Wrap-up: Reporting-in and conclusions – 2013

From EuroDIG Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

21 June 2013 | 17:30-18:30
Programme overview 2013


Provided by: Caption First, Inc., P.O. Box 3066, Monument, CO 80132, Phone: +001-719-481-9835, www.captionfirst.com

This text is being provided in a rough draft format. Communication Access Realtime Translation (CART) is provided in order to facilitate communication accessibility and may not be a totally verbatim record of the proceedings.

>> THOMAS SCHNEIDER: Lee Hibbard, do you have a mic? Get one. Please don’t leave the room. We will continue right now.

And I would ask the – hello, Chengetai. I would ask the workshop moderators, Rapporteurs, focal points, whoever, one person from the workshop who will do the quick two-, three-minute reporting in, to come close here.

Could we have one hand mic?

>> LEE HIBBARD: Okay. Take your seats, please, for the last session.

>> THOMAS SCHNEIDER: We will do it in the order of the numbers of the workshops.

>> LEE HIBBARD: You have two or three minutes.

(Please stand by. The session will begin momentarily)

>> LEE HIBBARD: Hello. Can you hear us? Hello?

The microphone is not working.

We have been censured.

>> THOMAS SCHNEIDER: It’s coming.

>> LEE HIBBARD: Can all the reporters from the workshop sessions please come to the front, if you haven’t already.

>> THOMAS SCHNEIDER: And while you come up, we are Thomas Schneider and Lee Hibbard, the two EuroDIG coordinators. And as a tradition we try to do the wrap up, find out what you liked and what you didn’t.

For this year, we’re trying a new thing, we thought it might be useful to give a very quick reporting in from the workshops, not from the plenary, because you all of course have participated in the plenaries, but not everybody could participate in all workshops. So we asked the Rapporteurs from the workshops to give us a two or three minutes information about the two or three bullet points of the key issues that were discussed.

We will start right away, not wanting to lose time. So we will give the floor to the workshop 1.

>> LEE HIBBARD: Tell us a summary of your workshop, Athina.

>> ATHINA FRAGKOULI: I’m Athina Fragkouli. And I’m here to report on the workshop 1.

So the workshop one looked at some of the governance issues of specific concern to the technical community and the implications that these issues might have more broadly in terms of social, economic, and security impact.

The goal of the workshop was to identify issues where nontechnical stakeholders might have an interest and consider how they might contribute to the development of the policy solutions.

So Marco Hogewoning from RIPE NCC discussed the example of the IPv4 depletion and the deployment of the IPv6. And he highlighted the problems with the transition from the one protocol to the other, and how this may affect Internet users in the long-term.

So discussions considered what aspects of this problem would convince Internet users to take an interest in this very technical and behind-the-scenes issues. So, for example, their privacy, traceability of their behavior, and the breakdown of some basic Internet applications and services.

Participants also considered what is the appropriate role of the Government and the regulator in the promotion of the IPv6.

Wim Degezelle of CENTR provided a further example of a technical governance challenge. And this was the deployment of the DNSSEC, the security extension to the DNS.

He talked about the successful adoption of the DNSSEC, by many ccTLDs, but he pointed out that there is also still a long way to go in convincing registrars and ISPs to employ the DNSSEC. The role of Government was again discussed, with agreement that leading by example was a preferable strategy.



>> ATHIA FREGKOULI: So the possible ways to bring technical and nontechnical communities together. The engagement of a technical community with law enforcement agencies was a – was brought up as a very successful example.

Also, there were discussions on whether Government should be regulating these areas or not. Arguments that users expect the Government to regulate so that they have a secure environment in the Internet.

On the other hand, we cannot have such a clear and secure environment online – we cannot have an offline security environment. And just one thing.

Also, that companies are also liable for their services, and so maybe security can be used as justification to intervene against the Freedom of Expression.

Finally, the workshop concluded with some comments on future EuroDIG discussions in this area that could perhaps look at different specific challenges or issues.

Thank for your attention.

>> LEE HIBBARD: That’s it, Athina. Thank you very much.

Workshop 2. Let’s see, culture, copyright and the future of access to digital content in Europe. Stuart, you were one of the few men on the panel, which is very, very great. Make the change. Workshop 2.

>> STUART HAMILTON: So this workshop was organised by the International Federation of Library Associations and Google.

The workshop started from the premise that being able to access, share and reuse digital cultural content was in the public interest, and that the current Europe copyright framework was not providing the best support for this. So the discussions in the workshop talked about what potential reform of copyright in Europe would look like.

The obstacles that we’re facing, actors in this field were discussed. And one of the most important things that the workshop discussed was that it was important to note that in many contexts what is regulating the access to digital cultural content is not actual copyright, but contracts. Contracts and data overriding copyright law with cultural and educational institutions particularly, affected.

This moved us on to a discussion of complex licensing agreement, and the audience felt that the lack of information on who owns the rights to what was preventing access to and reuse of content.

There was a particularly interesting segment of the workshop that looked at small- and medium-sized business enterprises. And it was talked about that conditions for some activities, such as text and data mining, were better outside of Europe, leading to some start-ups relocating. So it was suggested that if Europe wants to compete with the rest of the world, we can’t look at our copyright system and say hey it works for us. We have to look at why start-ups are relocating elsewhere for legal reasons. It was actually said that some start-ups hire lawyers quicker than hiring coders.

In terms of reform, there were indeed a few things put forward. Certainly the issue of private copying needs to be looked at. Copyright exceptions of private copying, need to look at this issue relating to contracts and copyright law. It was felt that there was still too few fresh legal offerings to access content.

We need more niche Web sites that cater to niche interests.

And there was support for the sort of pay for what you want models, which was advocated by Ray, the sort of thing you can get on Ban Cam. But at the same time, the rights holder representative cautioned the same things that we heard in the plenary, that if we accepted a cultural economy based on free, then we could move towards a winner takes all situation that really benefits the Apples and Amazons.

And the last point is that if we want to be pioneers in Europe, we have to figure out how to create a copyright regime with clear boundaries between commercial and noncommercial use.

>> THOMAS SCHNEIDER: Thank you very much, Stuart.

We have now workshop 3. Ana? Please?

>> ANA - WORKSHOP 3: Thank you. My name is Ana and this is Net Neutrality.

So the debate was structured around four main questions and the moderators did a good job on keeping the discussion focused.

The first issue on the table was Mrs. Kroes’s statement that customer choice, competition and the ability to switch providers are the key aspects to Net Neutrality. All speakers agreed with these words, but while some stressed that this was sufficient in a competitive environment with strong regulatory bodies and consumer-oriented Telcos, providing examples of self-regulation such as that taken on by Telefonica, others considered these aspects not enough. With statistics of restricted access in Europe and reference to trends in Europe, Slovenia, Norway, France, just learned Luxembourg and of course the Netherlands. They argued that further issues need to be tackled in the context of Net Neutrality for the sake of consumer protection and fostering innovation.

There was a lot of discussion on the basis of the Telco’s interest on both sides of the debate. Although the same guiding principle, there were different results depending on the speaker. On the other hand, it was laid out that Telcos will be tempted to block traffic as a way of eliminating competition with over the top players. On the other hand, it was argued that in a data centric Internet with plenty of competition at the ISP level, it’s in the best interest of Telcos to look out for the customers and offer exactly what they are asking for.

Everybody agrees on the concept of open Internet and everybody is weary of restrictions, whether they be applied in one sense, restricting traffic and over the top innovation or the other, restrictive – restricting innovation across the value chain.

The second question addressed was about defining appropriate traffic management. The Dutch law allows to throttle traffic to prevent congestion, providing that the ISP treats traffic of the same type equally, or to protect the integrity of the network or user system.

There is also an exception that applies to court orders. The more technical we go into the debate, the more obvious it seems apparently for the guy operating the network when traffic management is appropriate.

However, the higher we move in the management direction, the more difficult it is to understand the true nature of the decisions.

On the issue of managed services, everybody agreed it’s a good thing in terms of innovation, user experience and (inaudible) in the ecosystem. However, some speakers pointed out all of this needs to happen beside the open Internet.

In the Netherlands, quality of service is encouraged as long as they are offered in addition to the best effort Internet, which must remain neutral.

It was argued that ISPs do not want to lose customers and will offer the best for Internet in response to the demand, and that regulators have enough mechanisms and power to control it.

The future Internet is likely going to contain networks and geared towards entertainment. Interesting services could be offered but might need quality of service. The question remains of whether interest would lead them to give preferential treatment to IP based services, turning best effort Internet into a dead road, or if the interest would side with the customer.

On this item the audience called for complete transparency in the ISP softwares, and there was some discomfort over the fact that public content may be contaminated in a managed services scenario.

On the challenge of regulating for an unknown future and the capacity to remain flexible and accommodating –

>> AUDIENCE: Stop. Stop. Too fast –

>> LEE HIBBARD: We want a high speed network. We need increased bandwidth. I think. Please.

>> ANA - WORKSHOP 3: So how to remain flexible and accommodating? First of all, first option, principles such as Norway.

Second option, laws such as the Netherlands, which said that because they didn’t go into the details of numbers, calling for a specific quality of service or traffic management, or traffic of minimal traffic, it was accommodated.

And ETNO stressed, however, the danger of regulation and warned against the dangers of a fragmented Internet due to international regulation.

>> THOMAS SCHNEIDER: Just to note –


>> THOMAS SCHNEIDER: All these reports will be given, collected by the EuroDIG Secretariat. We will copyright it and you can download it for a very fair amount of money, your own reports from the EuroDIG website. That money will go into the pocket of Secretariat and two of us.

>> LEE HIBBARD: Yes. Yes.

>> THOMAS SCHNEIDER: So you don’t – please try to exert the two or three main points, the rest will be shared of course for free.

The last one of the first four.

>> LEE HIBBARD: Please, slowly. Workshop four. It was a human Internet. That is Minda. Slowly, please. The scribes can’t keep up, I think.

>> MINDA - WORKSHOP 4: This one is going to be very difficult to resume as well, but I’ll try.

This workshop was organised by the IGF International Rights and Principles Coalition and the Council of Europe. And we worked around practical scenarios around the Internet and the context of human rights, and where human rights are at stake or potentially undermined.

We had a brief introduction by a group of panelists, and then we had some breakout sessions, four. And I probably don’t tell – I’m not going to say all the outcomes, because it would take a long time, but I can tell you the breakout sessions were for specific right baselines of discussion and are articulated in the charter, that is the Internet Rights and Principles charter.

And the first one was about Freedom of Expression. The second one was about Internet access, economic, social, cultural, and technological barriers. And then the third one – the fourth one was around about realising human rights online, and impediments. And there was a fourth one about privacy and security online.

I think probably the main points that we all agreed is that more education is needed, and that we need to raise awareness not only for the world community and world society, but also to policymakers and companies.

And to make sure that the human rights are exercised online. Because the tools exist and we have the Council of Europe or we have the example of the IRP charter. But, in fact, there is no means probably to make the Governments and companies accountable.

And, therefore, and also the users, most of the times they are not aware of the – their own rights and legal and how to actually make them happen. And there is the need as well for the law to be enforced when there are violations on human rights and data protection issues and privacy issues, and so on.

>> LEE HIBBARD: That’s it?

>> Yes.

>> THOMAS SCHNEIDER: We will make a short break of about half an hour before the rest of the four workshops will make their report.

Now, Chengetai, who is presenting the IGF in Bali, will have to leave soon. Because the plane is waiting for him. Not his waiting for the plane. So we will make a short step in of Chengetai, who will present to you the IGF in Bali and give you nice free pictures of beaches.

Chengetai, please.

>> CHENGETAI MASSANGO: Thank you very much. I’ve got a 15-page speech I’ve written here. No, I’ll be very short. In fact, I’ll cut it. I’ll just read the first paragraph and also the last bit.

First of all, I want to congratulate our host, the government of Portugal, the EuroDIG Secretariat, ISOC Portugal, FCT, GMCS, and the many partner sponsor organizations and individuals who contributed to this event for organizing and hosting such a great event.

And not to mention Lee, Thomas and Sandra.

>> THOMAS SCHNEIDER: Skip that. You can go through –

>> CHENGETAI MASSANGO: No. No. I have to because it’s important. Because it’s a lot of work and I do appreciate it. And I do know about it as well. So, yes.

So I’ll just keep – skip to the main points I’d like to make is that it was a very interesting meeting. And the EuroDIG is one of the exemplars of the regional and the – the regional IGFs. And when I go to the other national and regional IGFs, I do point to EuroDIG as well.

>> The second best –

>> CHENGETAI MASSANGO: I will not say that. But yes, it is –

>> The second best.

>> CHENGETAI MASSANGO: It is one of those that the others look up to.

For the national and regional IGFs, we had the meeting here yesterday, and they presented and it was all very interesting. I would like to encourage them all to submit their reports to the IGF website, and because it’s also useful for other national IGFs who are starting up to look at these reports, to look at your structures as well, because they are not all the same. And you do have very good conversations that are going on within each national IGF. So I do encourage you to do that.

It’s on our website under Internet Governance Forum initiatives.

I’d also like to point out that it is important to have some feedback into the global idea. There was feedback back and forth. I mean the global IGF does borrow some things from the regional or national IGF. Lee is laughing there; I know why. But it’s very important and we do feed into each other.

There is also efforts being made to incorporate in a much more structured way the outputs or the discussions that are going on in the regional and national IGFs, into the main IGF. T

Here is a MAG group and a mailing list which I do encourage you all to join as well, at least the coordinators of the regional and national IGFs, so that we can discuss ways of how to feed it into the global IGF.

And with that, I’ll just do a quick advert for – or just let you know what is going on with the Bali IGF. Sorry, I shouldn’t say Bali IGF. Indonesian IGF. So if you are having trouble going to Bali, don’t say Bali, just say the Indonesia IGF and it’s outside Jakarta.

The MAG has finished the selection process of the workshops and the Secretariat has sent out emails to most of the – well, all those workshops that have been accepted and also those ones who have been asked to collaborate, IE merge. There are a few workshops that are left behind, these are the pending workshops, and we are slowly going to inform you what happened with the pending workshops.

The whole entire list is going to be up on the website. If it’s not up this afternoon, it will be up on Monday, so you can browse if you haven’t received a mail from the IGF Secretariat.

The deadline to – and I was asked to just reminded you that those people who were asked to collaborate with each other, the deadline is June 21, which is coming up soon. And then the deadline for bringing in your agendas and also confirming your panelists is the 10th of July.

The deadline for requests for open forum, dynamic coalitions, pre-events, IGF meetings, et cetera, and also requests to have a booth in the IGF village, I don’t need to explain to you what all these things are, I presume. Anybody – okay. Good. The deadline is 30th of June.

That is just to keep that in mind, because we have so many workshops that we can’t extend the deadline for anybody who will take that opportunity to drop that workshop, then, and put in another workshop.

Registration for IGF Indonesia will start at the end of July. And that’s it. I hope to see you in Indonesia.

>> LEE HIBBARD: The dates are 22 to 25 October.

>> CHENGETAI MASSANGO: Yes. The third week of October.

>> THOMAS SCHNEIDER: There will be a ministerial meeting on the first day.

>> CHENGETAI MASSANGO: There is a ministerial meeting the day before. There are also pre-events and there is still room for people who want to organise pre-events. These are not put on the normal schedule. But since we do have the place three days before, with the security checks and stuff like that, the pre-events are there and we can give you a room if you want a pre-event. Just send us an e-mail with the number of people you expect to come into the room and we will give you a room. And it’s good also to test our system. Because we are building everything and then we have to take everything down, so we have to test it.

And I think that is all. Thank you very much. And I have to rush to the airport. Thank you. It’s really great meeting you.


>> LEE HIBBARD: Thank you, Chengetai.

>> THOMAS SCHNEIDER: You forgot to say the deadline for reserving sun umbrellas on the south beach is tomorrow is the deadline.

>> CHENGETAI MASSANGO: There is no Internet on the beach, so you can’t remotely participate from the beach.


>> LEE HIBBARD: Let’s continue with the workshops. So workshop 5.

Which was this morning, connected television, regulations and consequences. Elisabeth.

>> ELISABETH MARKOT: Good afternoon. My name is Elisabeth Markot and I work for the European Commission. And I hope it will be forgiven if I take very, very briefly advantage of the fact of sitting here to point you to the ongoing public consultation launched by the green paper on preparing for a fully converged AV world, which is open until the end of August. And I invite you all to read it and to provide feedback to our consultation.

But this is not meant to be a statement by the European Commission, but an attempt to make a short summary of the interesting discussion we had this morning.

We had a very ambitious plan to address a broad range of issues, and we nearly made it. But I think we would have benefited from a little bit more time, because everybody wanted to continue the debate.

I think what was in the centre of the debate this morning was the consumer. And this is also one point that appeared as being at the centre of the new connected TV environment, bringing the citizen into the centre of the process.

At the same time, we discussed a question of what is necessary to ensure that the citizen is empowered, to fully benefit from from these processes. And then we discussed that a certain number of conditions would be useful to be met.

We had very good contributions about media literacy and we discussed the role of gatekeepers in this context.

A second point I would like to highlight is the intense discussion we had about child protection, data protection, accessibility, but also cultural diversity as well as the protection of other vulnerable groups such as the elderly and the affluent. The intensity of the debate showed that it’s important to address these issues.

My final point, while we identified a lot of challenges, one should not forget that there are opportunities in this process. And that the debate about connected devices, as we discussed this morning, could potentially also bring solutions to existing problems At the same time, certain conditions need to be met there as well. And one of the examples we heard this morning was that a very good stakeholder cooperation would be needed in order to identify possible solutions.

Thank you very much.

>> LEE HIBBARD: Thank you very much, Elisabeth.

Workshop 6, security as a stakeholder model. Please. Henning. One of the few men on the panel.

>> HENNING - WORKSHOP 6: Just a quick summary about workshop 6 –

>> LEE HIBBARD: Just a second? Sir?

>> (Off microphone)

>> LEE HIBBARD: I don’t know. Who is doing workshop 6?

He was missing. You were missing from it. Please. Sorry.

>> THOMAS SCHNEIDER: This is a multi-stakeholder cooperation.

>> WORKSHOP 6: Thanks. I prepared a small presentation on the discussion that we just had this morning on security as a multi-stakeholder model. It’s just four slides. These are the key arguments.

The first argument was around the role of Government as a facilitator, as a catalyst, or as a last resource and the head of something.

Security as a public good. We shared responsibility with conflicts of interests, different approaches and layers, approaches that are different, national security versus human rights, layers and tools, crimes, versus net resilience, versus national security.

And the multi-stakeholder model, based on the cost of cooperation or transparency on collective learning, on information sharing, and on higher levels of engagement.

The key arguments are also on transparency opportunity to improve International cohesion in a company. Improve customer relation between the company, the business and the client. And also for a collective learning opportunity.

Information sharing, as a basis for a dialogue for common standards and common accepted concepts and definitions, as was discussed.

And the engagement based on a flexible methodology, based on risks, based on incentives, based on contributions and based on a partnership.

And Regulation, having a possible negative reaction, with less cooperation.

And the conclusions were that security as the core of national business and citizens interests, it’s a vital ingredient. Security requires a collective and flexible approach that accommodates people and interests. Security is a joint responsibility. And also that motivated agents create stronger teams and create therefore more efficient collective responses.

The recommendations were for a smart regulation, based on increased levels of motivation and participation, and the higher levels of dialogue, policy basis based on commonly accepted concepts, a risk methodology, flexible and adaptable to change both on technology and threats, on negotiation of interest, and increased transparency, and cooperation incentives.

And also that on future meetings, other communities should be engaged like human rights communities, and future meetings should focus on more specific subjects, like mobility and Cloud.


>> LEE HIBBARD: Thank you very much.

Just to avoid confusion, we couldn’t find you for the start of the session, so thank you very much.

>> I was always here.

>> LEE HIBBARD: And that’s why Henning was filling in. Just to be very clear. Do you have anything to add.

>> No. It’s basically okay. But if you would like to –

>> LEE HIBBARD: You can have one comment, I guess, just to fill in, because you’re on the stage otherwise.

>> Not a second report, just a quick point. I think the conclusion of the workshop was the participants agreed that without doubt security has to be a multi-stakeholder model and there is a shared responsibility of all stakeholders; that industry users, academia, civil society, law makers, regulators and Governments, if you do this, you’ll improve overall security as a whole level.

>> LEE HIBBARD: Thank you very much, Henning.

Workshop 7. Accessibility and inclusion, digital participation and Democracy for all. That’s Yuliya Morenets.

>> YULIYA MORENETS: Thank you. We had actually the same issue, we were a bit confused who should report, so we went together to report on the workshop. So I’ll start and then you will continue.

Workshop 7 actually could be summarized in ten suggestions that came out from the session. I’ll go and present five of them. And then the whole list and suggestions could we found in the final detailed report.

So we have to underline the need to continue awareness rising discussions and develop a European or global fora in the multi-stakeholder format to discuss the issue of digital inclusion.

We have to underline a need for European framework on the inclusion of vulnerable, marginalized communities, people with disabilities, and taking into account differences of handicaps in the Information Society.

We have to develop technical solutions by engaging with the private sector and ensuring financial support for European solutions.

Continue the work on access and infrastructure by increasing support to European libraries.

We would recommend to the ICANN and communities working on the new digital programme to develop particular projects for vulnerable communities to bring new opportunities for this target group.

And we want to underline the need for national strategies on digital inclusion as an outcome of the European legal framework to be implemented in close cooperation and engagement with local authorities.

>> LEE HIBBARD: Thank you.

>> NADINE: And if I could just added second? We have the same as the previous workshop.

>> LEE HIBBARD: Yes. Nadine.

>> NADINE: Just two or three points, coming from a reporting perspective. The 35 participants were very much discussing the wide range the workshop offered. And there were a lot of practical solutions, actually, towards current problems. Like, for example, using or identifying existing structures or resources. The resource problem was very often identified, though there were also one or two conclusions or two practical examples how to encounter these problems.

For example, to involve young people in teaching elderly how to use online technology and computers. But also, to consult online courses, like Qsera, where you can learn encryption and, how you say, coding for example.

And I think, yes, and the second one which I would like to address is very strong stress of still curing the digital divide. Which means that not only technology can solve the problem of getting everyone online, even if you have a proper bandwidth, if you don’t know how to use it, you’re still outside. So there is still a call for capacity building.

Thank you very much.

>> LEE HIBBARD: Thank you. Now to the last workshop, workshop 8, cross-border hate speech. Living together online.

>> NICHOLAS: I’m reporting on workshop 8, cross-border hate speech and defamation, living together online.

This workshop was moderated by Paul Fehlinger and Francisco Seixas de Costa. The name of the workshop was to discuss how to handle hate speech and defamation and share cross-border online spaces, where not only different national laws but also different social values apply.

The first question that was discussed between the key participants and the audience was if there are common truths to handle cross-border hate speech and defamation, if they are effective was the question.

Within this discussion, the problem was raised that global companies with global terms of service have to handle with local laws and sensitivities.

A possible solution that was proposed for this problem was involvement of companies in the multi-stakeholder process to create dialogue and create best practices.

Another issue that was stated was that private companies, of course, are dealing with aspects of free speech that might raise some dangers. For example, the fragmentation of cyberspace due to truths like (?), IP filtering and blocking orders.

One solution that was proposed for these problems was to create procedures especially for notifications and (?) that have to be transparent for the users.

Also, very interesting alternative solution models were discussed, like education, for example, through the no hate speech movement youth campaign. And it was easy to see the success of this campaign, because the members of this initiative participated very actively and the discussion – yes, I was very impressed by this.

And the second question that was discussed was if you do have today the tools and framework to handle diversity and common cross-border online space, this question was discussed in several small Working Groups that were built, and small – it’s impossible to present all of the results of the Working Groups in two minutes, so I’ll limit myself to the main result that was, in fact, we have to create hot lines or – we have used hot lines, but to use hot lines to report hate speech and defamation today. And that these hot lines already play a very important role.

Another, maybe, the most important report was that users have to be motivated to discuss the issue of hate speech and defamation, and of course to participate in the multi-stakeholder approach.

Thank you.

>> LEE HIBBARD: Thank you very much. Now, that is all the workshops. Just to let you know these will be compiled into some messages from Lisbon, together with the plenaries, and they will come out as soon as possible to you, and they will be fed into the Internet Governance Forum in Indonesia.

Thomas, we will turn it to the participants here with us. This is the take away session. It’s about what you learned, what you – criticisms or things that you liked or didn’t like.

I myself liked the tweets. And the questions of gender, and age on the panels, I’m happy to see so many women on the panel now. So that’s something to think about.

Thomas, do you have any issues that you want to raise?

>> THOMAS SCHNEIDER: We were trying to anticipate some of the things that we knew would come back, like the gender balance that was not optimal in every session. Sometimes we didn’t get enough white haired men on stage, which is something that I regret.

And also interactivity of the session has been very different. This is something that is crucial for EuroDIG that we get an interaction with the – we don’t call it audience, but all participants are as equal as possible, the ones on the panel. Sometimes there could have been no panel. This is something where we know we will have to try to improve together with everybody who is working.

I hope to hear – we hope to hear feedback from you on what we could do better next time. “We,” meaning all of us who are participating in this. And also what you liked. Give us input.

By the way, there is a debriefing breakfast tomorrow at 9:30, where we try to discuss a bit more in detail also with the ones who were involved with the organisation of the sessions, how we can improve and evolve.

So the floor is yours. We have a few minutes left as long as you basically want to tell us what you take away or what we can take a away.

>> LEE HIBBARD: Or there are feedback forms in the packs.

It’s a dialogue, it’s with you. Would anyone like to have a floor? I think I see a young person, a youth in the back. I know he is opinionated. I saw his tweets. I quite like him. A bit agitated.

>> I learned a lot these two days. We have many interests ourselves and we really have a hard time at understanding each other and what the interests are of different people.

And I came here very aggressive and I was like let’s tell these people what they actually don’t know and how stupid they are. And that the Internet is changing way faster than they actually think.

But there are a lot of challenging challenges out there that we all need to solve. And the most important thing is that we’re out there, as consumers, as people on the Internet. And I really just want to encourage you all to keep on fighting and keep on working for a better Internet for each other.

And that’s basically my take out is that you are all working on something really great and I really want to thank you and encourage you for what you are doing. Thank you.

>> Thank you, too.


>> LEE HIBBARD: Thank you.

So this –

>> THOMAS SCHNEIDER: Some people over there.

>> LEE HIBBARD: Who wants to speak?

>> AUDIENCE: I just put it up on Twitter.

>> LEE HIBBARD: It’s up there, so you don’t need to speak?

>> AUDIENCE: Later.

>> LEE HIBBARD: Who wants to speak? If you don’t, I’ll pick on you to speak. So anybody want to make a comment? Yes, Matthias Kettemann.

>> MATTHIAS KETTEMANN: Yes, thank you. Matthias Kettemann from the University of Grad.

I think that through all of the panels and through all of the sessions, one key theme has emerged, and that is that human rights must be the standard to which we have to measure all Internet related policies.

We have to think about how to best mainstream human rights, and we have to operationalize them. We should stop talking about whether or not human rights apply online. Of course they do.

We should stop thinking about abstracts. We should look at concrete questions. Namely, how you can we improve the protection of human rights for all of us, for the young and the old, for those with disabilities and those without. And I think this is something we should do in the next month, leading up to the IGF.

So let’s stop talking, let’s start doing human rights. Let’s start the mainstreaming process and let’s do it together, and let’s do it now.

Thank you.

>> LEE HIBBARD: Thank you very much.


I wonder whether there are any Governments in the room who would like to speak. I see a couple of Governments. I saw the UK. I see Germany. You don’t have to speak, but if you would like to –

>> THOMAS SCHNEIDER: No, they do have to speak.

>> LEE HIBBARD: They have to speak? I see the European Broadcasting Union. Any comments, feedback? This is your chance. Yes.

I know you’re all tired. It’s almost over. Don’t worry.

>> AUDIENCE: On behalf of New Media Summer School, I want to thank you for this wonderful two days. On behalf of myself, I would like to add some – a couple of comments.

First of all, I would like to have, in 2014, a EuroDIG with more discussions about and with youth. So I think we all agree that without youth, you are not going to have a good result while discussing Internet.

So – and also, I’d like to have more dialogue and less monologues. So this is my comment.

And thank you. Thank you very much.

>> LEE HIBBARD: Let’s monologues, that’s a good point. Thank you very much.

I see some business people in the room.


>> THOMAS SCHNEIDER: You don’t have to speak Asha or Erika.

>> LEE HIBBARD: There is business in the room. I don’t know whether you have comments or feedback. If not, that’s okay. We can carry on.

>> THOMAS SCHNEIDER: There is Marco behind you.

>> LEE HIBBARD: Marco, in the shadows.

>> MARCO PANCINI: I would like to thank the organisation of EuroDIG for the event. It was – every year is, I feel, I get the feeling that it’s getting better, more energy and debate. I think it’s very important if we can have something that we can bring to Bali. I don’t know. A document.

>> LEE HIBBARD: Yes, messages.

>> MARCO PANCINI: Something which gives a feeling that EuroDIG is part of the process and is feeding into the process. And it’s very important if we can also bring the message that EuroDIG is working also to Brussel, especially to the Parliament. I’m sorry that there is nobody from the European Parliament with us, but Amelia was great and it’s important to have at least one member of the European Parliament here.

>> LEE HIBBARD: Thank you.

Thomas, I think we should pass to the next and final speaker in this session. Someone else? Chris Buckridge from RIPE NCC.

>> CHRIS BUCKRIDGE: Thank you, Lee Hibbard, from the Council of Europe.

I just wanted to note that we had a couple of guests here this week. I won’t embarrass them by making them stand up. But a couple of guys that we brought over from Lebanon, and who took part in the Arab – the first Arab IGF last year. So this is an initiative that RIPE NCC worked on with the Arab IGF MAG. And the aim is, I think, these regional IGFs are important to discuss things from a regional perspective. But there is still a value in having a bit of cross pollination and having a bit of a perspective from the other regions.

So I want to thank Ralph and David for coming over and for working with us for getting them here. And I wanted to mention that we will attempt to send a couple of delegates from the youth section of the EuroDIG to the second Arab IGF, which is taking place later this year, October 1 to 3, I think, in Algiers.

And so I’m – we’re talking about the Youth Forum about how to do that. So we will hopefully have more to report on that at global IGF and next year’s EuroDIG as well.

>> THOMAS SCHNEIDER: Thanks. Thanks to RIPE NCC for this great initiative.


Before we will reveal the absolute secret, not even Janis knows where it will be held next year – we would like to have one more feedback.

>> AUDIENCE: Just a quick follow on comment from Chris that it’s great to be here, but also a quick bit of reality check, that whatever happens here does have ripple effects in the region and elsewhere. So for whatever we think of the positive things or whatever we think of the negative things, they will likely have some downstream effects, amplification, challenges, et cetera, that we see in the nearby region and in MENA.

So it’s great to be here and to be sharing some of these things, and hopefully there can be more engagement at the informal and at the very formal levels to push these things on all these topics in a positive way in the nearby regions as well.

>> LEE HIBBARD: Thank you for telling me – reminding me. I’d like to thank all of those who came who have disabilities, and also those who were doing the signing earlier. That was really cool. That’s a nice best practices for the future. I hope we can improve on those things for next time.

We need to do thank yous, Thomas.

>> THOMAS SCHNEIDER: Do you want to start?

>> LEE HIBBARD: You can start.

>> THOMAS SCHNEIDER: We want to thank of course –

>> LEE HIBBARD: Keep it short.

>> THOMAS SCHNEIDER: Our host, our Portuguese friends. They worked very hard. We had a lot of other things to do, all of us, a lot of uncertainties. It worked out very well. I would like to ask all of those from the Portuguese host team with Ana and Pedro to come up.


Thank you all.

And then while they stay up, I would just like to have Wolfe and Sandra, our first class EuroDIG Secretariat, to join them. Because they did an excellent job. They all are working under severely restrained budgets and hard conditions, having to deal with people like you and us, which is not very easy.


And who else?

>> LEE HIBBARD: We have to thank the captioners as well for their patience with those who speak too quickly, including myself. So thank you to Pat and Roy. You can’t see them, but they are there, thank you.


And the technical guys, the technical guys. Thank you, guys.


Thank you for keeping it smooth. Thank you very much.

>> AUDIENCE: And thanks to Lee and Thomas.



And thanks to all of those who were willing to work for no money, preparing the sessions, fighting hard among each other, which is the right way to do it, the right format, the right speakers, the right report. Without you, this wouldn’t exist. So thanks to all of you and we hope that we will try to do better – even better for next year. Because now we are coming to –

>> LEE HIBBARD: Just one last thing. Stay there. Stay there. It’s also we need to say happy birthday to Ana. It’s Ana Neves’ birthday. Happy birthday.

>> THOMAS SCHNEIDER: Let’s sing.


Happy birthday to you,

Happy birthday to you.

Happy birthday dear Ana.

Happy birthday to you.


Now we do it in all the 47 languages of the Council of Europe.


Thank you to Pedro Veiga as well for his input.

Stay there, stay there. So we have the last point now, which is the –

>> THOMAS SCHNEIDER: To reveal the big secret.

>> LEE HIBBARD: – is looking ahead to EuroDIG 2014. Thomas?

>> THOMAS SCHNEIDER: Will there be a EuroDIG 2014? Do you want one? Are you fed up with this?

>> LEE HIBBARD: Okay. So Michael, do you want to say some words? The flag as well? Do you want to say a few words about the future, together.

And who are you, first of all?

>> Well, it’s a Serbian present –

>> Assuming after the applauses, that there will be a future,

>> LEE HIBBARD: I hope so.

>> THOMAS SCHNEIDER: You have to wave it. You are waving the flag.

>> It’s my pleasure and honour to tell you the next EuroDIG. It will be in 2014 in Berlin, on the 12th and 13th of June.

So you know now everything. The host, really, what I know at this stage.

We will be in the middle of Berlin. Unfortunately, I didn’t – couldn’t bring any tourist information with me at this stage.

But, anyway, let me thank, first, to the Portuguese of this year. I got a lot of impression, which we will use next year. And see how we can postpone the success you had this year here in Portugal.

Thank you very much.


>> LEE HIBBARD: Okay. That’s it.

>> THOMAS SCHNEIDER: So that was basically it. Yes! Yes! Since you don’t win the World Championship in football next year, at least you have a flag to shake for Germany and Berlin.

We will fix that until Berlin. So don’t worry.


>> THOMAS SCHNEIDER: We will make a multi-stakeholder session about fixing flags.

Enjoy Lisbon, enjoy summer, and have a nice time.

>> LEE HIBBARD: We will see you soon. Bye.