Future of the IGF 2018
6 June 2018 | 17:15-17:45 | GARDEN HALL | 
Consolidated programme 2018
Future of the IGF 2018
Moderator
- Thomas Schneider, Ambassador, Swiss Government and Co-Chair of the 2017 IGF Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG)
Key Participants
- Lynn St. Amour, Chair of the Multistakeholder Advisory Committee (MAG)
- Raúl Echeberría, ISOC, Vice President, Global Engagement
- Michael Rotert, Association of the Internet Industry
- Gunther Grathwohl, German Ministry of Economics (Host 2019)
Reporter
- Claudio Lucena
Messages
- The Internet is not only vital for the ICT industry, but for many other stakeholders too, and the IGF community has to find a way to make the industry, but also governments feel that it is important for them to participate in IGF initiatives and processes; more focus on ‘hot’ topics could be an alternative.
- The IGF environment must be able to show concrete results, some form of consensus or agreement, supported by the community, even if they are not decisions, in order to convey a stronger general perception that the IGF is relevant.
- The forum has to be relevant to the business sector; if they get their topics discussed, chances that they will join and keep engaged are higher.
Find an independent report of the session from the Geneva Internet Platform Digital Watch Observatory at https://dig.watch/resources/closing-session-future-igf
Video record
Transcript
Provided by: Caption First, Inc. P.O Box 3066. Monument, CO 80132, Phone: +001-877-825-5234, +001-719-481-9835, www.captionfirst.com
This text is based on live transcription. Communication Access Realtime Translation (CART), captioning, and/or live transcription are provided in order to facilitate communication accessibility and may not be a totally verbatim record of the proceedings. This text is not to be distributed or used in any way that may violate copyright law.
>> Please don't leave the room now. We are now discussing a last topic on our Agenda. We are close to finalizing the session or these two days.
And usually we give some space for the global IGF for a sort of stock taking, looking forward, what is going to be on the Agenda, how are the preparations going on. And since we are discussing a lot in these days about meaning full, nonmeaningful value of the IGF and of the global IGF community, we decided not to give just a keynote speech but instead doing a little discussion. And I want to call the following people.
First of all, Thomas Schneider. He is Ambassador of the Swiss government and cohost of the -- no, the Co-chair of the IGF in 2017 in Geneva.
His counterpart will be Gunther Grathwohl. He is from the Ministry of economics from Germany. Germany will be the host of the IGF in 2019.
Also in the room is Raul Echeberria. There he is, vice-president of ISOC with some really thoughtful comments about the future of the IGF.
And we have last but not least and I ask you to take in the middle, Lynn St. Amour. She is the MAG Chair and we are happy to have her here.
I would like to ask you please, pay attention to this last session. Stop talking. If you want to talk, go out, but we would actually prefer you stay in the room.
So with this, I would like to hand over to Thomas Schneider. Thomas, the floor is yours.
>> THOMAS SCHNEIDER: Thank you. We are still preparing this session because we want to take all the experience into account that we witnessed, of course. What now?
Oh, Michael is missing! Yes, where is Mr. Rotert?
We need the industry!
Again, the industry business is missing. Could somebody find Michael Rotert?
Well, he knows what I'm going to say in the next 30 seconds. I can maybe start. He's probably out there smoking.
So we are trying to set up a few questions here that we would like to discuss with all of you after now 11 years experience or 11 experiences of the EuroDIG, after 12 IGFs.
What can be done? What would need to be done to make these processes most relevant, in order to have the most impact? We are having these discussions since 2006 every year at the EuroDIGs since 2008.
Let's not talk about whether the room should be classroom seating or round or bigger or not, but go to what is the core of the challenges of the multistakeholder dialogue model and the fact that some people think, as the last question was it's just a talk shop, so on.
We would like to give the floor to you and have your views on the four questions.
First one is about the value of a bottom-up open and inclusive dialogue like IGF, the EuroDIG. Is it easier to have a top down simple group that puts together a nice conference with nice experts and that's it? First question.
Second one, we realize there is a misbalance between participation of stakeholders. Normally it is no problem to have enough active and vocal Civil Society people and participating. It is more difficult to get governments participating and even more difficult to get business people participating. How do we manage to make these processes more attractive to governments. That's question two.
Question three, how much high level participation we need. Something that if you have too many high level representatives, there's not enough substance. If you don't have high level participation, people don't take it seriously. How do we deal with this tension.
The final question is, is a dialogue a discussion enough? Or should we go closer to decision making processes, ie. issue recommendations or something like so-called tangible outcome?
These are the four elements. Please comment on any of them as we have very little time. I ask you to be brief, to not exceed one minute. I start singing this song when you exceed 60 seconds or somebody of us will start dancing on stage. This is how you realize that you are talking for too long.
Try to be short. Let's hear as many voices as we can. These are the four questions. We hope they make sense to you and hope they are relevant. The floor is yours.
Please introduce yourself so everybody knows who you are.
>> THOMAS SCHNEIDER: Just start talking.
>> AUDIENCE: My suggestion for the first question ...
European Commission, I simply suggest that you delete the first question. We could be here all night discussing that. I hope that most people in the room believe in the system. It would be useful if the experts focused on the second, third, and fourth question. That's my input. Thank you.
>> THOMAS SCHNEIDER: Okay. Other views? Yes, please.
>> AUDIENCE: My name is from the Netherlands and I want to ask you a question because the third question, how can we attract more people to participate in the multistakeholder process. I am trying to work out a workshop for IGF and the deadline is tonight. Still the date and place is not yet definitely confirmed. I have heard a lot of rumors. And yeah, how can we do that? We can't because we don't have a date yet.
>> THOMAS SCHNEIDER: Thank you. Fair point.
>> LYNN ST. AMOUR: If I can jump in here quickly? I'm Lynn St. Amour, the MAG Chair. Two weeks ago we announced that we had a very good offer from the French government to host IGF November 11 through 14, 2018. It takes some time for the U.N. contracting process to actually complete. So it would not be appropriate to say that it is done and contracted and agreed at this point. But the words that have been agreed with the U.N. is that everybody's expectation should be that the IGF is held next November 11 through 14 in Paris. That was the expectation that people were given with respect to the call for workshop proposals.
We know it was not ideal for the first few weeks for that not to be known. I'm sure we will find some ways to put additional flexibility into the review process.
>> THOMAS SCHNEIDER: So we know it is not Lynn's fault. She has been doing everything she can.
Other inputs on the last three questions?
More attractive to businesses? More VIPs? Closer to decision making? Yes or no?
Please tell us.
Mr. Hickson.
>> AUDIENCE: I'm Nigel Hickson from ICANN. I think these are fundamental questions. These are something the questions we addressed in that very moving closing session which you chaired along with Lynn and others at the IGF in Geneva. We all said something about the IGF in Geneva. We ought to have thanked the Swiss and thanked everyone that had an input into that. We ought to have thanked the IGF Secretariat for their brilliant work in coordinating that.
As we look forward we need to make sure that we take that Geneva spirit in that last closing session to Paris. Because clearly we have to do, we have to evoke that spirit in the next IGF. These three questions are absolutely fundamental. We have the opportunity in Paris with a high level presence of perhaps leaders, other stakeholders, to really reinforce that the IGF has to be a multistakeholder, has to include all stakeholders. That governments must find it useful to attend. Businesses must find it useful to attend. All sorts of businesses, not just the ICT sectors but other businesses where the internet is so vital to their future.
So you have or we have the opportunity in Paris and we must do something about that. And I think one of the key issues that has to be addressed, and ISOC have articulated this more than others in terms of the importance of the IGF. We have to be able to show that the IGF is relevant. We have to be able to come out with some concrete, not decisions, not recommendations in the form of a U.N. recommendation or an ITU recommendation or anything like that.
But a consensus, a feeling that the IGF has achieved something. Going back to what we had when the stakeholders came together and adopted principles take people bought into. This is the spirit that we must encourage in the IGF. We must select one or two topics and really work on them and come to some form of consensus, some form of agreements. Not written in-laws or anything like that, but the community can get behind, expressing some of the concerns that have been heard here in this wonderful conference as well.
Sorry for going on.
>> THOMAS SCHNEIDER: Thank you for Shapal very passionate slightly more than one minute statement. Next?
>> AUDIENCE: I'm Thomas I'll speak for Deutsch Telecom so I can give you brief industry feedback and idea how to get more businesses here, which is very simple. Get more relevant. I mean, my experience is I have been to five EuroDIGs now. I see the same people talking about the same topics. What I learned really new this year is so small that I really have to consider if I come back next year.
So if you want businesses, take their topics on board. Take them on board even if they maybe do not always have a Civil Society angle or a human rights aspect. That has been a problem in the past.
If we get our topics discussed, we will be here.
(Some applause.)
>> THOMAS SCHNEIDER: We'll put a new criteria on our call for issues. It has to be relevant. Thank you, Thomas. Next, please?
>> AUDIENCE: Thanks, Mark, U.K. government. I have been going to IGFs pretty much from the start. And most EuroDIGs, not every one, I have to say.
I am from government. How to make it more attractive for governments? For both the regional and global IGFs, the key thing is to hit on hot and emerging topics that government policymakers are starting to engage on. They are grappling with topics. I think actually EuroDIG has been quite successful in that respect this year with AI and Blockchain. My head is buzzing with the idea of Blockchain. It is something that governments should be taking up, it enhances transparency and governance and human rights aspects. I hadn't thought about that.
Outcomes are going to be important. The prospect of outcomes, to hook in these policy teams because if the outcomes can be like ambitions to create a menu of policy options -- that might include governments don't do anything, don't regulate. That's a very useful message for us in the U.K. We are very deregulatory.
But a kind of destruction of the sessions on these topics, if they can have that perspective outcome of policy options, and then you can get the policymakers in and involved in those discussions. I hope that's a helpful comment. Thanks.
>> THOMAS SCHNEIDER: Great, indeed. Thanks. Next, please?
>> AUDIENCE: Hi. I am care of the public interest registry board, but speaking my own capacity. I would like to add on the last point because I think it is quite important. I think that EuroDIG is so interesting because it is a Forum where people come and bring their own ideas and different ideas. You have really a discussion on new things and different opinions.
If we attach the need of going into the decision making, we will open a can of worms and we will destroy this model. We will be, people will be more attentive to what they say and much more decision-oriented. And I think that the whole atmosphere will be different. That will be a pity. Thank you.
(Applause.)
>> THOMAS SCHNEIDER: Thank you.
>> AUDIENCE: Hello. My name is Dario from Georgia. I missed yesterday. And, well, I was really worried. I was looking for what was the schedule. I could not find the schedule anywhere. So I asked on Facebook. One of my friends was here actually.
He sent me this. I got happy because on the first day I did not miss anything that I was interested in. When I came -- when I saw the second day schedule I was really excited because here there were all the topics that I was interested in like Blockchain and AI.
So, for example, and AI. For example, I don't think people who don't understand who understand how the domain system work, they don't need to be here. I don't think that topic needed to be there in the schedule. What I am suggesting is for the next EuroDIG for you to consider is to have one hot and broad topic for one conference and then design the schedule for guys who will be interested in that specific topic. Like if we are talking about Blockchain, for example, I attended two very interesting sessions. I would really love to hear some business people here to talk about the specific experiences. You know what I mean. That's my input. Thank you.
>> THOMAS SCHNEIDER: Thank you very much. Next?
>> AUDIENCE: Yes, I have a Question four, for IGF and EuroDIG is in a position to take decisions. Yet we are in a position to come up with tangible results or at least something that is written black and white. On these results people can act and start to implement.
Furthermore, I would like to address a question that has not been raised. That is do not -- everybody is quiet now.
Do not act in a way that diversity is driving the programme in its major essence. So that we may avoid critical issues and workshops just for the sake of diversity. I see that more and more. Thank you.
(Applause.)
>> THOMAS SCHNEIDER: Thank you. That is noted.
Asking to Sandra, we started a little late. Should I turn to the people on the panel? To give their feedback on what we've heard? They all have some roles or have had or will have some roles in organising or being part of the organising teams of IGFs.
Which side? Let's -- we have one more request from the floor. So please?
>> AUDIENCE: First of all, when I came and I was listening and I read the question, I have my personal opinion and I took the initiative for me to share with this. For example, when we are, there was some question, the first question, how to manage and be attractive to government and businesses. I have a question, I have attended a few months ago in one of the cybersecurity conferences held in Georgia and there most business people were attending interested from banks and other folks. Yesterday I was attending fully and active if you would like to encourage business people, we need to show them what and why they have to use it. For example, every company is big companies, who is connected with the bank security were their internet and using the internet services, they can have a threat and it can be dangerous. This kind of involvement and sharing their experiences about digital things, it will be better because we have in every part of the big companies, we have the technology part and they can be involved because when they have a problem, they don't interact. They are solving inside. They can raise their voice to can he something.
About the level and about the multistakeholder participation, what I like very much and it is an opportunity involved, it was the EuroDIGs that happened in Georgia. When I saw these people who participated here, they were excited how it was beneficial for them because they get experience, they get new, for example, such kind of activities not only for the new people involved in like a situation of the EuroDIG youth, but generally the EuroDIG it will be nice.
Yesterday there was some session in the other room, so a little bit tactical but if only the people that I saw about 500 or 600 people listening but somebody was gone back. When I observed yesterday I saw that these people came to listen, like you have one of the talk shops, yeah? It was looking for them talk shops. We had the opportunity to walk inside because there was a lot of people I know, but practical too, beneficial for them not about general tools. It all maybe will make, because I was the one in IGF that was national, a few years, last year, which was like I get experience from the as a person, I get information that is good and this is why I am here because of that experience. I would like to get more.
So I wish to make my point on this, I think.
>> THOMAS SCHNEIDER: Thank you. We have to stop. But thank you for the input.
Let's start to my left with Michael Rotert to say a few words about his reaction to what we've heard.
>> MICHAEL ROTERT: Well, okay, better with a microphone.
Listening to the answers of the questions behind me, there were answers which I could easily combine. For instance, what Mark said or what Yurik said, more hot topics for politicians or diversity is driving -- you can put this together in saying a little bit more focus on hot topics.
This would solve it. I have seen many EuroDIGs and nearly all of them, except one, and many IGFs and it is true, some sessions seem to be debate club. Some sessions seem to be the same as last year. And hot topics, that is what I heard today from answers of these questions. I can fully subscribe to.
I would even go further and say, well, if governments are more committed to the outcome of these multistakeholder meetings, and take the mood of such a conference more serious, this would help as well. Because when the audience gets the impression that what is discussed has some implications, that helps. One thing.
Another thing is, it was always very clear, the country EuroDIG goes to should specifically also support the realtime EuroDIG is just taking place. So the specific support for that country, that is why we are traveling around. Otherwise it would be much easier for us to have such a conference.
This is what came to my mind. I'm happy to see so many people in such a session. And I was happy hearing that there were absolutely input which is usable and which met also what I was thinking when answering the questions on my phone for me to read. That's it. Thank you.
>> THOMAS SCHNEIDER: Thank you, Michael. Next one is Dr. Gunther Grathwohl from the German Ministry of economics, one of the hosts of the IGF next year.
>> GUNTHER GRATHWOHL: As Thomas said, my name is Gunther Grathwohl. For those who do not know me I'm working in the German Ministry of economics. And I am working in the team that will prepare and organise the next IGF. Not the next IGF, but next year 2019. That will take place in Berlin. Let me say the German government believes in the IGF. So yes, we need such a forum like this. And the last two or three days I have been here, I have felt a lot of energy and motivation, young people and knowledge. This is really important to get everybody on board. If we discuss or if we decide on issues and topics around the internet. The internet is a global infrastructure and it is really infrastructure that provides us with wealth and new technologies and innovation and so on.
So we should keep the internet as it is, as a global and innovative and free and open infrastructure that is nondiscriminatory and that keeps its notice vague effect on all people around the globe.
So IGF is something we need. That is the reason we applied for that next year. And you can or I can assure you as well that the German government is very open for every idea or measure that make it more relevant, for sure. More relevant and we try also to get more stakeholders and perhaps also citizens and everybody on board who is interested in that topic.
Perhaps also the location is good for that because I like to quote a sentence I have heard in the beginning of the IGF of Sandra, I guess. It was the sentence that IGF needs a place where the multistakeholder view is in the DNA of its citizens. And I guess there are not many places like this, more like this than Berlin. But Paris as we have heard now is for sure also such a place. So I think we can look with much confidence into the future of the IGF, at least for this year and next year. Then we should bring forward the spirit of Geneva from Paris to Berlin and then to the next session in 2020. Thank you.
>> THOMAS SCHNEIDER: Thank you, Gunther. Let's go first to Raul Echeberria so we can save the person giving gender balance at least be the last word. Raul, what is your action? You want the microphone. That is understandable.
>> RAUL ECHEBERRIE: This is a multistakeholder approach. So okay. We at the Internet Society have been pushing for some improvements of the IGF and we have been very active in the last couple of months. The Internet Society is one of the strongest supporters of IGF. It has been since its inception. We are strongly committed to this. But we think that it is time to move to the next level with IGF. We want to promote the multistakeholder model around the world for dealing with concrete issues. This is what we call multistakeholder in action. We have been successful in convincing the stakeholders and partnering with governments and other stakeholders in implementing multistakeholder processes in dealing with specific things.
But for that we need to show that this model is successful, that it works. This is why we are a little worried, not scared but that we care very much about this. And I am very happy to see that some of the things that we have been proposing coincide 100 percent with the things that have been said in the mic.
Producing outcomes, what is clearly one of our colleagues clearly pointed out that it doesn't mean making decisions. It means just producing more tangible outcomes that could be more useful.
I think that experience is very good in that sense, but this is something that we can never be enough satisfied. We always have to look for improvements. So this is words for this stage but let's continue working on how to improve the outcomes, and the way in which we produce the outcomes.
Being more focused, as we have been talking before with the colleagues, is not enough to have a session on privacy. We have to tackle specific things on that topic, on privacy. The same to all those topics. It could be ridiculous to have a session on access. It worked ten years ago but it is no longer useful. We need to tackle more detailed things, be more focused.
We need to provide opportunities for everybody to participate in all the different phases of the process. Since the presentation of workshops, evaluation, but also in the meeting. So we need to ensure that everybody has the same opportunities to speak.
Some of the practices that we implemented in NETmundial are still useful. We should not be afraid of evolving the meetings and looking for new ways of doing this. Having said that, I am very optimistic now having heard your comments, I think that we have to show some signs of improvement this year. But this is not that we have to do everything this year. So we need to show continue working with our host for 2019, to continue improving the IGF.
So let's continue working together. I am sure that we will do great things in this matter.
>> THOMAS SCHNEIDER: Thank you, Raul. Let's immediately go to Lynn for a few final words.
>> LYNN ST. AMOUR: Thank you. I am going to start with a couple of sort of more operational, to address some of the suggestions I heard here today and move to more of the meta questions we are all facing.
The MAG this year, and I have to say we have an outstanding MAG. I have been involved with the IGF since before there was a formal IGF. We have 28 out of 55 MAG members that are brand new and another 18 that are serving just their second year. That's 80 percent new ideas, new thoughts. They are really committed to making a difference and moving forward. I'm very encouraged by that.
We put an extra step in this year called the call from issues which came from some of the national and regional IGF processes. We want to use that to actually shape the Agenda so we make sure that we have an Agenda that speaks to all the stakeholders. We will look at the issues that came in by stakeholder group, look at the workshop proposals we've seen and use that to actually shape the overall Agenda of the IGF.
We are working really hard to build a more cohesive agenda, more focused, fewer tracks, fewer redundancy, hopefully feeding one from the other and we've changed some of our review processes within the MAG to ensure that we have a consistent review by themes, which should help build a much tighter set of workshops.
We have a series of Working Groups that are in place. Two of them -- three I suppose are really important. One in communications and outreach, which of course is important. There a multiyear strategic programme which wants to identify those few topics worthy of and certain to be of interest of and build a programme around those that will allow us to do greater outreach.
Part of that effort is looking at what sort of recommendations or outputs we can pull out. Frankly, it is maybe pushing a little bit on the Tunis agenda but I think there's a lot of room to advance what we do, which is pretty much discussion and debate today. And a recommendation doesn't have to be a policy recommendation. It can be advisory. It could be reframing a particular broad complex topic and suggesting maybe that a piece of this topic should be addressed through another Forum or another process. A whole list of things we are looking at in that space including the possibility of actually using some of the tools that exist today to get a broad set of opinions and thoughts from across the community.
There is a lot more as well. There's also one which is looking at all the improvements that have been suggested for the IGF, starting with every one of the annual meetings has a three-hour stock taking session on the last day. There's a lot of substantive input that comes from that process. We had a UNDESA group and another on IGF improvements. All of that work is cataloged, in fact it is already cataloged and grouped and we are trying to figure out where it should be sort of apportioned, if you will, to advance it.
All of the MAG Working Groups are open. If anybody wants to participate, please participate. If you want to join the mailing list so you can keep track quietly of what's happening, that's very, very welcome as well.
Sandra did open the meeting as well with another comment that said the IGF in the 13 years is really a teenager. Maybe there's a little bit of searching for identity. When I started to get involved in the internet and internet governance it was because I thought the internet could make a tremendous difference in people's lives. That's why most people came to the internet. It is also why we continue to stay engaged in internet governance discussions.
I think if we try to break that down, one of the meta questions we are facing is how do we actually work to advance those issues that are most critical? It is not just about debate and discussion and education. That is extremely valuable and frankly the first step in advancing almost anything. But how do we actually continue these discussions? And kind of organise or capture or shape them through all of our processes differently so that they do start to produce something that is more actionable? Again, you know, I don't come to these meetings just to learn. I come to these meetings because I want to make a difference. I want to help advance the internet in critical ways. I know that's what most people I talk to want to do.
We need to find a way to push ourselves a little bit more and see how we can move from the very essential components of debate and discussion and learning and openness to really try to figure out how we get a lot more useful outputs and a lot more outputs out of the wealth of knowledge that comes out of every one of the processes, whether it's a national, regional IGF initiative, the IGF -- or all the Inter-Sessional activities we are working on as well.
So I hope that the MAG, I can speak for the MAG at this point. We are a bottom-up process. I hope that the MAG looks at the proposals coming in from the lens of: Are we doing all we can as a MAG to advance the cross-cutting international public policy issues which is what the IGF was first established to do. Of course we are requesting, supporting multistakeholder open bottom-up consensus processes.
And I think I will just close with, again I think a lot of these debates really do move from, is it about a talk shop? Is it about actions? I don't think those two are -- I'm tired. I don't think those two are contradictory. We can both support debate, discussion, openness and education all at the same time working to advance issues.
My final comment is, we need to hear from the community. It is extremely important. I have been doing a lot of listening and talking, as I hope I always do. I'm happy to give my email address out or put it anywhere it would help. You have MAG members in the room here, national, regional IGF initiatives. Please feed your suggestions or inputs through any of these processes.
(Applause.)
>> THOMAS SCHNEIDER: This, of course, is not a new discussion and won't be stopping today. We will have that dialogue continue in various forms. This is the end of the panel.
I thank everybody that contributed. Now ... I would like to hand over to Sandra for the end of it.
>> SANDRA HOFERICHTER: Thank you very much. I would actually like you to be seated for a moment. I want to give some attention to the EuroDIG. I would like to invite Katie Devereaux to read them out after two days. Please come to the stage. After the youth digitized that took -- youth dig that took place. You have prepared your messages as well. We are very much interested in reading them. I hope these are not many pages what I see. So who is going to start?
>> We prove that we have many things to say but we will try to be short. Our group decided to relay these -- divide the messages by topics as follows. For accessibility, ensuring equity of participation of young people from different backgrounds, especially on the privilege groups such as but not limited to women, minorities, and LGBT groups, through funding mechanisms by governments, private companies and international organisations.
Increasing visibility of the possibilities to participate in the internet governance activities by improving accessibility to quality and attractive information, for example through edutainment and funding participants. Assuring a systematic a propose for youth participation in statutory structures of the internet governance stakeholders. For example, through youth representation in decision making bodies.
>> Now, on beta literacy no one should tolerate misinformation, disinformation and malinformation nor give ground to those who create and share it. More resources should be allocated to promote critical thinking on information disorder. Education is vital for increasing digital literacy so that people can make informed decisions online in order to get the most out of their time on the internet and stay safe. This includes measures such as identifying scams, critical thinking, and knowing your rights and responsibilities as a digital citizen.
>> And internet that works for everybody. The internet will be even more indispensable in everyone's life in the future. Everybody should have the right to shape the future of the internet and we need to ensure it remains a global social resources that is open and benefits humanity in order to achieve this, the development of internet should be processed in a bottom up inclusive and multistakeholder process. It need to be assured that the internet is developed in an ethical way so that everybody is supported in the making balanced and healthy use of it. The internet must develop in a way that respects the environment and reminds -- remains sustainable audience.
>> Now, on regulation of internet data privacy and legal protection against cyber crime. Regulation of internet involves rules which govern the internet and should be enforced by governments and/or intermediaries while also having a mechanism which empowers and protects the rights of internet users. Data privacy is of paramount importance to assure that everyone has the right to decide how their own content is being employed. These rights should be reasonably enforceable. Legal protection against cyber crime should be comprehensive. All crimes commit the online should be dealt with the same seriousness as those committed offline.
Cyber crimes should be dealt with tools which pertain to the online world.
>> And for digital inclusion. In order to foster digital inclusion, computer ware as well as content and services should be usable and accessible by the sign on a nondiscriminatory basis.
Preventive and reactive measures are necessary to better protect vulnerable groups such as but not limited to children, women, minorities, and LGBT groups. Users should be more proactive about calling out speech online and website need to have more robust ways to tackle discriminatory and dehumanize -- demonizing behavior.
>> We commit to continuing the dialogue and to make it a central point of discussion in the next era European dialogue on internet governance. Thank you.
(Applause.)
>> I appreciate the last comment, the commitment because this is the future. So those messages will go in this leaflet we are used to produce after EuroDIG. They will be marked as the youth messages from today. If you are interested before the messages from Tbilisi will be printed you can still get some messages from Talin. They are still here somewhere around in the menu. Please take them. We don't want to take them home.
(Chuckles.)
>> SANDRA HOFERICHTER: And with this, I think we can thank you, the distinguished panel from the last session.
This text is based on live transcription. Communication Access Realtime Translation (CART), captioning, and/or live transcription are provided in order to facilitate communication accessibility and may not be a totally verbatim record of the proceedings. This text is not to be distributed or used in any way that may violate copyright law.