Your IG ecosystem may be out of date. Please check for updates – WS 04 2016
9 June 2016 | 14:30-16:00
Programme overview 2016
Navigating the Internet Governance Ecosystem. Where are we and where are we heading?
This session will aim to raise participants’ awareness of the current status of the internet governance ecosystem - including major issues and debates, both globally and in Europe:
- Part One: Setting the scene: Overview of key global IG developments in 2015 as well as major IG debates and challenges ahead.
- Part Two: Mapping the European IG ecosystem: Identifying priority IG issue areas in Europe, including challenges and potential ways to overcome them.
netgovernance, multistakeholder, IG, IGF2016, ecosystem, WSIS+10, ICANN, enhancedcooperation, ISOC, ITU, GIPO, internetmanagement, IGstrategy, IGecosystem, globalpublicinterest, IANA
The workshop will be divided into two parts. In the first part, (co-)Moderators will invite key discussants to provide input and set the scene (Part One in the session description). The rest of the session (Part Two in the session description) would be an interactive dialogue among all participants:
- a. Initially, participants will be asked to identify priority/key IG issues facing European countries (e.g. digital divide, privacy and data protection, cybersecurity, etc.);
- b. Participants will then be divided into groups, and each group will be asked to look at one or several main IG issues, according to the previous block, with the aim to identify:
- i. Three main challenges in addressing the issue(s)
- ii. Examples of good practices in addressing the issues/challenges (if these can be identified)
- iii. Potential solutions and next steps.
- i. Internet Policy and Governance: Europe’s role in shaping the future of Internet Governance. European Commission, Brussels. (12.02.2014) - Here
- ii. Outcome document of the high-level meeting of the General Assembly on the overall review of the implementation of the outcomes of the World Summit on the Information Society. UN General Assembly. (13.02.2015) - Here
- iii. OECD Principles for Internet Policy Making. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2014) - Here
- iv. Internet Governance – Council of Europe strategy 2016 – 2019. Council of Europe, Committee of Ministers. (30.03.2016) - Here
- v. Best Practise Forum (BPF) on Strengthening Multistakeholder Participation Mechanisms. Internet Governance Forum. (2015) - Here
- vi. An Introduction to Internet Governance. Kurbalija, J., DiploFoundation. (2014) - Here
- vii. Survey on Internet Governance in South Eastern Europe and the Neighbouring Area. SEEDIG Annual Meeting, Belgrade. (22.04.2016) - Here
- Focal Point
- i. Lea Kaspar. Global Partners Digital. United Kingdom.
- Key participants
- i. Aida Mahmutović
- ii. Lea Kaspar
- Remote moderator
- i. Oksana Prykhodko - LinkedIn
- Org team
- i. Cristina Monti. European Commission. Belgium.
- ii. Grigori Saghyan. ISOC Armenia. Armenia.
- iii. Oksana Prykhodko. iNGO European Media Platform. Ukraine.
- iv. Ana Neves. Department for the Information Society. Portugal.
- v. Anelia Dimova, Ministry of Transport, Information Technology and Communications, Bulgaria.
- vi. Lee Hibbard, Council of Europe, France.
- vii. Michael J. Oghia, Non-Affiliated, Turkey.
- viii. Narine Khachatryan, Safer Internet Armenia & Media Education Center, Armenia.
- i. Erwin Yin - Profile Page
See the discussion tab on the upper left side of this page.
Conference call. Schedules and minutes
Planning Call #1 - 13th April - Summary of Call
Planning Call #2 - 4th May @ 9am (BST)
1. Internet Governance for Cybersecurity
- Differences in the understanding of basic terms within Cybersecurity between different actors are a major stumbling block to progress on internet governance for cybersecurity. Before sound progress can be made, all parties must form a common understanding of cybersecurity. Cybersecurity should also not be seen as adversarial to human rights, rather they should complement each other.
2. Regulatory/Judicial Challenges for the Digital Single market.
- Individuals and countries do not have a common place to address their concerns, which raises difficulties as the economy transitions into the digital/online sphere. There is a vital need for debate surrounding whether companies have a duty to pay taxes to countries in which they provide services for the use of local infrastructure, with companies such as Uber and Airbnb as prime examples of this debate.
3. Human Rights
- Human rights issues are hugely broad and cannot be understood as a monolithic issue that exists unrelated to other internet governance issues. Rather it should form the basis of internet governance. Human rights should apply equally online and offline –all internet governance discussions should keep this in mind. Education, particularly for the younger generation, is vital in ensuring human rights are understood and respected equally both online and offline.
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.
>> Hello. Hello. Thank you.
>> One, two, three. Okay.
>> Hello, everyone, we are going to give it a couple of minutes before we begin, as lunch has just ended. So a couple of minutes and then we are going to start.
>> LEA KASPAR: Hello, everyone. Welcome to the session to the EuroDIG session for Internet Governance ecosystem may be out of date, please check for updates. Thank you for joining us, my name is Lea and, I will be moderating this with Aida Mahmutovic.
We would like to do an experiment with you. And I will give over to Jovan to explain this. You need your devices. Yes, pop out your laptops or your iPhones. Jovan?
>> JOVAN KURBALIJA: Yes, exactly. Well, good afternoon. If you have we will start the session with a game. You should type kahoot.it in your mobile device, on your laptop, whatever you are using to access the internet and then when you are prompted to give the PIN you should write 767581. Okay?
>> So it’s k a h o o t.it.
>> JOVAN KURBALIJA: Chris B. You can use funny nicknames if you want.
>> Now you tell me.
>> JOVAN KURBALIJA: Chris is the funniest one.
>> LEA KASPAR: Chris is so obvious.
>> JOVAN KURBALIJA: Teresa. Great, Teresa. Okay. Here. Now Lea, you lead them through the questions.
>> LEA KASPAR: I will lead them through the questions. Now we have six players on the screen. Seven players.
>> For those of us who didn’t choose a nickname, will we regret that down the line?
>> LEA KASPAR: You will know later. We have more than nine people in the room. Ten. Good. Great! All right. Cool, cool, cool.
Is everyone there?
>> I think we also have remote participants who are participating.
>> LEA KASPAR: Yes. I see some have logged in.
>> What do we win? What do we win?
>> LEA KASPAR: Oh, big surprise. Jovan has prepared something for us. Jovan will do a little song for us at the end of the session. I know
>> We left quite a bit of cheese.
>> LEA KASPAR: All right. So let’s start this. What you will be asked to do, there’s going to be a question on the screen and you will be asked prompted on your screen, wherever you logged into your device to answer. And Jovan
>> JOVAN KURBALIJA: Is everybody connected? (Off microphone comment).
>> It crashed my browser!
>> LEA KASPAR: Oh, okay. Technical difficulties. I’m actually disappointed that the Internet connection is so good at an IG conference. That’s usually not the case.
>> JOVAN KURBALIJA: We find everybody is connected?
>> LEA KASPAR: Kaput and kahoot.
>> JOVAN KURBALIJA: Fine, fine, fine.
>> LEA KASPAR: Let’s do this. Pierre?
All right. Start. All right. Are you ready? We are going to have (Lost Adobe connection).
>> Five, four, three, two, one. All right!
Very good! All right. We have one Bertram.
>> LEA KASPAR: Very good. Let’s go to the next one. Who is ICANN’s current CEO?
We’re sorry. He’s not here. We were hoping that Nigel was going to be here. He’s not. Very good!
So the correct answer was Goran Marby. Very nice. Very nice.
Secret. It’s a secret. All right. Let’s go on to the fifth and the last question.
The right to be forgotten refers to: The right to be forgiven. User’s right to be de indexed from Internet search results. The right to be to forget bad relationships or the right to have past criminal records forgotten and forgiven. I don’t know why I got confused on that one.
>> LEA KASPAR: Okay. Whoever was the whoever chose the laugh one. And the winner of this fantastic game is Chris. A round of applause for everyone.
And also to everyone else who has participated. Thank you very much.
Yes, Chris, you find out tonight in the disco.
Okay. All right. Now that we’ve got ourselves. Jovan, why don’t you join us here and sit. Thank you so much. If you don’t mind, we will stay standing.
All right. So this session, for those of you who have joined a little bit late, it’s called your Internet Governance ecosystem is out of date. Please check for updates.
And the aim of this session, by the end of this session, we would like everyone to leave with a better understanding. Current Internet Governance landscape and the priority issues and then as in the second part of the session, we will try to get everyone to leave the session with a little bit of hope about how some of these issues could be resolved.
What we are going to do and how the session is going to be split, we will start with a bit of setting the scene from our key discussions. We will be invited to provide some introductory remarks after which we will split the group into smaller working groups to work on specific priority issues where you will be asked to address three questions which we will hand out and then report back.
>> AIDA MAHMUTOVIC: That’s right, we will try to identify the emerging issues but also you are welcome to join any time.
>> LEA KASPAR: That’s right. Raise your hand in case you want to speak. What we will start with, setting the scene, if that’s okay. We will give the word first over to Dominique Lazanski, and what happened in last year. 2015 has been a big year for Internet Governance. So if you could give everyone a kind of summary of what you think the main developments have been.
>> DOMINIQUE LAZANSKI: Great. Thank you. If I can remember them. My name is Dominique Lazanski, I’m with the GMSA, which the mobile industry’s trade association. I focus on Internet Governance and cybersecurity policy and I’m also an IGF MAG member in my second year. So I will give you a quick overview of different events from last year. And I think all of you probably know the biggest and probably the most lengthy event and process in general that we were on was the WSIS+10 review. Which I was thinking one year exactly to the day that we were in New York to start the process and there was an experts meeting, as well as an open meeting. It’s been exactly a year.
And it ended as many of you know in December, with a high level event and a high level statement after much negotiations and discussions.
But an important feature of that particular process is that all stakeholders were invited to attend and participate in open sessions of that meeting.
So that’s sort of common strand, I think that really took us through 2015. It was it was specific to 2015 as well. There were other institutionally specific events. I will just highlight a few that we talked about earlier, actually.
And, again, if you also think there’s anything missing, I would be grateful to feedback. So the global group of experts had met previously, but also there is a statement and a review and a number of countries responded to the review. This is a meeting. Basically this is a group of experts focused on cybersecurity within the UN and Lea reminded me this was a counterterrorism meeting that also took place at the UN during the high level session or at the same time concurrently.
Also, I just want to highlight, there were ongoing ITU meetings, in addition to Study Group meetings and the world radio conference council Working Group Internet met last year and will meet again this year as well.
The ITU also co convened the WSIS Forum which it does every year with three other UN institutions and that met in actually, in May of last year. Also, UNESCO, one of the co conveners of the WSIS Forum, had a conference in March called connecting the dots and you might remember a report out from that, sort of on social good and social benefits of Internet.
There is also an OECD report, a social (No audio).
Impact report, focusing on privacy and security. WSIS had its 10 year anniversary. The mandate for the IGF was renewed at the WSIS and it was the ten year anniversary but it also took place in Brazil.
In April, the Netherlands hosted the global conference on cyberspace, focused on cybersecurity, and the Hague welcomed all of us there. It’s the third in a long process called the London Process and at that was announced the GFCE, which is a capacity building or capacity building matching program.
Also, ongoing is the future of the Internet and the global commission on internet governance. Both of these groups actually continue and have had reports out on various topics.
And then we cannot forget ongoing and still ongoing IANA transition and a lot of you were involved in quite a lot of work on that last year. I will touch upon development issues related to the Internet. Again WSIS+10 focused quite a lot on access and a number of different issues and challenges for the developing and under developed world, but also in September last year, we have the sustainable development goals, the SDGs were published and as many of you know about this, as well, they are really important in terms of underpinning, access and human rights as well. And a variety of a wide variety of issues but they don’t focus on ICT or Internet specifically. And in the case of GMSA, they are underpinning the work that we do and they are quite important for us. And Jovan reminded me that the World Bank had focused digital dividends. That’s my overview. I might have missed something. If I have
>> AIDA MAHMUTOVIC: We have Nick.
>> DOMINIQUE LAZANSKI: Right Con met last year.
>> I think the freedom online coalition, and this week in Costa Rica will be really interesting. And then Rights Con, which is, you know, one of the only civil society focused or, like, organized event that is multistakeholder that tackles a lot of these issues at the intersection. So, yep.
>> LEA KASPAR: Thanks so much. So is this anything else that people would like to add about yeah, last year, what struck you as important?
All right. So we are going to go on to thank you so much, Dominique. We will move on to Jovan. If you could introduce yourself and give us a sense of what’s coming up. What is happening? We heard from Dominique what happened last year. What direction are we going and what are the priority issues that you identified?
>> AIDA MAHMUTOVIC: Oh, before that, let’s give a bit of priority to the remote participants.
>> OKSANA PRYKHODKO: There was a comment, the workshop on IGF system and congrats for his win.
>> AIDA MAHMUTOVIC: That’s your award. You are on Twitter.
>> JOVAN KURBALIJA: I guess that I’m privileged to have such a great topic to speak about the future, you know, about the future, have you quite a bit of freedom and I heard that I’m privileged because I am only male on this agenda and balanced panel. Congratulations for hosting it.
Well, the future is a great team. It’s a crystal ball exercise, but we will try to make it extrapolation of the issues that Dominique outlined in the main. One is what are the needs, the policy needs on different levels and starting from that, we can address the question of priority issues for the future.
Now, the the starting assumption is that individuals, companies, cities, governments, will need to address their policy pressing issues. They cannot be just satisfied that with the explanation that the Internet is different, that we should treat it different. They have very concrete issues. And we already saw it in Europe with European court of justice ruling where basically individuals when they couldn’t find legal redress in other way, went to European court of justice.
We have right to be forgotten ruling. We have the ruling on the Facebook, and there will be more rulings coming, not only in Europe.
This is the first way of individuals addressing and exercising their right to justice. All of us have a right for legal redress. There will be more and more pressure of courts moving into Internet Governance. For us around the table, this is a real challenge. Are we going to make proactive policy which is more balanced, nuanced, multidisciplinary, multistakeholder? I’m a lawyer, but should we wait for lawyers to develop the rulings in courts rulings.
We have Google in a way forced to deal with a half million cases or requests per year.
Second, the needs which is increasingly emerging on policy, in particular in Europe, is that the municipal authorities, companies, are trying to go find a way how to exercise their duties and responsibilities in the Internet field, practically speaking, new economy and all of us are using it, whether it is overt or B2B or other services are basically shifting the economic activities from the local communities in Europe and worldwide to online space.
We have very practical issues. Who is going to pay for the maintenance of the roads, let’s say in Paris, in Brussels in Geneva, you name, it New Delhi, who is contributing to the global public good which they use to generate it.
In Barcelona, we have very, very lively debate about the B2B. They will contribute to the economy. There’s increasing pressure from the local authorities and companies to find some solution, whether it’s a question of taxation very often.
Again, we have two options to be proactive and to find a balanced policy or these people will use the right of self defense. They will simply grab whatever portion of the policy making.
Third field is related to governments. Cyber is a part of the critical infrastructure. Governs worldwide, for different reasons, cannot afford to be basically out of the way how cybersecurities are addressed and we heard from Dominique, that the UN government experts that are different groups are trying to fill this gap.
Again, we have two options. We have anarchy as a possible, where everybody will put cyber arms up. And try to protect its interests, or we well, I would say rational beings and civilized community can sit around the table, and address the concerns of different countries.
On three levels, individual, municipal, or organizational and country levels we have a strong demand for some solutions.
In the coming period, we will have to address this demand. The bad news is that there’s a high level of confusion and for all of you who answered the ecosystem, not ego. There is a lot of rhetorics. There’s a lot of egoing. There’s a lot of different use of (No audio).
It’s not just the issue of economic issues. I came from Indonesian countries and there’s one government department that’s dealing with the digital cyber E and net and very often you have similar issues. You have it in most governments that we are analyzing and doing research. There is a confusion of what it is all about. What is the cyber diplomacy, and what is ediplomacy and they can span days, months, basically to have a lot of discussions and debates lost in translation.
First, the demand is rising. We have to provide the answers and we have to deal with the question of lost in translation when it comes to digital voice.
>> AIDA MAHMUTOVIC: Thank you, Jovan. I’m trying to map some issues. We will come back to them. But now I would like to invite Megan Richards. If you could briefly introduce yourself and take it away.
>> MEGAN RICHARDS: Thank you very much. It’s always a pleasure to be here at EuroDIG. I’m from the European Commission. I’m principal advisor and responsible for Internet Governance. Very large area.
I thought it would be important to put this in more of a European context, since we are at EuroDIG. Dominique has mentioned some of the global issues and Jovan is looking into the future in your proposals but not specifically to Europe. And what does it mean for Europe?
Well, one thing that Europe has been very active in, and I’m sorry to story with IANA accountability on the first point but it’s something that Europe has been calling for for a number of year. We have Council conclusions on it. We have comments in commission communications, et cetera. So I think this is something which for the multistakeholder approach for Internet Governance is something that Europeans have been very active in, have participated extremely actively in all the discussions and in the proposals that have gone forward.
This is an area where we are hoping that the transition will go through and go through in a timely manner. I think where Europeans could also make a very useful contribution to the next stage, to putting the transition into action, to participating actively in the empowered community, to making sure that this transition works well, and is meeting all the ethical and other criteria that go along with the process. So that’s an area where I think we have a continued responsibility obligation, interest, and I’m I’m sure that people will continue to work on that.
That’s one area. The other, of course, is as Dominique has said too, we now are in a position where a new mandate for another ten years of the IGF has been established. I mentioned it this morning this is the first EuroDIG that has an opportunity to feed into the first year of the new round of IGF. So I think we have also an opportunity here to really focus, perhaps, on some really outstanding issues that are particular interest here and importance here, European borders but perhaps we can put some refinements or clarifications on some of the issues we are doing here, which will help at global level to to clarify the problems, identify solutions, et cetera.
So in that sense, I’m counting very much on the EuroDIG process to help with this, as well as, of course, the many activities that go on either nationally or subregionally, the southeast European Dialogue on Internet Governance. I think there we can also make a lot of progress.
With respect to other related issues, of course, in the European Union and this, of course, goes beyond the European Union because we have the EEA countries who participate, the EFTA to a certain extent, some of the neighboring countries also participate and follow the legislative procedures that take place in Europe.
We have the digital single market initiative and strategies. We have a whole series of issues that are being addressed there. It’s clear that the European initiatives with respect to 5g, which, again go far beyond the European borders where we have collaborations with China, Korea, India, United States, et cetera, are going to be something that we can really work on both from a technical point of view, from a public policy point of view, including civil society concerns, et cetera.
So I think this is another area where we can work together. Internet of Things, another area where I think in Europe, we have been leading is perhaps an unfortunate word but very active in identifying this as an area of particular interest where we have to really address all the technical public policy, civil society, standardization issues and make some clear identification of issues and potential ways of resolving them and, again, this is also being addressed in the digital single market strategy.
I could list a long list of other issues but I think also just to wrap up, and give sort of an overall flavor to all of this, I think is something relating to what I’m going to call European values of human rights, protection of human rights, freedom of expression, the usual standards that we uphold and I think are very important to continue in all of our discussions on Internet Governance and in this new digital economy and society.
So I think that’s something we should keep in the back of our minds as we are going forward.
>> AIDA MAHMUTOVIC: Thank you very much.
So I would okay. So I would like to thank once again to our panelists and as we were trying to map a little bit here what we have heard. So so far, we have cybersecurity, development, access, jurisdiction, regulation, Critical Internet Resources, digital single Internet market and Internet of Things.
Yes, thank you, Serena. I just wanted to say that it is important. Megan thank you for mentioning southeastern Europe, since we want to hear some voices and what is happening there since now we have a lot of national IGF initiatives and subregional initiatives. So Serena, if you could give an update from this region thank you.
>> SERENA: Thank you.
I don’t want to go into details about it. We have a session after this session. So if you want to hear more about our subregional initiative, you are invited to join. I wanted to add to bring the southeastern Europe, trying to understand how the Internet Governance in our region sees the Internet Governance and we’ve got some interesting results. One of the questions we asked was about the most challenging Internet Governance that people in the region feel the region actually shares and I would read you to the results of the survey. The large majority of the people that said that the main challenge in the region is still digital divide in its various dimensions. And then we have privacy and data protection, cybersecurity and cybercrime, and then with lower messages, availability of local content, IDNs which is rather specific to our region.
And we also got some specific examples. There was a space for people to indicate something that was not in the forum. Net neutrality, and human rights issues online, and transparency and openness and collaboration. And national processes and then pan European and global. And then the need for more awareness raising and capacity building as another issue for our region to consider when it comes to internet connection. That’s in short what I wanted to say, and, again, you are kindly invited to our flash session.
>> LEA KASPAR: I think we have a remote participant who wanted to make a comment.
>> OKSANA PRYKHODKO: Yes, a lot of comments. It’s from Trita. Yes
>> LEA KASPAR: Are there questions from remote?
>> OKSANA PRYKHODKO: No. No.
>> LEA KASPAR: All right. So Aida, as Aida said, we are trying to pick up on some of the issues to help us frame the rest of the session, and some of the this is not a perfect taxonomy, so if we could just say, like, this is not I don’t think I’m not even sure that that exists, Jovan. You are the expert here. If we start talking about taxonomy
>> AIDA MAHMUTOVIC: It’s an issue.
>> LEA KASPAR: A problem. Taxonomies. But to help us think through what the priority issues are. We have a laundry list here but what we would hike to do, have smaller groups discuss and go a little bit deeper into each of these issues, to help us rather than having ten, if we could and come up with four and agree which four we would we could go deeper into. I don’t know if the security group, and perhaps access digital divide and development and have that as a second group.
I don’t know, maybe Jovan, what do you think about the jurisdiction regulation one? How do we frame that so it’s clear what we are talking about. Would digital market go there? Or is there a completely separate thing?
(Off microphone comment).
>> MEGAN RICHARDS: It’s a bit broader, but if you want, throw it in there, just to keep it put it somewhere. (Chuckles).
>> LEA KASPAR: Jovan, do you have a suggestion or how to kind of
>> JOVAN KURBALIJA: Well, we can frame it as jurisdictional, the challenges for digital single market. How is that?
>> LEA KASPAR: Good luck to that group!
Good luck. You are going to be
>> MEGAN RICHARDS: I mentioned it slightly but perhaps it was too obscure to be understood correctly and when I talk about digital single market it goes beyond just the European Union, there’s the EA and neighboring countries but one of the intentions and the goal of the single digital market is to make it easier for countries outside the European Union to trade with Europe.
So please, when I say European Union, don’t think that everyone else is excluded.
>> LEA KASPAR: Thanks so much. We haven’t really captured human rights. Serena mentioned it and Megan you mentioned it.
>> AIDA MAHMUTOVIC: Many times, yeah.
>> LEA KASPAR: But free expression, privacy issues. That’s all kind of one
>> AIDA MAHMUTOVIC: Under one umbrella, yes.
>> LEA KASPAR: Croatia. I’m Croatian. That’s why Jovan is mentioning it, and he’s Serbian, but we are good friends. We will battle it out on the dance floor later on tonight.
Given the number of people in the room, my inclination is to have four groups and have it in four corners of these tables and have people self select where they want to go, according to what interests you. If there’s a if there’s a lack of interest in a group, we can ditch it. That’s okay. It’s priority issues. If people are not interested in it.
>> AIDA MAHMUTOVIC: It tells us something.
>> LEA KASPAR: And then if there are orphan people, people who feel they are not represented, they can form their own rebel group and see if they can figure out their approach, guerrilla approach.
So you can tell me if you want to go in a different direction, but I would say cybersecurity and then have digital development as a second. We could have regulatory and jurisdictional issues, connected to the digital single market under the third one, and I would like to suggest human rights as a as a fourth group, unless anyone objects to that, or feels strongly about having a Critical Internet Resources and really wants to discuss that.
Seeing none, I will take silence as a Jovan.
>> JOVAN KURBALIJA: Yes, I gave the title, I will moderate that group.
>> AIDA MAHMUTOVIC: Awesome. So no hands.
>> LEA KASPAR: Okay. So what we will do now and apologies to the remote participants because when we break into smaller groups it will be difficult for them to follow but we will wrap up at the end of this session, the last 15 minutes. What we would like to do now is invite each of you Aida will let you know which groups should go where.
And we’ll give you a list of three questions that you will be asked to address very clearly. If we could have one Rapporteur per group to come back to us in the last 15 minutes of session and let us know the answers to those questions that are coming from the group.
We have before we break, Oksana, remote?
>> OKSANA PRYKHODKO: Vladimir proposed to form their own group and ask someone to moderate it.
>> LEA KASPAR: Excellent. Excellent.
>> AIDA MAHMUTOVIC: It’s always useful to have him around, even remotely.
>> LEA KASPAR: So Jovan, you will be the first one. Maybe you could stay here in this corner. So whoever is interested in the jurisdiction regulatory issues in the digital single market, if I may suggest they join Jovan.
>> JOVAN KURBALIJA: Whatever you wanted to ask about this question but you didn’t dare to do it.
>> LEA KASPAR: Now is your chance. And perhaps on this side, if we could have the digital development, where Megan is sitting right now. So around her, remote moderation, if that’s okay.
I don’t know, Megan if you want to take up any of the groups.
>> MEGAN RICHARDS: I’m happy to join that one.
>> LEA KASPAR: And then Dominique, you can do cybersecurity.
>> AIDA MAHMUTOVIC: In this corner.
>> LEA KASPAR: And then over there, we will have human rights.
Okay. Human rights.
>> AIDA MAHMUTOVIC: Cybersecurity versus human rights. Interesting.
So while you are thinking about which group to join, I will give you a piece of paper with three really oh, shall I say simple yes, simple questions. It’s going to make it easier for you to report back. Yes, please just stretch a little bit, walk a little bit, choose your group.
>> LEA KASPAR: You have until quarter to 4:00 and we will be asked we will ask one Rapporteur for each group to tell us what came out of the discussion.
>> AIDA MAHMUTOVIC: And Serena, if you feel you could join the human rights group maybe.
>> LEA KASPAR: Thanks very much. And we’ll come back in, I think, about half an hour. Half an hour. Excellent.
>> AIDA MAHMUTOVIC: Good luck, everyone.
(Small group discussion).
>> AIDA MAHMUTOVIC: Ready for a new quiz?
They are ignoring me. Quiz? New quiz.
>> LEA KASPAR: She’s lying. She’s lying. She’s just trying to get you to
>> AIDA MAHMUTOVIC: Cyber is ignoring totally.
Okay. If the subgroups could wrap up and we’ll ask the group Rapporteurs to come to the front.
So I was really actually happy. I was walking around to see papers filling and, yes thank you for that. No empty papers.
>> LEA KASPAR: Who is the human rights Rapporteur?
>> AIDA MAHMUTOVIC: So what we need is the Rapporteurs to please join us here. Spotlight is here.
>> LEA KASPAR: Is it Serena?
>> AIDA MAHMUTOVIC: Serena? No? Good.
>> LEA KASPAR: Oh, Perick? Can I make an interesting to note something which is the groups sorry, the room has we have called the room to order.
>> AIDA MAHMUTOVIC: Hijacking.
>> LEA KASPAR: For those of you who have not noticed, no one came to talk about development, digital development access. Sad face.
So, yeah, apparently, that’s well, at least for the participants in this room, that wasn’t a priority. And I have to say, I have done a similar exercise in splitting a group in smaller groups, or room into smaller groups and I had a similar experience with so many people, the majority of the people going into the cybersecurity group, which happened here as well, which I thought was very interesting.
All right. So to wrap up our session, if the Rapporteur from each group could give us the answers to the questions that we have we have presented. Maybe they could just go first, Perik, do you want to kick us off.
>> AIDA MAHMUTOVIC: Just check your mic.
>> Thank you. So from the human rights group, we okay. Well, the first question is the problem statement. What is the issue that you are addressing? Please elaborate, briefly explaining the issues.
So a number of issues came up. First we thought that human rights were an afterthought, that they were separate from everything and that the structure of the discussion and the way it represents that, that human rights should have been part of each and every group. We also noted that there’s a shrinking space online for human rights and that the governments can now be more repressive and restrict the ability of people to enjoy their human rights online.
We also noted out the operationalization of human rights can be difficult to fulfill online. We also noted the questions of anonymity and privacy, that they are in a way dual use concepts that they could be good because they can empower people to exercise their human rights but they can be used to create human rights abused, say, by hate speech.
We also noted that mass surveillance as a big problem, essentially a big violation of human rights, and we also noticed that some that within the broader spectrum of Internet governance, some issues, some human rights issues get more or less talked about, maybe, say, for instance, the right to protest.
We also were seeing how terms of services, in fact, that was discussed in the plenary to an extent have human rights implications and they may not be coming to the top of mind when we consider these issues. And we thought that non state actors can slip through laws and regulations and therefore commit human rights violations online.
And so that’s what our analysis of situation was.
>> LEA KASPAR: Thanks so much. Is there anything else that someone from that group would like to add to that?
Thank you so much for that summary. I think that was very interesting. That was just the problem statement?
>> That’s correct.
>> LEA KASPAR: Now we will go to the solution for all of those problems. I’m so happy to hear.
>> Okay. Cool. So for the solutions, we really noted that education was a really big part of what we thought should be done. Education, it could be both general education on human rights, generally speaking. In western countries, you know, there might be a level of knowledge that may be higher than in other places but, you know, this was still pointed out.
We also focused specifically on the education of youth and young people. Digital skills and digital literacy, concept of proper behavior and good, I guess you could say online citizenship was noted as something that could be inculcated early on.
We also thought that further developing and advocating for human rights based approaches within Internet Governance. Our group believes they are not quite yet mainstream and maybe in a way awareness raising was a solution here.
And we also thought that promoting inclusion and genuine inclusion would be part of the solution. Right now, it’s a bit bureaucratic the way it’s done and sometimes it doesn’t reflect the ethos of Internet Governance. Another more, I guess, functional question is the question of language also because often in Internet stuff is in English and that may be good for people who speak English, but that’s not everybody.
But we also noted that there was some some positive evolution here. One of our group members mentioned how in in Brazil, the IGF Brazil was developing an interesting youth program that included a youth observatory to promote youth participation in Internet Governance, if I believe, if I got that correct. I hope.
And so, yeah, it really, I think boils down to education and awareness raising.
And number three, okay. So number three, we essentially rejected the premise of the question, because we felt there was a lot of varied context, especially in a nation context. So that there’s one size fits all is not the right approach. And with first point that we made also is that human rights as an afterthought, we kind of thought that, you know, we should open this question to everybody in the room, not just about human rights but baking human rights into all other aspects of Internet Governance.
So, yes, back to you.
>> AIDA MAHMUTOVIC: So does that mean you are not leaving the room. That’s the premise of the last question.
>> LEA KASPAR: Well, thanks so much.
>> AIDA MAHMUTOVIC: Dominique.
>> DOMINIQUE LAZANSKI: We have similar conclusions as you. So we will kind of connect on that.
The first point is the problem statements. We had an actually really interesting discussion about the debate, more than actually the specifics of the debate, at least initially. We brought up issues of language. Not just use of language, but different types of languages, obviously, definitions, representation and the difference in numbers in terms of which stakeholders are at at the IGF. So, for example, civil society tends to be growing in numbers and government and law enforcement, in particular, and also companies are shrinking and so there’s a lot of discussion about sort of what do we do how do we make the debate happen. and then we move on to the debate itself and on sort of the issues.
So we have someone discuss the focus on cybersecurity tends to be a focus on national security and that often prevents different stakeholders or turns away or intimidates different stakeholders from participating. And then we had someone from Ripe NCC said you know, his certain was that cybersecurity was protecting about the end user and other stakeholder communities like the technical community, it’s about specifically securing networks and sort of technical aspects of that.
And then obviously private sector has different definitions of that. I think that covers a wide range of discussions for the first point. Did I miss anything? Anybody? Okay.
>> AIDA MAHMUTOVIC: That was very vivid. Thank you so much.
So who is the Rapporteur for
>> DOMINIQUE LAZANSKI: There are other questions. There are themes in terms of engagement. We talked about potential solutions which actually morphed into the sort of one thing you would do.
So one of the key challenges that we sort of found or at least I’m distilling that we found was an issue around identifying and understanding and knowing what the different initiatives are, right?
So there’s still very much a focus on national issues or national solutions because of jurisdictional issues, but but also there’s a lot of different groups and different organizations and different processes in parallel that are duplicative.
So we talked about how we can actually bring that together. There were mentions about digital literacy, education, and C certs. We had participation from a remote participant on that point. We talked about MAPI and how a lot of people in different stakeholder groups don’t know what is going on and that leads to our last point. I will be very quick.
It’s okay. One of the things we talked about was basically how we can come together and communicate with each other, but also is there one stop shop or how does everything interrelate? But then we also discussed how do we change forums like this or the IGF in general from continuing to have the same discussion and moving the discussion forward.
And then finally, the thing that relates to human rights, cybersecurity should not be versus human rights. We need an and with human rights, and in my person, the uncomfortableness of that discussion also needs to happen as well.
I think that’s it.
I hope I covered everything.
>> LEA KASPAR: That was amazing. Thank you so much. Dominique. Jovan, would you like to do a recap?
>> JOVAN KURBALIJA: We concluded to open the Working Group, which we will follow up on you are intensive discussion.
And have a retreat in the lovely village of Bosnia Herzegovina. It’s not a small town.
>> Very small town.
>> JOVAN KURBALIJA: Okay. Good. On a more serious note, what we basically back to the points, the bias, you should interview. How should we direct the regulatory solutions in Europe and beyond, mainly in the economy.
We agreed that we are more or less agreed that individual entities and countries do not have a place where they can address their concerns.
Those places exist in traditional way, but online interaction confused them, basically, and magnified the problem. We have fiscal problems, recently followed by the papers issue. It existed in the preInternet era but the Internet era makes those issues even more difficult to address.
Then we basically listed some issues and then we moved to the potential existing solutions and then we discussed it we discussed the question of spillover, policy spillover. Is it okay if European policy or any other country creates a spillover to the other countries?
And we this is the reality of the global policy, and that’s nothing special. But we also argue and this is interesting argument, that European spillover could be beneficial for the world, for a few reasons. Because of the core values that Europe promotes, view of human rights, democracy and inclusion. And therefore that spillover could be useful for the rest of the world.
There was another point, Europe is probably the last strong public policy institution, which due to its sheer size (No audio).
Can exercise some sort of power over the over the other no, developing what is considered European weakness. Are the long policy processes of consultations and, you know, it’s the stories and in Brussels, help long time people spend in consultations and meetings.
Now, if you want to have inclusion, you need to have consultations. Therefore, you cannot have it both ways. To have efficient policy, and to have inclusive. It’s very difficult to have it.
Now European Union weakness, if I can put it in inverted commas, is that it has long processes. Can Europe turn its inverted commas into advantage. By creating inclusive with the environmental different stakeholders. Therefore, turning its weakness into its advantage on the in the global policy making.
This is interesting interesting food for thought. We get a few examples from the Netherlands about the effective multistakeholder participation, that it works, in practice, and it’s not only a question of the value as inclusion, but it’s very practical, because people consider those decisions to be legitimate. This is another question. Legitimacy of multistakeholder process through the quality of systems and I see some laughing because she’s preparing for the next IGF.
But, but, but, the question that I have been asking I was a bit provocative, what the our friend from Bosnia, from Sarajevo saying to the taxi drivers. The question is: What would you advise the mayor of Sarajevo. And I think our Working Group, that will meet for five days during the summer, we will address this.
It’s a fair summary.
>> AIDA MAHMUTOVIC: Thank you so much. It seems like you had a lot of fun.
All right. I can’t wait to hear for the follow up from Nome.
>> LEA KASPAR: Well, on this occasion, I would like to close the session before we close. I would just like to thank my co moderator Aida. All the key discussions, reporters, and the participants. Chris, we’ll be seeing you later, if he’s still here.
>> AIDA MAHMUTOVIC: He’s gone.
>> LEA KASPAR: He’s gone and also I would like to thank the remote participants the remote participants and our remote moderator Oksana.
>> AIDA MAHMUTOVIC: One more thing, we wouldn’t have the quiz if we didn’t have no Stephanie. Just in case someone from Diplo, please say a huge thank you from Stephanie.
>> LEA KASPAR: Thank you so much, everyone.
Session twitter hashtag