Wrap-up, reporting-in, take aways and conclusions – 2010

From EuroDIG Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

30 April 2010 | 16:30-18:00
Programme overview 2010

Session teaser

Wrap-up with reference to key messages that could be delivered to the IGF 2010


Key Participants

  • Sebastian Muriel, General Director of Red.es (Chairman)
  • Jeroen Schokkenbroek, Council of Europe


  • Lee Hibbard, Council of Europe
  • Thomas Schneider, Swiss Federal Office of Communication


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.

>> We have just under 45 minutes to do reporting in very briefly from seven workshops with some conclusions from different stakeholder groups. As you know, who were at the last EuroDIG, what worked very well was a good practice was to have mixing take-aways with conclusions and with reporting in from sessions from workshops where we couldn’t all attend all the workshops at all times, so we want to know a little bit more about that.

I think we should do the workshop reporting in first of all, and we’re going to go first of all to Estelle De Marco for workshop 1 with regard to cybercrime, and while I walk up there, we had EuroDIG 420 registrations, of which there are 50 remote participants, of which there were ten remote hubs across Europe. Seven workshops, five plenary sessions, three side events all carried out with great hospitality and efficiency from our Spanish hosts, so thank you very much.

I’d like to call Estelle De Marco to give us a brief summary of workshop 1, please.

>> ESTELLE DE MARCO: Thank you, everybody. I’ll try to summarize quickly the conclusion that you’ll find on the website. So the discussion around cloud computing services was really rich in terms of issues raised, and we identified that cloud computing magnifies some of the concerns raised many years ago within the cybercrime field. These concerns can be grouped together under four main themes. The first one is the protection of human rights in the cloud, because most of the time – one of the data subject is a guarantee that safeguards are in place and individuals fear that the information is misused by cloud service providers and law enforcement.

It was also identified that the legal framework for data protection has been challenged. For instance, in Romania, and the Netherlands. While the decision – is considered as a reaffirmation of the importance of protecting personal data – sorry for the accent – as a condition of the exercise of other freedoms.

The second issue is the one of transnational investigation, law enforcement, national borders, while cybercrime is international, and while data stored in clouds are often difficult to localize. The situation generates several concerns, for instance, how to define when investigation crosses a national border or in which cases an investigator can access information stored abroad without referring to local law enforcement.

The third issue is the one of ISP uncertainty. ISPs are willing to cooperate but are in an environment of legal uncertainty since they are sometimes required to comply with contradictory requirements there are on one hand to protect privacy rights of the consumers and, on the other hand, to respond to law enforcement requests. Another problem they face is the possible difference of the interpretation of local laws.

The fourth and last issue, category of issues, is the necessity to ensure confidence in cloud computing services. We identified that there was the need to maintain trust and confidence for cloud computing services and to build the regulatory framework without disturbing the development of such services.

In conclusion, we propose a set of assessments and recommendations that I will try to quote briefly. The first one is that there are no international guidelines for law enforcement to access cross-border data, ensuring the respect of mutual assistance procedures and the reduction of time needed to carry out investigations.

Secondly, there is a need for further discussions about the criteria used to data mine the law applicable to information hosted in the clouds.

Third, there is a need for transparent policies for Internet service providers with regard to the location of data. There is still a problem of – of legislation with regard to cybercrime investigation and access to personal data. It was identified specific roles to access cross-border data should be created, perhaps in the form of additional protocol.

There is also a need of better legal certainty about the international best practices to Internet service providers within the framework of cybercrime investigation.

There was a general consensus on the establishment of a data retention policy that would strike the correct balance between investigation needs and the implementation of adequate safeguards in the field of privacy.

There is also the urgent need to provide training and capacity building for law enforcement agencies, for instance, under the auspices of existing training initiatives in the cybercrime field.

There is also the need for a multi-stakeholders approach to provide a better understanding and awareness of cybercrime jurisdiction and cloud computing based on an equal level basis and establishment of clear obligations and responsibility for each of the stakeholders.

There is a need to explore the creation of platforms to improve regional and international cooperation among judicial networks in the industry.

There is a need to update the rules of judicial competence and jurisdiction in the field of data protection in the cloud environment, ensuring a better efficiency and transparency of criminal investigation while respecting the existing international standards on privacy and data protection.

And finally, the creation of future European policies and initiatives in the field of cloud computing should be well coordinated.

Just in conclusion, we would like to make the following calls. Three calls. First we call on the Council of Europe to establish a multistakeholder working group of experts to discuss the issues raised during the workshop and to take immediate action at the regional level.

Second, we call upon the Council of Europe to address specific – for law enforcement to carry out trans-border criminal investigations.

And third, we call upon the secretary general of the Internet Governance Forum to consider the cybercrime – in the agenda of the upcoming IGF meeting. Thank you very much. Sorry for the time.

>> Thank you. The next speaker – and please try to stick to two minutes rather than three – is the Rapporteur of the workshop on the new top-level domains. Wolfgang, please.

>> WOLFGANG KLEINWACHTER: Okay. Thank you very much. Workshop 2 –

>> No, no, no.

>> WOLFGANG KLEINWACHTER: Yeah. Workshop 2 was on the future of the domain name system, in particular, the introduction of new top-level domains, a process which is under discussion within ICANN, and we have five messages within this workshop.

The first message is that the domain name system is a public resource, and the public interests in the domain name system has to be respected when broadening the domain name space.

The second message was if it comes to the introduction of new top-level domains, we should have a better differentiation. So at the moment, we have mainly two categories, the CCLDs and the TTLDs, and the majority of the members in the workshop supported the idea of a better differentiation by various means it could be differentiation by the introduction of new categories or by specific contracts between ICANN and the new registries or by another approach that you make a separation between commercial and noncommercial domains.

But whatever system should emerge, it should be simple and easy to manage.

The third message is that for the process of the introduction of new top-level domains, the role of governments has to be reconsidered. There are a number of projects which certainly would need, to a certain degree, a governmental involvement, but it’s not clear how far this should go, in particular if it comes to so-called GOTLDs, that means top-level domains which refer to cities or to administrative units like lender in a federation or states or other things where administration plays a certain role.

The fourth message is that in this process, it has to be clear what is the applicable jurisdiction, in particular, for registries and registrars. I think this is a question. There is overlapping jurisdiction, and sometimes it’s not 100% clear if something is happening in one country in a domain, you know, how then the procedure would be under which jurisdiction the conflict would be settled.

And the final and last message is primary message to ICANN is speed up the process, so we discussed new top-level domains already since nearly ten years, and we expect – EuroDIG expects that ICANN will speed up the process. And it was also a very important argument used here in this debate was that the one-size-fits-all approach, which ICANN prefers at the moment, it’s partly the reason why the process has been slowed down. If ICANN had preferred a more differential approach, probably it would have been a faster process. Reconsider the options for differentiation. Thank you.

>> Yes. Workshop three was on Internet as a platform for innovation and development of the new business model, and we mostly agree that we are in a transition stage, and the importance of the digitalization of content and cultural heritage, and there was strong debate about the development of new sustainable models for creating such contents, and there were some points that there was strong debate on them, which was the need for harmonized European legislation, definitely; the demand to enable access to digital contents independently in what European country you are; and we have two different perspectives of the digital contents, one from the corporate or cultural content and the other as other areas. Everybody agreed there is not enough local security. It’s needed more legislation in order to develop the business.

And there is not enough supply of digital contents, especially in some areas, no multilanguage shows some concerns, and there is a global agreement that there is needed space for certain dialogue. So there is no clear points in which to find an agreement.

In terms of new promising business models, new business models based on mashup contents or digital derivatives or something, related issues, are promising, and there is also the need of appointing which aggregators telco operators and creators can launch some agreements.

And finally, on net neutrality, we just start because it was by the end of the session, and there is strong debate. There was no real agreement on how to develop sustainable models for deployment of the new networks capable to deal with the new digital contents created. Mostly this. Thank you.

>> Hello. Okay. Now it’s working. Thank you very much. We have Carlos and Thomas for workshop 6.

>> Actually, the name of the workshop itself is IPv6 transition, business impact, and governance issues. Let me apologize first because actually the moderator of the session was my colleague, Fred Harrison, head of standards for Telefonica, but he had to leave before, so I’m going to draft the results on the business aspects, and Michael will explain to talk about the governance issues.

The most important topic is the timeline of IPv6 because that has impact on businesses. The conclusion, the consensus among all of us is time for IPv6 uptake is right now because the allocations that are left there so we can use them are not enough providing us time to cope with complex infrastructures and back-office applications migration.

Second message was that the main trial and almost the only trial for IPv6 today is actually in – it seems to be happening kind of secondary market, but it is a complicated thing. It’s not recommended at all to go into these things.

Third, IPv6 is considered today a – so we shouldn’t expect in the short-term revenue increase for businesses or cost reduction, but it’s more some necessary step in order to continue our operations. Of course, once it’s there, we can identify opportunities ahead such as machine to machine or Internet that are next steps that we should be discussing here, and as another next step, it’s important to start planning our networks as soon as possible.

And just to end an open question that maybe we should talk further in discussions is how to market IPv6 to end users, and we have to do this because in the end, in the home premises, we have to upgrade the routers for the users. So.

>> In the governance topics, there were several topics that were touched upon. First one was considering national initiatives were available and what instruments do governments have, and the consensus seemed to be that using the instrument of public procurement process is to require support for IPv6 would be a measure that is within the powers of government and that has an impact. And then together with that, the governments have a responsibility to continue to ensure that citizens can continue to be able to reach public services without impediment in spite of what might be going on in the background.

On the topic of the RIR system in the face of IPv6 deployment, the conclusion seemed to be that the RIR system does not need to be changed at the current time, that if anything, the RIR system has been one of the systems involved in this process that has been ready for the longest time and that, if anything, the role in all this process is that of facilitating deployment and providing information.

We had the participant talking about the role of the European Commission in IPv6 deployment. We covered some topics regarding past efforts in which there have been heavy investment in research. Retch is now considered to be done, complete, and the process now is one of convincing the Member States to move ahead.

The Commission itself is going ahead with its own transition to IPv6 to make their own services available that way. And there are several issues that were addressed in the most recent communication plan, Action Plan for Member States. Identifying monitoring and training are two aspects.

The European Commission does, indeed, have concerns with potential market distortions that may be introduced if an IPv4 secondary market is to develop due to the scarcity of the resource.

Last topic touched upon was what would be the role of national regulators concerning this. Well, first take-away point seemed to be that first it would be the role of legislators to study whether there is current legislation regarding the deployment of IPv6. Work inside each country’s structure to facilitate the requests to have public services enabled over IPv6 – must learn about IPv6 so they can regulate as necessary from a point of knowledge. And be aware that the alternative scenarios to the IPv6 deployment do have impacts in Internet growth, and when they involve multilayer and complex deployment, they will put some operators in a position where they will be able to control what users can access and cannot access, and that would eventually create the possibility of generating monopoly positions that are later very difficult to devolve.

>> Thank you very much. Okay. Let’s pass to workshop 5, children and social media. Jutta, a few words.

>> JUTTA: The workshop was focused more on what users, and especially young users, were doing with the Internet, and the discussion was opened up by the representative of the Finnish Children’s Parliament which told us which role the Internet plays in that family communication, and they stated that their mom doesn’t know what they are doing on the Internet and on Facebook and that they are talking quite a lot in the family about the Internet. And this was elaborated further by many other people in the room.

Yes, it’s necessary to talk with children about what they are doing on the Internet, about their online habits, but nevertheless, it seemed that the people in the room, the stakeholders were people that were called in recent study, digital avant-garde, that means people really familiar with using the Internet, and we – it was said in the workshop that we should not forget that most families, the parents don’t know much about the Internet, they don’t have the time to talk with their children about the Internet, so we need to find a solution for that situation, and it was confirmed by a comment from the remote participation hub in Muldoba, which put the question in the workshop many parents have to work abroad, and therefore, they can’t take care for their children’s online protection. What shall we do in Muldoba?

And it was also reported that the same situation occurs in, for example, boarding schools, where it’s not possible to have that one-to-one relationship between children and teachers, for example, to talk in detail about children’s online behavior.

It was then mentioned that there were many initiatives already on the way, for example, Teach Today, or the project Internet Infamalia by the firm – in Spain, who are working with schools and also families on Internet safety questions.

It was then raised the issue that social networks have become so popular in the last months, especially to younger children, so what shall we do with younger children when going on to the Internet and using social networks? And it was stated by all of the stakeholders that industry and law enforcement must recognize their collective responsibility and to work together.

Then there was a question also about what role could technical tools, for example, filter tech following or parental control tools, do for taking responsibility, and this question was not answered in the workshop, but there was more information in the report about the workshop, which is on the Internet.

Then it was mentioned that we should try to promote a cybersecurity culture among young people themselves, and this was also reinforced by the finish Children’s Parliament who said that the children should be encouraged to use the Internet because it enabled them to participate in society.

Finally, to summarize, the message for the next IGF was that all stakeholders should be involved in the development of a balanced approach focusing on the benefits of Internet usage but also being aware of the risks and threats. And in addition, there must be a balance between children’s rights and privacy on the one hand and between the parents’ tasked to take care, to be responsible for the children, and this question, how you can balance between parent obligations to supervise on the one hand and children’s rights and privacy on the other hand, that’s quite not answered satisfyingly yet.

The next IGF will provide for an opportunity for platform to bring together the relevant stakeholders, but maybe the discussions should not so much focus on what has been done in the past but on what should be done in the future, so to speak with one of the workshop participants, not to lose another generation. Thank you.

>> Thank you.

>> Elvana, please.

>> ELVANA THACI: Thank you. In workshop 6, we discussed different aspects of cross-border Internet from a legal and human rights protection perspective.

There was a common understanding that the enjoyment and effective exercise of freedom and expression and other fundamental rights at the Internet should be addressed at the international level. Solutions to this issue are currently being explored. For example, it was reported that the Icelandic Modern Media Initiative is trying to strengthen freedom of expression by providing the legal framework for the protection of information sources, whistle-blowers, and communications in general. It was considered that Internet is transboundary, but somehow state territorial borders remain valid as content is stored locally.

One of the main messages that came out of the discussions was that international law has precedence and provides guidance which can be instructed for the purposes of instructing principles on cross-border Internet. For example, equitable – the principle of state responsibility for actions taking place in one jurisdiction which has negative impact in other jurisdictions. The state responsibility for action taken by private actors.

We discussed some very interesting perspectives on the concept of sovereignty. It was suggested that the understanding of sovereignty in Internet governance should be informed by concepts such as aggregated sovereignty of citizens or collaborative sovereignty. Thank you.

>> Thank you very much, Alvana. Okay. Workshop 7, Kevin Fraser.

>> KEVIN FRASER: Hello. Thank you. Workshop 7 was how can we go from fog to secure cloud, but first I’d like to congratulate the organizers for providing a setting which provided for an informal, dynamic, at times lively debate on cloud computing.

Six main messages. Clarified roles and responsibilities of actors, including services provided to individuals acting in their personal capacity through interpretation, guidance, and possible revision of regulatory frameworks.

Secondly, improving and facilitating international data transfers and improving certainty as to applicable law and jurisdiction.

Third, increased transparency regarding privacy and security for customers of cloud computing services fifth, effective consumer control over their privacy and processing of their data, including deletion, and improved enforceability of consumers’ data protection.

Five, increased awareness on cloud services, services and contractual policies. And finally, increased legal certainty through the adoption of global standards.

>> That was very quick. Thank you very much for that. We are going to now pass to the panelists for some conclusions of their own. Before doing that, I just want to say a very great thank you to all the organizers and all the people behind the seven workshops and the three side events because if you think about how much work that took to bring those together, groups of people working together, I’ve counted over a hundred people who are mobilized behind those sessions to deliver them over the last two days, so I’d really like to say thank you to all of you, even to those who contributed but couldn’t come, and to the moderators.

I’d like to have a youth perspective. It’s – the youth are present, ever more present, and the youth forum, can you give us a few of your take-aways? Thank you.

>> Hi. During those two days we have been discussing a lot about child and youth participation in Internet and new media tools and about the safety and security protection and so on. And we find that rather than concentrating on the safety issues, we should concentrate on educating all the parties in the Society to use social media or new media tools in a proper way, and that means involving both formal and nonformal education tools. Because if we are trying to protect children and say that don’t use that webpage or that tool, then we are trying to keep them in a safe environment. But the question is what happens if they face the real life? If they have been kept in a safe network and then they have to go do the real Internet, then I believe that we have bigger issues than to keeping them safe.

In addition, we believe that Internet and new media tools should be brought to education systems, which means we all have IT classes in schools, but what’s the purpose of using wood or learning to use wood in these classes when we have bigger issues to concentrate on, like new media tools, which is a big part of today’s world.

In addition, we see new media tools can be used in everyday life processes as an educational tool, a big one, because it is quite unlimited and gives opportunity to participate to all youngsters, disabled and nondisabled people.

In addition, we believe that we should be more concentrate on the opportunities that Internet and new media tools create. It means e-participation. As our Finnish youngsters told them, e-participation is opportunity for youngsters to speak up and ask. Loads of youngsters are a bit afraid of speaking up in front of adults. Then they can express their opinions and point of views online, and it’s easier for them because they don’t have to be afraid what pore people will think.

And that’s – he asked the question of providing equal opportunities to everyone.

And finally, we encourage to involve youngsters in all those discussions about Internet and new media tools because if adults don’t take us seriously, then we don’t take participation seriously, and we believe that youth participation is a key point in developing our society and active citizenship. Thank you.

>> Thank you very much from a young perspective to a 60-year-old perspective, to the perspective of a 60-year-old institution called the Council of Europe. What does the Council of Europe take home?

>> Thank you. I’m happy that you’re not referring to myself personally.


I am not going to – certainly not going to attempt to refer to the various things coming out of the workshops that have been mentioned already. We’ll certainly consider them back at home in Strasberg. There are some good ideas.

I’d just like to at random mention a couple points that I thought were quite interesting and that could inspire our further action.

Much emphasis was placed on the need for more international cooperation between law enforcement agencies as regards criminal content. Of course, reference was made – and I should just repeat it – that there is an existing legal framework for such international corporation, the Budapest cybercrime convention. We actually do a lot of work already to promote such cooperation between law enforcement. And I would just say we will be certainly pursuing that and see whether that kind of cooperation can be also a model for other forms of criminal content that are not covered by the Budapest Convention.

Further point, on coming from the content policies session, clearly what came out of there was the great diversity, variety of national practices, national laws as regards blocking content. Both as regards the nature of content that can be subject to such measures, but also – and perhaps in particular – the procedural practices and the presence or absence of procedural safeguards. This is, I think, an area where we can certainly try to do some work where we could try to do something useful, perhaps in the form of a survey of national law and practice in European countries.

A further point that was certainly made clearly the need for global adherence to essential privacy principles. From our point of view, we feel encouraged to promote further accession to our Convention 108, Data Protection Convention, and also new technological developments such as cloud computing, where the regulatory framework clearly needs some adaptation.

For a further point, picking up from the report we just heard from Elvana about sovereignty, the obligation of states under international law regarding critical infrastructure, regarding protection of the free flow of information across – and international human rights law that can be explored further, that can be built upon, and we will certainly work further in Strasberg on the need to lay down some ground rules to be respected in relations between states. I will mention there was a discussion paper mentioned by the Chancellery on our website on the ad hoc committee of experts on this issue, and I would strongly encourage you, bearing in mind the multistakeholder approach, to provide input and comment on that paper, on those ideas to Elvana, the Counselor of Secretariat.

One final point, mentioned by Philippe, the Directorate General, in the very beginning, was the usefulness in trying to develop further contacts with the United States State Department. We do have, of course, cooperation with the United States regarding cybercrime, for example, but we believe this is it is very useful to see to widen that cooperation and pursue further contacts. So thank you very much.

>> LEE HIBBARD: Okay. Thank you. Before we go to the remaining panelists, I’d like to mix it up with the audience. This is a dialogue. And by stakeholder group, a couple of take-aways, very short. I’d like to start with governments. For those government representatives in the audience, some take-aways. What do you think you’ve retained from the last two days that you didn’t come in with through these doors? Does anybody like to set the floor? Bertrand.

>> I would like to make the first element, please do not ask stakeholder take-aways. The view is to precisely get around the separation, so it’s not a comment from just a government. I found that, for instance, the discussion about sovereignty was a very interesting one because it is a taboo word, and it’s good to explore it in questions of governance.

I found, for instance, that the debate on net neutrality was introducing a very interesting angle to present the question, which is are there or should there be limitations to traffic management? And net neutrality is a contentious expression; whereas, limitations to traffic management, everyone knows that there has to be traffic management, and the question is when and why should there be or not be?

And without getting into additional ones, I fully supported the summary that Wolfgang mentioned. I personally very much appreciated the one on new gTLDs and, in particular, the formulation that it is the one-size-fits-all approach that is a problem in the ICANN process, but what I would like to suggest as a final point is that in terms of the reporting all the messages that the EuroDIG is producing, the best contribution is to try to reformulate issues so that they can become common concerns.

The example I was giving about net neutrality is if you keep saying net neutrality, the camps are on each side of the barrier, and they fight with the usual arguments. If it is reformulated and maybe the one I was hearing is not the only one, but if you reformulate it, you can submit to the global IGF a formulation of the problem that allows the actors to consider it as a common concern.

>> LEE HIBBARD: Thank you very much. I would like to bring in somebody from the Spanish government, a key supporter and element in the EuroDIG process. I’d like to thank you for that, first of all, and can you give us a couple of take-aways, perhaps?

>> I’ll talk in Spanish once again. Thank you for your kind words, Lee. We have, indeed, tried to support this event as far as possible. For me, it’s my first EuroDIG, even though I come from a tradition of participating in global and national IGFs and other meetings in this environment. And what I have seen is that the whole issue is at a very interesting phase of maturation, of fruition, because you can see that the debate’s become more and more structured, better structured, and also there’s a better interaction between national debates and regional European debate, and I really am looking forward to seeing how these messages are going to reach the global IGF.

I think this is very important, especially in a year such as this one, where we’re working in order to maintain the evolution of the global Internet Governance Forum, which, at the end of the day, gave birth, as it were, to all these national and regional movements.

Perhaps what also caught my eye was the debate in the plenary on multistakeholderism and on the corresponding policy in Europe, whether there was a European vision, which is also very closely related to the debate held yesterday on national experiences of Internet governance forums. In the sense that it seems there are certain subjects where there’s a more and more direct relationship which is being discussed in the political agenda, such as net neutrality, the new gTLDs, which right now are being discussed in ICANN, but I think that there’s still a long road to travel.

As Markus Kummer was saying, this decision shaping, which is the function of this type of a forum, is really coordinated or synchronized with the decision taking agenda at the political level. Whether we’re talking about company policy or policies in the area of public decision making. And I think that here there’s a lot that can be done at the regional and national level, where we’re not subjected to the same types of problems and difficulties as applied at the international level. That’s all.

>> LEE HIBBARD: Thank you for these words. The next, we will turn to the podium again to have the view of, let’s say, the business representative, but also Christopher from Telefonica. Please, what are you taking home? Which is not very far, but nevertheless, you have to carry it home.

>> Well, my home is a little bit far from here, but you’re right, my office is up there somewhere.

So to, I would like to thank everyone to still be here first of all, because I mean, we’re Friday, as we say here, afternoon, 6:00. So if you go out, you will see it’s going to be very, very empty, and most of my colleagues will be in their weekend already, so thanks for being here first of all.

Thanks for coming. I think, I mean, being in the role of the host here has been a great honor for us. Being able to provide this, should I say, infrastructure for the EuroDIG was a great honor for us, and this time it was all for free, so I hope it kind of suited the efforts and the interest.

So I mean, for me it became clear out of the discussions that I mean, the Internet is a fascinating and very changing and fast-changing animal, and I think, like all of us can’t live any day without the Internet, I think we, as business, as well, cannot live without the Internet anymore.

The bad news about that is that you are going to see a lot of business interests fighting for its place in the Internet. This is kind of mingling into the discussions we see in the last days around freedom of speech and participation, all of that which are very important, and I think we have to be careful not to mess it up and mix it up because we have to see where business interests start and where more important issues of freedom of speech, as someone – so I think that also, again, to have it all together in one place like here at EuroDIG is a great thing.

So I would like to take this chance as well to thank some people, if I may, because some people have worked really hard for that here, and I mean, not to mention the EuroDIG team, of course, which speak for itself, but especially the IGF in Spain Ana and – have done a great job, and they worked very hard and supported a lot. So give them a big hand.


So thanks very much for that. And I hope you liked it, and I will keep it very short because, I mean, I hope you have time to enjoy the weekend in this wonderful city. Thanks.

>> LEE HIBBARD: Okay. I think we could take one more from the podium, and then – which one do you like to take?

>> Your boss.

>> LEE HIBBARD: My boss? Can you take him?

>> Thank you, Frederic. Merci.

>> I’ll speak in French. Thank you. What can we take away, then, from this EuroDIG in Madrid? In the first instance, there’s been – there have been a lot of participants. I don’t know if we got to a full thousand overall, but there was a big number. It’s good to see that we still have a multistakeholder approach within our participation. Everyone is on a level playing field, and that’s great to see in EuroDIG.

There are, perhaps, things which have improved in EuroDIG in my opinion. Perhaps we could speak about further improvements that could be made improving the different work efforts, for example, the organization of EuroDIG to only propose a set amount of the work. We can’t just keep the same people. We need to stretch outwards, and the private sector, civil society, obviously the government as well, look to new members and for funding reasons as well this is important. Switzerland has been very generous on several occasions, but it would be good to extend the funding base.

Telefonica this year has been great this year as well, and the Spanish government, but as I say, it would be, nevertheless, good to extend the funding base. We have the same problem as well with the world IGF, of course.

Consider a point I would just like to touch upon because it’s the first time that we had an extended base. The remote participation, Switzerland sponsored the Diplo program in order to orchestrate this remote participation. I understood that there were 50 participants, and that’s the first time, and perhaps it’s obvious that things haven’t been perfect, and that’s normal, but I think it’s been great to allow everyone to participate around the world and to allow for us to travel about here from the forum visiting them and them to visit us and for people in different countries to participate.

I would also like to emphasize that we have debates on subjects which are more and more sensitive, and they form great challenges. Net neutrality, above all, there’s still many things that need to be said in this field. Obviously, cloud computing as well, which, in my opinion, is another one of the hot potatoes where we need to move forward and find a solution.

The role of government is another issue in point, and I heard that – I’ve heard a lot of things about the sovereignty of the state. Does it still mean anything in this global Internet world? And if it does, then how we’ve also spoken about the new national laws or rules and about partnership between states and about taking advantage of what we might have in local legal systems, national legal systems already. Without creating, necessarily, new bodies.

The Information Society, under this umbrella, there’s a lot of resistance about creating new agreements and new associations, and I think we need to keep this in mind. Which need to try to get the most out of existing structures as possible, and we need to also look at the applicable legal systems and applicable rules and norms in this field.

We have private international law as well, which does have complex laws, but which will allow us to find solutions in many cases. We need to investigate this a bit more to see where we can make full use of it.

As I said at the start, we’ve opened – we opened our meeting already starting ourselves with things existing without trying to reinvent the wheel or invent things for the sake of it.

>> LEE HIBBARD: Just jump now to something you said about remote participation. I’d like to call on Velna, who has been instrumental in connecting us to all the hubs over the past period, and it’s really been thanks to you, Velna. So perhaps you want to give us a few take-aways.

>> Okay. With regard to more participation hubs, you obviously know we had ten participation countries involved. We were joined by our friends from Bagoda, Columbia, to EuroDIG. We had ten hubs in France, a total of 12 hubs.

All attended, interacted in the sessions, the workshops, national debates. They also directed local discussions during and before the sessions. Inputs were diversified also. We had two feedback reports which were already submitted. We had one from –. We had six videos, one from Barrios, one from Armenia, one from Georgia, and three from Ukraine.

Final reports from hubs will also be sent after the session ends. Of course, all of these data are available on the EuroDIG website.

Regarding remote participants, we got about 58 registered. We had a maximum of 16 active participants in one session, and the total of 25 maximum participants, which is the limit of the session. Okay?

Regarding social media, we had the – seven of the European participants from the Diplo Internet governance capacity-building program, where they are following EuroDIG closely, and they were moderating remote participation along with David, Francesca, Sophia, Jean-Philippe, and Bill.

Second, they were tweeting using the established Twitter channel through the hashtag EuroDIG, where we spotted over 900 tweets over the two days from everywhere in the world. We also have 11 blogs on the Diplo online community, also during the two days, there were live blogs. After each session, there was a blog about the session or about participation.

Finally, I would like to stress on the importance of social media interaction, especially after spotting interesting behavior which involved active discussions between hubs on our remote participation platforms, which means hubs were interacting among each other on remote participation independently of what’s happening here, which is a huge success in my personal opinion. Thank you.

>> LEE HIBBARD: Thank you, Bernard. I think given the conditions and the little resources and time that you and your team had your disposal, this is a remarkable thing of work that you did, and I think this deserve an applaud by the audience for Bernard. Thank you.


I think it’s the right moment to get a few more take-aways from the floor. We had the governments, but we would just invite everybody else.


No, no, just whoever wants to say something, please hold up your hands. Yes, thank you.

>> Yes, Leonid. Thank you.

>> LEONID TODOROV: Yes, I’ll be very brief. As I mentioned already, we’re going to host our own IGF in Russia, so it was quite useful experience, and it’s a certain benchmark for us. Well, I would say that first of all, I should congratulate the organizers and – who ensured very, very nice logistic arrangements and the very diverse participation. I was quite impressed.

Well, second, as we Russians love extremes, I would say that what I missed a bit was that, you know, kind of – I would put it in such a way that discussion was a little bit too academic to my taste, so I would love to have some joint provocateur for such discussion, but as long as we are going to have Wolfgang Kleinwachter with us, I don’t believe it will be a problem in Russia.

Also, I will say conceptually I have a very important lesson, which is not to raise stakes too high because I believe that the message we should deliver in Moscow will be that the IGF is a policy-shaping gathering rather than policy-making because everybody in Moscow will expect us to make some rulings and to draw some conclusions which will be consequently translated into action. So it’s very important to keep the dialogue and to keep the forum as a platform for discussions rather than an immediate action.

>> Thank you very much. It’s very interesting to hear those who can participate what happens in Russia at the national IGF. There was a lady from UNESCO.

>> Thank you. I am from UNESCO. I just want to express my appreciation of this wonderful meeting. Actually, the topics discussed are really advanced, in my opinion. I mean, Europe is really well connected to the continent. There are so many outstanding outcomes that UNESCO can really take stock to inform our Member States, like the content policy to defend the freedom of expression, like the Privacy Principle, the Declaration of Madrid and Convention 108 and the discussion on network neutrality, which I really, really informing to us. So really, thanks to that.

>> Okay. Thank you very much. Thomas.

>> THOMAS SCHNEIDER: Okay. We have a remote voice, but – or text, but it’s not ready yet, so –

>> I’d like to quickly take the floor to Christoph to get some take-aways from your view. You’ve been very much involved in discussions. Can you give us a few nuggets, please?

>> Sure. Well, first of all, I would like to switch a little bit in Spanish. I’m leaving here with a very good taste in my mouth. If only that would be I would feel like that just because of the organization and the great participation from all the speakers and all the regional organizations, from the private sector, from civil society. But above all, I take that taste away with me because what I’ve heard about the sense of responsibility that each of us has taken into account this sense of responsibility in all of the subjects we discussed.

It was great to hear what was mentioned in terms of the Declaration of the Civil Society in the Privacy Congress in November in Madrid, and it was great to hear what was discussed in terms of the resolution, in terms of privacy. And I think these instruments are really complementary in one way or another.

It’s also important that all the responsibilities which are attached to these instruments, that we take them to heart ourselves as individuals.

Right now, in regard to the key messages, well, when I was chairing the cloud computing and cybercrime jurisdiction panel, I realized a part of the discussion, especially the part that was more general on cloud computing, I realized that one of the things that was spoken about was about conflicts between existing legislation, different laws in terms of international private law and all the regulation in terms of the data protection.

The other key message that – enforcement of privacy laws and rights tend to be much more difficult when we’re talking about a cloud computing environment. So during that panel on cloud computing, there was a brief explanation on how sort of like the law system works. But I notice a lot of confusion and not exactly good ideas as to how to approach those issues. So it’s really important to continue working on a multistakeholder environment to really make those issues understand among all the participants.

Also, Europe has always played a very, very important role with regards to the application of regional Conventions. And the Budapest Convention and Convention 108, those are international standards that are being taken as model laws in other countries. And they should be also applicable to the cloud computing environment. However, there needs to be more guidance, more principles as to how to apply them, and I know – well, the Council of Europe is working on a reform on Convention 108, and I really hope that those issues that were raised during the workshops on cloud computing should be taken into consideration, not only for the private sector, but also from the law enforcement perspective. It’s really, really important.

And also, we talk about the problem of harmonization of cybercrime laws. This is something that needs to be done in conjunction with the different European states. But not – it’s not only about harmonization of law, but it’s also providing capacity building and training, and that training should involve, like, all the stakeholders, not only law enforcement, experts, youngsters perhaps too, because it’s real important.

I mean, someone mentioned at the beginning of the workshop about the generational gap that exists between those people that are about 40, 45 years old and the youngsters, but also in the legal field. I mean, magistrates and judges older than 40 years old have problems trying to understand, for instance, digital forensics or how to access information of a computer or how to obtain evidence. So this is something that also should be taken into consideration and be addressed at the European level.

And finally, it’s also about providing technical assistance, technical assistance and further resources, further resources in the form of financial resources and human resources in order to implement or to come up with measures to fight, for instance, cybercrime.

So those are the messages that I take from the different panels and workshops that I was involved, and I would like to thank you very much, all, for your organization. It was really amazing to see not only the logistics and the organization, but I mean, the level of the speakers. It was really good, and I’m very satisfied.

>> Thank you, Cristos. We have two – one or two more speakers from the floor. Oliver.

>> OLIVER M.J. CREPIN LEBLOND: Thank you, Thomas. Thank you very much for this conference. It was very, very enjoyable. I mean, I enjoyed it thoroughly. If I have one disappointment, it’s that we didn’t deal with – we didn’t discuss ACTA, the counterfeiting trade agreement. Maybe it’s an opportunity to think of something for next EuroDIG, which would be to have a hot topic session that could be kept on the last day and decided 24 hours in advance so that we’d be right in the news. Thank you.

>> THOMAS SCHNEIDER: Thank you, Oliver. Okay. One more from the floor. Yes. Okay.

>> Yes. Thank you. I am a Diplo student. I want to thank the DiploFoundation for this possibility given to me to live in person this experience.

What I’ll take back to my country, it will contribute to raise issues there like data protection, participation, et cetera. This is the first year that my country was presented in high level. This will help me to make these issues have an output there. And we’ll do better, I think, at the next EuroDIG. We’ll be organized in Belgrade, which is our neighbor, and for sure there will be an Albanian hub there.

>> Thank you very much. We have another one from the floor.

>> Thank you. I am from the Internet – and I am – well, obviously from the Academy, although I am a newcomer, and it has been especially interesting for me because I’ve learned a lot. And I’ve written more than two pages in what was supposed to be a short take-away, so I’ll try to summarize.

Well, what I will definitely take away in the sense that this work that I take away home because it’s a process that I want to follow is the process of codifying that is under way in – the declaration that is under way in the Council of Europe, where they are trying to make a standard to define a standard according to each obligations of responsibility of states regarding connectivity, stability, security of the Internet is going to be assessed.

So that’s something, I didn’t realize how important it was until I prepared for that, for the workshop.

And I would like to invite the technical community especially to contribute to the debate because the definition of the standards, we lawyers are very reliant on them for that purpose. Thank you.

>> Thank you very much. Thank you. I think we’re coming to the closing now, so I’d like to pass to the chairman of the EuroDIG. Again, been very supportive, and we thank you a lot. It’s really thanks to you that we’re here. So Mr. Chairman.

>> SEBASTIAN MURIEL: Okay. Thank you very much. I was speaking in Spanish, but I want to thank in the end of this important meeting. It seemed like this was never going to end. There was so much participation, so much valuable participation.

I think that we can be very happy and proud from the telecommunications sector, the Information Society sector, and from the Spanish government, which is now presiding the European Union. I think we are very, very happy to be able to host such important events as the EuroDIG event, which, thanks to the number of participants and all of the data that they’ve given us and the very high level of the discussion and debate.

We’ve covered so many topics without any fear going into detail, and I think that has helped consolidate this third EuroDIG as a basic forum.

And another message that I’ve taken from these very intense three days, but I already had the conviction, but now even more Europe has to continue to move forward, paying an increasingly important role in Internet governance and continue establishing that position that we should hold.

I think that the multisectoral, multistakeholder sector of all participants from both the public and private sectors, governments, companies, industry, civil society, all of that participation enriches the debate, and as I said at the beginning, all our different areas of responsibility have to take decisions, and we need information to make the proper decisions in something so important as Internet, now the Internet of the future, which will play an essential role, and any person can gain knowledge in an open way. And it’s also important for the different economies around the world. Europe has a lot at stake in this global world, and that’s where we have to try to continue actively participating in all of this.

I wanted to thank all of the people and organizations that have made this possible, that have allowed us to discuss and debate all these things. Telefonica, first of all, for their facilities and services. I’d like to thank the City Council of Madrid for hosting our reception last night and for the hospitality of the city. I’d like to thank the Council of Europe, of course, for this EuroDIG – for its contributions and also for its support, including the sponsoring of the coffee breaks and the funding of the Diplo capacity building, which we have organized remote participation hubs. It was also very important to have this remote participation. More than 400 people were registered an participated remote – and participated remotely in this important meeting.

I’d like to – the European Broadcasting Union and all of the associations that have played such an important role, but there’s people behind all of those associations with names, with smiles, so I want to personally thank Ali from the Council of Europe, Jorge and Ana from the Spanish IGF, Tomas Schneider, Al Han draw Vidal from Telefonica, who also helped us out very much. Vladimir from the DiploFoundation. Valco, Bernard Sadaka, who worked with remote communication. Thanks so much. We know who these fine people are.

And as the chairman, I just wanted to state my pride in being able to be here these days with EuroDIG. I promised yesterday to be present here at this conclusion, wrap-up session. And when we meet again on the 14th to the 17th of September in Lithuania at the next IGF, there we’ll see each other. The debate will continue. So thanks very much. We’ll see you there in Lithuania. Thank you.


>> Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Just two more thank yous to the interpreters for their patients and short coffee breaks.

(Applause) and also to the captioners because I think you can’t ga back to ordinary meetings now when you have captioning and these sorts of things in front of you, so thank you to the captionists.


Thank you. I think it’s finished. Thank you very much. See you next time.

>> In Serbia.

>> In Serbia. Thank you.