>> AUDIENCE: Bernhard Hayden from the Young People of Europe. I’d like to ask a question from the representative of the European Commission, mainly. And it’s about usage of the term “Single digital European market” in this discussion. And I’d like to frame it a little bit else.

When it comes to infrastructure, we see that in Europe most of the national infrastructure providers are already owned by multi-national corporations and have the US as an example where a unified market brings us a very low standard on infrastructure whilst maintaining –

>> LEONID TODOROV: So the question is?

>> AUDIENCE: The question is how would the European Commission like to ensure that a European digital single market will not make us – bring us an Oligopoly in Europe when it comes to infrastructure?

>> CRISTINA MONTI: Well, the package is currently under discussion. So the Commission made a proposal, which was a revision of a previous framework. And now the final shape it will have, it will be defined by the European Parliament and the Council. We don’t know how the final play will be. But the aim of the package is to make sure that we have a unified single market.

Also, for the users to be able to, for instance, use their phone freely if they move from one country to another, being able to use their services and choose their providers independently of a specific country where they are. So this is the main idea behind the package.

And, of course, also part of it is to ensure that every European city and citizen can enjoy the benefits of a digital world, which is high connectivity. And now the package is under discussion and it will about almost a law we hope by the end of the year.

>> LEONID TODOROV: Thank you.

>> AUDIENCE: Thank you for the panel and audience. I’m Kristo Helasvuo from the Finnish – from the Electronic Frontier Finland.

I would like to ask you regarding the recent events in the local Governments violating the private rights of the citizens, do you see it – think that the new Internet models should be built more to protect the citizens from the hostile Governments all around?

>> LEONID TODOROV: Rikke, it’s in your department, isn’t it?

>> RIKKE FRANK JORGENSEN: A global protection of the right to privacy is really one of the very major challenges I think right now in the – in securing that human rights are actually protected in the global domain.

We had the first resolution on the right to privacy in the digital age at the General Assembly. That was an important step forward, but nevertheless it’s just a resolution. So I think that there are some things that are way overdue. One is, for example, that the general comment to Article 17 of the International covenant that stipulates the right to privacy that most States in the world are subject to, there is a general comment which is basically a guideline to national courts on how to interpret this right and how to interpret the State of obligation. That general comment dates back to I think ’88. And it has been suggested for many years, also, by the UN Special Rapporteur on the Fight Against Terrorism in the Right of Human Rights March in China that this general comment should be revised, so that some of all the challenges that we see at the moment are actually addressed.

So that you go in at a much more concrete level and say the challenge that we have, for instance, with privacy violations are occurring outside the State territory.

How is that – how are we to deal with that? Are States bound by the right to privacy not only regarding their own citizens, but to all the communications that take place within the territory? So concretely, the Snowden case, for instance, what are the U.S. State obligations under this International covenant? So there are a number of measures that could be taken and could be advanced.

>> LEONID TODOROV: Thank you.

There was a question from the floor.

>> AUDIENCE: John Carr from the European NGO Alliance Child Safety online.

I don’t know if this is a question to Robert or to the panel as a whole. But he said that he didn’t think young people should be regarded as being a separate or different interest in these discussions around Internet governance and Internet policy generally. I suppose it depends on your definition of a “young person.”

But I wonder if he acknowledges and accepts that every country in Europe, indeed every country in the world except for three, are signatories to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which creates obligations on States to make special provisions to protect children, and that means people under the age of 18. And the Internet has not got an exemption from that Convention. I wonder if you could comment on that.

>> LEONID TODOROV: Everyone ready? Robert?

>> ROBERT SHLEGEL: There is no arguing about it. Our children’s rights should be protected. Full stop. And we are doing that at the national level and it’s done at the International level. Russia is doing its homework.

Of course you are right in pointing out that it is necessary to point out – to define what are exactly the rights of persons under 18. Well, there’s still a lot of hypocrisy about protecting human rights online. Because there are hundreds of people and many groups of people whose rights are infringed online. But we’re not crying out “stop it right now.” But children should be the first priority.

>> LEONID TODOROV: Thank you. The last question. The very last.

>> THOMAS SCHNEIDER: We are at 1 o’clock so we will take one last intervention from the floor. Please let me remind you that we have a new format this year. Because as an experimental reaction and trying to accommodate the wish that normally there is not enough time to go into details in the sessions, and that it might be useful to distill a few key elements or some key elements in another session, which we now have decided to make this experiment here in Berlin, there will be one breakout session this afternoon in parallel to the workshops that will be held from 2:30 to 4. There will be another breakout session tomorrow. The breakout session today is an opportunity to discuss what we discussed in the first opening plenary, NETmundial, multistakeholderism and also this plenary about European society at stake and what is the common vision, how to try and develop European societies and standards and principles forward.

So the last thing to mention before lunch –

>> LEONID TODOROV: After the last question and the last answer, I’ll pass the microphone to Wolf for some announcements as well. Thank you.

>> AUDIENCE: Okay. Very quick. My name is Dimitris Nikolsky. I represent the Committee of Experts on the Rights of People with Disabilities on the Council of Europe.

I would like to say that one of the main things that I get from this session is the word “human rights.” So very quick I’d like to add how you connect the human rights, as everybody said, with the access of the people with disability to increase the access on the Internet? There is a digital gap between the normal people, let’s say, and the disabled people. And I’d like to ask the European Union, the Commission, maybe the Council of Europe as well, what are the efforts that you do to your Member States in order to increase the accessibility for the people – for the disabled people on the Internet? Thank you.

>> CRISTINA MONTI: Well, very briefly, of course it is an important aspect and we keep it in mind. And maybe I’m not the right person to provide an answer to this specific question, and maybe the technical community can be more helpful, but for sure it is one of the priorities, which is on our communication as well. So it is mentioned.

How we are going to do it in practice, I’m not the right person to answer to that question. But maybe I will – I can get back to you at a later stage. Or maybe some of the other panelists will be already able to provide an answer.

>> LEONID TODOROV: Robert?

>> ROBERT SHLEGEL: Thank you very much for your question. I think it’s a crucial question. Well, it may be that in the realm of Internet, people have more rights than in the sense of Universal Declaration of Human Rights. For example, the right to forget. To be forgotten.

(Laughter)

I’m sorry.

Well, the same applies to the People with Disabilities. We may create preferential conditions for users with disabilities, and as it is happening in Russia, for example, we mandate every Government site to have special applications for People with Disabilities. Governments can sponsor or fund extra special software for People with Disabilities. So it’s all in our hands.

>> LEONID TODOROV: Rikke wanted to make a short quick statement before we break for lunch.

>> RIKKE FRANK JORGENSEN: Just a final remark in relation to the question that there is no doubt that access to – access to the Internet, access to content is a really crucial and important prerequisite for enjoying human rights online. It goes for people with disabilities but it also goes for tons of other groups. There are so many inequalities related to gender, religions, there are tons of different ways that you can draw lines of lack of access for various reasons. And, yes, it’s a very, very crucial element.

>> LEONID TODOROV: So we’re done. I mean the panel is over. I just want to thank our panelists. They were great.

(Applause)

Thank you very much.

I want to thank all those who asked the questions. And I think an announcement from the organizers. Thank you.

>> WOLF LUDWIG: Thank you very much, Leonid and Thomas and panelists. Before we let you go into your deserved lunch break, some short housekeeping announcements. As Thomas indicated already, after the lunch break we will continue with our first four workshops. Including the breakout session for the plenaries, there will be several sub issues, questions, which were raised by the audience. For example, accessibility fits perfectly into workshop 2. So you will have plenty of opportunities after the break to continue this kind of discussions.

Now, lunch is served on this side and on the other side. So if you want to avoid long queues, don’t run out all here. So share a bit the exits, and you will have enough space.

We wish all of you good appetite and please try to be back punctually in time after the lunch break.

Thanks.

Pictures from working group

Link

Session tags

Internet Governance; Europe and Russia IG Policies; the Other Europe; Consensus-Building; Multistakehoderism; Internet Principles and Roadmap

Session twitter hashtag

Hashtag: #eurodig_PL1

Retrieved from "https://eurodigwiki.org/mw/index.php?title=Digital_society_at_stake_–_Europe_and_the_future_of_the_Internet_–_PL_01_2014&oldid=17085"