>> MARKUS KUMMER: Good morning, may I ask you to take your seats? We're going to ...
Good morning. This is Markus Kummer speaking, I'm the cofacilitator for the session with Avri Doria. Please, may I ask you to take your seats?
We seem to have an audio problem, can you hear me now? DAKs started at the very first IGF in Athens in 2006. There are more of us in the margins of the IGF theirself organized but not initiatives and for the past three years we have worked hard to coordinate and to bring us more into the many stream of the IGF. We have established common principles, how to operate based on openness, open lists, open membership and open proceedings and we have also developed rules for mailing lists. In the DAKs they work throughout the year and this session here is to highlight their work and to show to the broader IGF community what they have been working on and the IGF community will also benefit from their work as we go forward doing intersessional work and setting priorities for the future. We're very fortunate to have Tatiana Tropina with us from the Max Planck Institute. She moderated the session last year. We gave her the task to be agent provocateur to ask provocative questions and all the Dynamic Coalitions here have prepared a paper, 13 of them. There are 17 Dynamic Coalitions all in all, and they all have their own session in the IGF but this is a common session to highlight their hard work and give us input for thought. This year's motto is to shape the digital future, contribute to the digital future. Tatiana, over to you, thank you.
>> TATIANA TROPINA: Thank you very much. My name is Tatiana Tropina, I'm from the Max Planck Institute in Germany. And I think it's a shame that we're missing some of the representatives of the Dynamic Coalitions too because I was going to start with a tough question to one of them but apparently he's hiding himself somewhere and I hope he'll appear soon so just as a short introduction I don't know if you read all the 13 papers of the Dynamic Coalitions but if you haven't read them I did and I'm going to ask the questions based on the papers and I wanted to start from the core from the Dynamic Coalition on core values but I don't see the representative here, oh, no, so Olivier while you're, yes, we're starting from the core and I think this will be the longest question to the representative of the Dynamic Coalition because I find your paper very interesting, you say that you're going to add the new value which you define as freedom from harm. Historically freedom from harm referred to (?) regulation to the health and safety issues so strict mandate of the government. You don't define this value. And interestingly you just refer to some, you know, broad threats like IoT and (?). Don't you think referring to the word harm in connection with something that traditionally was a governmental mandate can harm your other core values because I believe there would be plenty of actors who would jump on the words freedom from harm to restrict, for example, openness of the Internet or disorganization of the Internet. Thank you very much. You have three minutes.
>> OLIVIER CRÉPIN-LEBLOND: Thank you very much, Tatiana. So it's Olivier Crépin‑Leblond from the Dynamic Coalition on Core Internet Values. It's actually a question that we've spent considerable time discussing during our meeting earlier this week, in fact, we went all the way back to the discussions on the world conference of telecommunications, week 12, where there was a discussion about the safety of the Internet and the security of the Internet and the objection from several countries including the country that I was a part of or the delegation I was part of, the U.K. delegation which objected to the safety or security as expect getting hard‑wired in the time the international telecommunication regulations and proposed language such as robustness of the network which can be interpreted in various ways but is not as dangerous, and I put that in quotes, as far as interpretation is current for some governments or countries to restrict freedom of speech and other rights and sort of have negative consequences in the development of the Internet. So we discussed this at ‑‑ well, for a pretty long time and we have not reached an actual response for this so we still keep ‑‑ freedom of harm as being a place order for saying, well, devices should be secure or should have some sort of self‑securing mechanism of some sort and I think one of the things that we've decided on doing is to work hand in hand with other Dynamic Coalitions and specifically the Dynamic Coalitions on IoT, Internet of things, because they've worked on ethical framework which I'm sure Maarten will tell you about that that will be something that actually will help us in our definitions as well. Thank you.
>> TATIANA TROPINA: Especially you've been so quick and I'm going to turn to Maarten who you're going to collaborate closely but I'm going to ask him about ethical framework, I'm going to ask Maarten about your work on transparency and accountability framework and it struck me a bit in your paper, and I'm going to cite, that you are going to develop this paper taken with respect to the current legislation. And, you know, kind of with regard to the future regulation, I'm going to ask you what current legislation you mean because I notice it's different in different countries. So when you're thinking about transparency and accountability framework within the IoT are you going to take into account some national laws, international laws or some emerging international extenders, can you elaborate on this, please, because I do find this idea fascinating but the reference to law makes me a bit puzzled. Thank you.
>> MAARTEN BOTTERMAN: Thank you, Tatiana, and thank you, all of you, because in a way it does link back to ethical framework in the end. I think taking ‑‑ respecting legislation means that what we try to do is not common instead of legislation. We're not thinking we can reset laws across states. It's really about developing a way forward, therefore, serve the world.
If you talk on that general level, it's a very general framework. They have to use terms like "ethics" in the understanding that it means different things in different parts of the world if you understand the authorities are different. So you need ‑‑ so you have to understand you have to go to another level after that is implemented locally, preferably in a multistakeholder way because that's what works best in this society.
With respect to transparency, it's a precondition for accountability. If there's no transparency, how can you keep anybody accountable for that? And that ‑‑ in that way it's clear to us that it's very difficult for the common user or the small business to comprehend what's going on and how do we come with a way that we can see that IoT applications are set up in the way to serve and not breaking the law? How can you check into commerce source code, for instance, in a way that is trusted by the users and that's also acceptable from a business perspective, acceptable at least the feeling that this is a trusted way forward.
So that's the transparency part. And filling that accountability, maybe not only for the industry but in the way for the whole term of users in which we do need to understand that we cannot expect, for instance, end users to be accountable for complex things so it's up to the service provider to provide solutions for which people can take their own accountability just like healthcare. You can not make general petitioners accountable for somebody to be healthy, they need to do something about it themselves too but you shouldn't expect them to operate themselves.
>> TATIANA TROPINA: So, I'm sorry, I think we still have 15 seconds to ask you, please don't use time at this time. So you're basically referring rather, to the spirit of the law rather than the letter of the law, right?
>> MAARTEN BOTTERMAN: I think it's the principle that we are not thinking that we are overruling local legislation.
>> TATIANA TROPINA: Thank you very much. I'm going to ask another question about the (?) to the Dynamic Coalition on blockchain. I saw you raised so many interesting questions in your paper referring to different problems and discussions around blockchain, but, you know, these discussions in blockchain and regulation made so many headlines. And here I'm going to cite a bit you say that you're considering the issues on whether and how law can provide guideposts to blockchain governments. Can you elaborate a bit on the position of your Dynamic Coalition on blockchain law and governance?
>> BENEDICT SCHUPPLI: Hi, thanks a lot. So firstly let me say that kind of fundamentally blockchains are software running on a bunch of computers on a distributor network, usually the Internet, so there are a bunch of different processes that are involved in blockchain governance. There's the processes that govern nodes who want to be connected so they can have a useful network, you know, they need to run compatible implementations. And there's governance processes around the software and changes that are made to the software. And the question, from a legal point of view, is which of these processes are inside your jurisdiction.
Another question is from the point of view of the usefulness of blockchain in institutions and in helping institutions achieve their goals is like if those processes are inside your jurisdiction then can you actually rely on the blockchain to, you know, create some kind of institutional level that is outside of your jurisdiction and therefore that we can trust and you won't tamper with. Does that help?
>> TATIANA TROPINA: Yeah, it does, thank you very much. And I will move to another Dynamic Coalition who cited one of the documents in their paper or the documents for me in a rather unexpected way and talking about your Dynamic Coalition on child online protection. For me it's quite striking that you built your paper on the (?) adopted by the Catholic church. I wanted to ask you in this regard, are you using this document as a general idea that was adopted by the Holy See to support your push or are you going to exercise any of the 13 recommendations outlined by them? So what is the sin energy behind your Dynamic Coalition and this particular paper? Thank you.
>> JOHN CARR: Okay, thank you. So then the Dynamic Coalition child Internet safety which I represent here was represented at the meeting in Rome which was convened by the Pontifical Gregorian University which is essentially the Vatican's university but it was an offspring as well so it worked in conjunction with the we protect global alliance, the we protect global alliance for those of you not familiar with it was initiated by the British government three years ago and then about 18 months ago it merged with an EU‑U.S. initiative to become a global aligns. Several at any rate of the Dynamic Coalition members were represented in Rome at the meeting that you've referred to that issued the declaration of Rome. And we saw a great deal of sin energy between what we've been doing for many, many years and what the Catholic church in the form of the holy father, the Pope, decided to support, and whatever you might think of the Catholic church and its history particularly in this space I don't think anybody doubts the personal commitment the new ‑‑ well, he's not so new now, Pope Francis, he's a very well regarded and globally respected ethical leader. So we could see a great deal of overlap and sin energy between what we were trying to do and what the Catholic church now seems to be very committed to doing.
And, by the way, let me just point out in Rome it wasn't just Catholics who were present taking part in the conference, there were lots and lots of different people from different religions and from no religions. ICPA itself is a completely secular organization. If it was otherwise I don't think I could work for it. So it wasn't ‑‑ this was not about promoting, if you like, a Catholic agenda, but it was recognizing the personal leadership of the Pope, the leadership of the Catholic church and its continuing importance in the world and bringing those people together around commonly agreed goals. And we hope this will give an impetus to governments and parliaments around the world to start looking at these issues afresh.
>> TATIANA TROPINA: Thank you very much because I was afraid to ask this question in a controversial way but basically in your response you addressed everything. Thank you.
And now I'm going to another Dynamic Coalition who deals not only with protection of vulnerable targets but with access for People with Disabilities and impairments, and you refer in your paper to the concepts which I find fans naturing, the concept of Universal Design, devices that are designed to assure accessibility for anyone, including People with Disabilities. And you refer to a case study of Pakistan to the work of the ITU and so on and I wanted to ask you how your Dynamic Coalition is going to advance this concept of Universal Design. Is there anything you're already doing in this regard? Because I really think this is a great job. Thank you.
>> UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yes, thank you, it is a great question and it is something that we are planning to discuss in our upcoming meeting later today, and I personally think that more discussions, more connections with other Dynamic Coalitions is really important. We had a session yesterday where we had the participation of Maarten Botterman from the Dynamic Coalition, IoT, we were talking about IoT accessibility. Because it is a cross‑cutting issue and because it does impact vulnerable people, not only People with Disabilities directly, but also the cross benefits to other groups like you mentioned these cases show really that, for instance, something like captioning which we're using today, not only for accessibility, but also for language diversity and supporting many other use cases.
So I think with all these developments that we have, all the speakers in the prior sessions now, sorry, the prior speakers, all these developments that we're seeing, be it IoT, be it blockchains or even the aspect of decentralized web and net neutrality impact People with Disabilities very greatly and I think we need to do more efforts here in having the Dynamic Coalition more integrated. It's a cross‑sectional aspect, more integrated in other Dynamic Coalitions.
>> TATIANA TROPINA: Thank you very much. And I'm going to move back a bit to a legal side and the issues of responsibilities and regulation and Nicolo from DC on platform responsibility, I have a question for you. You make a very good point, a very interesting point about us given so much power and so much information to the platforms so they always become regulators. While you're making this point, I really want to ask you, do you see any remedies against this, can this be remedied on this, your DC? Thank you.
>> NICOLO ZINGALES: Thank you, Tatiana. So in this output document, we analyzed different range of policy options that are available to address the basically delegation of powers from governments to platforms and how to ensure the maintenance of human rights in this framework. So I just want to make the ‑‑ we don't suggest that the regulation should apply, you know, regardless of the context. We should make sure that there is a market filler before there is actual regulation. But there are other modes of intervention which can be up to address the market failures, taking into consideration the context.
So one of the possibilities is to adopt collaboration. So you have some principles laid out by the government, according to which platforms should operate within boundaries. Another possibility is to impose a second liability for users that are made of the platforms, so this is also not, strictly speaking, regulation like common control regulation, but there is another way of intervening, and then there is the possibility of self‑regulation but in the case of self‑regulation, the State shouldn't absolve its responsibilities by delegating it to the market, it should maintain around a great supervision over this process. And it should particularly ensure that there are concrete mechanisms for remedy because this is a joint duty that businesses and governments have, according to the (?) principles on business and rights. And I have a couple suggestions with regard to concrete mechanisms that are being discussed by the Dynamic Coalition. So the first one is a trust framework that allows consumers to be empowered by not having to read all the terms and conditions, but enabling the rise of third parties that much like food and pharmaceuticals will determine which kind of information is unfair to provide to consumers in terms of service.
And the second mechanism which is increasingly discussed is the right to explanation for any automated decision‑making that significantly impacts individuals. This is in European network protection framework and I think platforms should provide an API that allows users to engage into request for explanation so that we have a personalized transparency of like we have a personalized service.
>> TATIANA TROPINA: Thank you very much. It's incredible how much one can explain in three minutes. Thank you, Nicolo. I found another interesting point on the digital platforms. In the paper of the DC on gender and Internet Governance. Bishakha, I very much liked in the paper of this Dynamic Coalition the notion of consent for women, these two tier notion for production of anything and concept of distribution for anything. And you also say in the paper, your coalition says in the paper, that the law will probably not solve this problem and there is a need for digital platforms to build in these ethical norms into their operations. I'm wondering if your Dynamic Coalition has already some thoughts about how may digital platform during these are going to incorporate Dynamic Coalitions on promoting these. So what kind of actions are you taking in this regard? Thank you.
>> BISHAKHA DATTA: Having a very provocative question. I think for us, what we would really like to explore is, you know, people are already talking about privacy by design, right? And consent is sort of related to privacy. So I think what might be interesting is to explore the possibility of actually thinking about consent by design. How do you actually get platforms to think about consent not as an add‑on or not as a technicality which is not meaningful in a way that it is actually implemented, but how we can get platforms to really think about the users in a way in which consent gets embedded in the design and the architecture of the platform because quite honestly I think what lowers helps us is with dealing with consent after they have occurred. That cannot be ‑‑ the solution cannot be that it will continue to be a violation and the law will address it.
So I think what we need is to think about how do we prevent consent from being violated in the first place and also how do we build in ethics of consent? Is there a way ‑‑ I mean, (?) violation because on the platform of consent ‑‑ sorry, I meant to say the violation of consent goes on the platform, but it's often users violating each others' consent by publishing things that are consensually produced but are being nonconsensually distributed. So with all of the wonderful imaginative sort of things that are happening in the world of artificial intelligence, the Internet of things, et cetera, we would really love to to platforms about developers using their sort of imagination in their skills and capacities to think of this as an interesting problem that needs a design solution.
>> TATIANA TROPINA: Thank you very much because indeed did think from the entire paper which raises issues about women's privacy, security, I thought that was a very interesting point about concept because I didn't consider it like these ‑‑ like before so thank you very much and I'm going to move to the Internet ‑‑ Internet Rights and Principles Coalition, and Linda, last, I want to build a point that I asked last year because I asked last year your Dynamic Coalition, what was your definition of success in advancing the charter, in promoting it, and now I see that your Dynamic Coalition came up with an educational resource guide. So I want to ask you how are you going to marry this concept of charter aspirins that have to be adopted and the ‑‑ the educational resource guide, so how is it advancing your goals? Thank you.
>> Thank you, Tatiana. It's a very good question, actually, because, as you know, the Internet (?) coalition has been working on developing and promoting the charter for the rights and principles for the Internet over the past few years, since 2011, when it was first launched. The charter has 21 articles that they're trying to promote over the years and it's obviously based on international laws and norms. Human rights international law and norms. And the first work of the coalition after the launching the charter was to translate it into different languages so that it could be accessible to a wider audience and then campaigning it national and international ‑‑ at a national and international level for recognition as well as the charter and to include the charter in policy‑making and laws that are dealing in Internet Governance and human rights online.
So this also comes as a natural next step. So basically what we are trying to do now is to impart the 21 articles from the charter and to look at each one of these articles co‑op specific issues that are relevant to specific regions, communities, and countries.
So the work contained in this charter can actually, then, include suggestions, case scenarios that illustrate issues arising from these 21 articles of the charter, and we aim to develop a document that is an open‑ended document so everyone can have feedback, input. And these, hopefully, will be very helpful to a wider audience because it can be used not only in classrooms but also for governments to promote the charter to lawmakers, policymakers, businesses, and even the technical community.
So we hope that this is really the next step to put the charter out there. And I think that there's a lot of interest in the charter, so just to give you a very simple example, my own copy that I brought, annotated and everything, all of the other ones already disappeared, I left mine upstairs and it was gone in minutes, so I cannot show it here today, but obviously there's a lot of people that come to us and ask more about the charter and would like to use it.
We had a session just two days ago on the resource guide, and we had loads of inputs, great input from all around the world from all the regions, from Latin America, from Southeast Asia. So I think that this is the ‑‑ obviously, the next step and is ‑‑ I think is going to open up the charter to a very big audience from now on.
>> TATIANA TROPINA: Thank you very much. And I'm going to move to now the questions of rights, to the see on community. Normally when I hear or hear anything about rights, (?) but I saw in your paper a very interesting concept. You thought that the right to not work self‑determination and I did find it interesting so you can elaborate on this, please.
>> LUCA BELLI: Actually, well first of all, you say that our report here is made up of ten contributions by 18 different members of the coalition that are cooperated together, at the end we have a collective document that we developed through a multistakeholder process over the past year with several consultations. In the various ‑‑ in the various contributions or my contributions are actually based on the empirical observation of what community networks are, they are crowd sourced networks, and, actually, they demonstrate that there is already the factor the right to network self‑determination, it could be the 22nd right of your charter, which is the right of every (?) of every community to associate, really, define in a democratic fashion the management, development, implementation of networking infrastructure as a common good so that everyone can freely access, share, and impart innovation and information. So it's a matter ‑‑ if you want people to define and contribute to the digital development, this is essential.
And, actually, I'm not talking this as a new concept I want to put to throw in the basket of the new concepts, I'm arguing this because, first of all, it already exists in practice. I analyze in my paper also the policy (?) of network ‑‑ of community networks. They not only provide access to the Internet, they provide ‑‑ they create new social bounds in the community, entirely new economic ecosystem with new services, new creativity, new application, empowering women because women get involved in the creation and they involve ‑‑ in the establishment of the network, creating new jobs, GiveNet (phonetic) which is the biggest community network has created more than 100 jobs in people that maintain the network. And this is based on what already exists directly at the international level both the first article of the declaration of human rights, the declaration of human rights, the first article or the international covenant on (?), the first article of the international covenant on economic structure and cultural rights recognized the right to self‑determination as the right to pursue one's economic and social development and this is a right of choice and the right of process. The people are right ‑‑ their fundamental rights to define how they want to evolve economically and socially and states have the obligation to allow them to do so. This is both stated in article one and three in the conference so this is something that exists directly and I think everyone should have the right to do so.
>> TATIANA TROPINA: Thank you very much, Luca. And DC to another Dynamic Coalition which mentioned community rights and Esmeralda from the Dynamic Coalition on public access is going to answer my questions about this because you made the point about marrying up community networks in public libraries and you made in Tunisia and Colombia but it wasn't actually on this issue. I'm going to ask you how is your DC going to advance this marriage, how your DC is going to facilitate this marriage between community networks and libraries. Thank you.
>> ESMERALDA MOSCATELLI: Thank you for your question. Yes, our Dynamic Coalition on public access actually was ‑‑ the need for this coalition was realized in 2011, when one of our partner, EIFOL, the electronic information for libraries shared an outcome of a survey where the majority of policymakers and politicians in developing country had a different image about what libraries and librarians do on an everyday basis. And a lot of our work is, in fact, in both developed and developing countries but especially in the developing countries the idea of relying upon a network that is based in the community is absolutely fundamental for us and the ways in which this can be achieved are actually part of ‑‑ was part of our discussion yesterday during our public access meeting because we ‑‑ when we were preparing for the ‑‑ for the ‑‑ all the various meetings here, we were discussing again public access, but then we said but public access, everybody knows it, what is the way to move forward? How can we ‑‑ how can we get together to sort of change whether the framework to allow this connectivity in places that might be remote or that might also be in developed countries, how can we do that? So there are two ways, the ways is like one way is, of course, to try to push onto local, regional, and state governments to understand the need and importance of public access to achieve a series of goals which were also stated in the sustainable development goals of the U.N., but also at the community level. We have a strategic network that is about ‑‑ of 2 million and counting libraries worldwide. And these libraries are also very different. They represent a community, community can be in southern Africa, in east Asia, and they have needs that are absolutely different, one from the other.
So the first way I would ‑‑ we would like to approach the need of the community is to assess their needs and launch an assessment and from there also assess what are the infrastructures and to available to move forward and to provide access to these communities.
>> TATIANA TROPINA: Thank you very much. And another Dynamic Coalition who is doing a lot of work on connecting the unconnected, Christopher, has a very impressive long list of case studies from all around the world. How are you going to use them? What is your next step? I know you're a very new coalition and you're still collecting information and analyzing it, so what's your next step?
>> CHRISTOPHER YOO: So the next step is to continue to consolidate the information and to begin to analyze it. For those of you who don't know, our Dynamic Coalition is dedicated to a cause, I think, that everyone in this room shares. There are 7 billion people in the world. Only half of them are online and adoption rates are slowing. And it's not for lack of innovative experiments in ways to connect people. There are hundreds of them. But no one is studying them in a systemic way, in particular, no one is collecting data about what works and what doesn't work and even if there is data collected it's done in a random way that is not consistent that allows cross‑project comparisons.
And so our commitment is really to try to lay the empirical foundation for decision makers, whether they're ministries or international finance communities or what we're finding is even social impact investors on the private side are very interested in this idea, to try to pull this together and analyze what models are working and what won't work, and what isn't working. So we are spanning both demand side and supply side interventions because as everybody knows this space, the idea if you build it they will come has not been true. Digital literacy and interestingly maybe a blind spot for people in a program like this many people in the world refuse to adopt because they don't see the relevance for the Internet in their daily lives. So these become major issues as well and we're looking for sustainable and scalable models. If you're going to get 3 1/2 billion more people on grant programs and social responsibility ‑‑ corporate social responsibility programs are a very generous and important part of it but they're not going to lead to 3 1/2 billion more people.
So we've worked with ‑‑ we're coconvenors of (?) here at the IGF, we're working with the best practice forums on gender, we're working with equals, we're working with best forums on local content, we have disability access programs and we're studying everything to get other communities in, and at this point we have identified 750, roughly 750 interventions spanning 150 countries and they're all available on a database available through oneworldconnected.org. We've connected all 750 and are conducting case studies with everyone who is willing to do so. We've developed 120 case studies spanning 50 countries at this point and all ‑‑ I confess, we migrated the server, only 25 of them are online right now but all of them will be online earlier in the new year of 120. And what we're finding out is that, in fact, what we need to do is, in fact, there's not one solution. Urban areas which face ‑‑ with challenges on digital literacy or poverty are different from (?) island societies, you see different levels of support, different preexisting infrastructure, and what we're going to have to do is develop template models of basic learnings to distill once the full data set is in to find out what works and what doesn't work.
Last thing I'll say is the big step is to move outside communications ministries to health, education and particularly finance. We're doing the gold standard of social science research, randomized control trials to find out what's really working on development tools because inconnectivity is not an end in itself, it's ‑‑ the way to mobilize entire governments is to tie into other broader themes.
>> TATIANA TROPINA: Thank you very much. And another Dynamic Coalition, Dynamic Coalition on network neutrality. It's not like deep case studies, but Deepa (phonetic) and Maarten exercise and Luca and all that and Maarten exercise they're very extensive, and then they can be very rewarding if you view them in the right way. So you say you're going to use it to facilitate the informed policy debate. Can you please elaborate like kind of how exactly, what is the use of this mapping?
>> LUCA BELLI: Thank you very much. First of all, I forgot (?) because I had too many things to say. I would really want to publicly protest against the MAG decision to slash our time slot from 90 to 60 minutes because if you work over the entire year and you have to present a work and collect feedback and debate it 60 minutes is really not enough and 90 minutes maybe is not even enough so we should have maybe more or at least equally to the other time slot not less because it makes it difficult to have a concrete conversation and collect feedback. Having said that I think that also my fellow DC coordinators share, I see heads in a positive way, I'm saying that the map that we've created is so far in a beta version, the aim is collect reliable data on what zero rating plan exists in the world to form public policy debate but also it's for every kinds of stakeholders, it's for researchers, for entrepreneurs, or any kind of user, so we have 80 countries, beta version released yesterday, zero.info, you can find the data contributed. The need was to seek harder contributions and I think there was a very positive reply. Yesterday I was speaking with regulators which is a very positive step because they are maybe a little bit shy in contributing to this kind of crowd source exercise. Some regulators are willing to contribute several Civil Society members have contributed so so far we have the beta version with 80 countries. Now the exercise is still at the preliminary phase, as I was saying it's the beta version but there is already some interesting conclusions that one can roll, first of all, that 08 compliance are much more common when there is no net neutrality legislation. Secondly, that there are some 08 (?) they are almost 08 everywhere such as the applications of the Facebook group, this is primarily due to the fact that in the majority of the countries we have examined, there is the (?) free basic problem where Facebook is always amassed. Truly it is very ‑‑ well, it is what I ‑‑ last year I called in the (?) section of the Dynamic Coalition (?) Internet which is turning the Internet from a general purpose network to the combination of leading data caps and a selection of services that spans from three to 15, 20, maybe, means that the user will only use ‑‑ will primarily use the three, 250 services that are sponsored and the rest will not be used or only little used. So the consumer that can provide innovation show innovation freely it's only consumer of the sponsored services which is a pity and I don't think it is the direction we want to move to forward if we want to let people be a part of the future.
>> TATIANA TROPINA: Thank you very much, Luca, and I forgot, so I'm going to move to the last and the Dynamic Coalition which is the Jeremy Malcolm and Jeremy your paper is very impressive, I saw the full report and the summary and you're saying you're developing preparation for university holders and trade negotiations and I know there are different traditions even in stakeholder groups right now. I wanted to ask you because you're the newest coalition, right? What would be your definition of success for the next year of work, how are we going to advance these recommendations which you make? Thank you.
>> JEREMY MALCOLM: Well, we had our integral meeting yesterday and one of ‑‑ and part of the meeting was to finalize recommendations on transparency and inclusiveness of trade negotiations, and in a way that was the easiest thing to do because there are the fewest differences within our community within any of the stakeholder groups on that. I think if you're participating at the IGF you inherently realize the value of multistakeholder participation, so there's certainly pretty easy consensus on that but it becomes more difficult when you have to reach consensus on substantive issues like, for example, search the promotion of the free flow of data in trade agreements be encouraged or do we have concerns about this and if so what are those concerns? So I think over the next year we will be trying to reach more consensus or more understanding, at least, on what should be the limits of the free flow of data online and should any of those limits be negotiated in trade agreements.
One of the other things that we want to do this year and one of our definitions of success will certainly be to extend the membership of the coalition to include more members of the trade community. We have plenty members of the Internet Governance community but I think our outreach to trade lobbyists and negotiators is very important. Thankfully, just since yesterday, we have had a new government member join so I think already we're showing some progress on that count, but that will be one of our main metrics of success over the next year as well.
>> TATIANA TROPINA: Thank you very much, and as we haven't exhausted your time, well, I think I might ask the question later put myself in the queue for the general questions. This is it. I think is anyone from the Dynamic Coalition wants to add something? Because you had only three minutes. Yes, please.
>> UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Okay (?) Olivier said Dynamic Coalition on core Internet values. (?) (poor audio) adding a new value freedom from harm, freedom from harm has been extensively discussed and its importance hash well understood on the participants of the coalition but it does not ‑‑ the (?) of value for the reason that the values that are lying at the core of the Internet are laudable. They found the very foundation of the Internet and those are inherent values and, for example, if you talk about freedom is a value, that is never an altered group, as a value that's never altered so the core values are inherent values. So we will ‑‑ the attention to freedom from harm in our debates but not a value.
>> AVRI DORIA: So that your name doesn't enter the record as a question mark please remember to give your name when you start to speak, thank you.
>> TATIANA TROPINA: Yes, thank you very much. Are there any further questions because I think that we finish intervention from Dynamic Coalitions and I would really like to open the floor to whomever that wants to ask something, grill these people sitting here because that's what they are here for. Yes, please.
>> UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I just wanted to echo the multidisciplinary or the cross‑dynamic coalition sentiment blockchain because blockchain poses significant risks to the goals talking about here being censorship resistant being difficult to govern and control and that being actually one of the ways that it provides value that it's difficult to interfere with, you know, we definitely need to chat about how blockchain will interact with your missions.
>> TATIANA TROPINA: Thank you very much, Maarten, you were the next.
>> MAARTEN BOTTERMAN: Thank you very much. For me what we've been doing here over the years is very much a complement to necessity, and that is to make sure that decision makers, in their decision‑making, don't make the mistakes that were not foreseen, so the ultimate consequences so in that way we are working in developing a good understanding of good practice in all areas over time.
I think it's very important for us to also ensure that we develop beyond the groups that we're in at the moment. I call for clear attention for getting out there with it and by trying to find other platforms and ‑‑ and powerful partners that can help develop the faults but also spread the faults because it's great if you have great papers on good practice, it's even better if they're used.
>> TATIANA TROPINA: Thank you very much. Christopher, you are recognized but can we just ‑‑ because I think there was a question from there, right? Can you first accept the question because I think I saw their hand before you. Thank you, Andrea, and then you're the next.
>> This is Andrea sax. Am I not close enough sorry I wanted to emphasize something I think is something mentioned that Shadi Abou‑Zahra mentioned about other coalitions. We have an impediment, we need to find a way to finance captioning so everybody can participate in the calls because I would be very happy to work out something with the organizers for that because I know there's a financial impediment to this but I can't join Webex very well and there are problems with that but if we had captioning there are chat boxes in there and there are other ways of communicating and Zoom is being discussed now because our way ‑‑ this is a wonderful room, you've done it very well, accessibility is important to every single Dynamic Coalition and access to be able to work together is even more so. Thank you.
>> TATIANA TROPINA: Thank you very much, Christopher, you're the next.
>> CHRISTOPHER YOO: Thank you very much. There's one other answer I want to give to your initial question another way we're going to take the work to another stage is we've invited project teams to come here and actually tell their stories in the first person. We actually have nine project teams that are actually building data. Many of what we do at the IGF is very high level we benefit from that. If you came to the session on Monday you heard from four of them. We have a session tomorrow 10:40 in room 12 that we have five more teams to tell the world to tell the story about how they the challenges they face and the things they overcome and I couldn't be prouder of them and if you want to continue to get information about these stories one world connection.org the number one not the word, has stories and platform for all the work they're doing, we have a Twitter feed, YouTube channel, we're pushing all the content as much as possible because they are great stories and they need to be told and I think everyone understands the importance of that more than everyone.
>> TATIANA TROPINA: Thank you very much. Yes, please.
>> UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Thank you. (Saying name) from the Dynamic Coalition on human rights. I have a question for the Dynamic Coalition. Do you have any initiative to reach out to some regions that they're underrepresented in this coalition? For example, I really would have little information about the activities in that region. So my question to the Dynamic Coalition and the other coalitions that made presentations just now do you have any initiatives to reach for the (?) reach or other regions we just feel that we're not well connected. Thank you.
>> TATIANA TROPINA: Thank you very much. Any of the Dynamic Coalitions wants to take this question about your cooperation/participation from the Minna region? Yes, please. Internet Rights and Principles Coalition is going to answer.
>> UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: (Saying name), cochair of the Internet rights and (?) coalition. I think this is a perfect space for everybody from all around the world to come, to exchange stories and experiences. I think with the work at the regional level with the Dynamic Coalitions, it's more of a global initiatives and sometimes we do customize activities to a respective region like (?) did that with the (?) region and I'm not sure if other coalitions are about to do the same to be honest with you. All of this word that you heard about here is like self‑initiated, kind of, because people have interest in specific topics and they have an agenda.
>> TATIANA TROPINA: Thank you very much. It's not like any of the Dynamic Coalitions ‑‑ so any Dynamic Coalition perceives itself here as a place to gather people to contribute and not go out and do outreach in the regions, am I right? So this was the essence of the answer. So, yeah, please, so first Bishakha and then Christopher. Thank you. Microphone.
>> BISHAKHA DATTA: I just wanted to add to that why we don't see ourselves necessarily as sort of regional focused. One of the things we do try and do is get input from the different regions and the way we do that is sometimes, because the issues we work on in your coalitions are often issues that we also work on outside of our coalitions the rest of the year. So at meetings that we may convene, we, for example, at the DC agenda on Internet Governance some of our positions are building from a document called the feminist principles of the Internet. And these principles have actually been evolved in consultation with Civil Society groups around the world through meetings that have been held in different regions. So in that sense, there would be participants from Myanmar as well as other regions that are shaping the agenda so it's not sort of a direct thing but in an indirect way there are very strong regional voices in this process.
>> TATIANA TROPINA: Thank you very much, Christopher you're the next.
>> CHRISTOPHER YOO: Thank you. It is important for us, for our project to reach out to all regions of the world, we pride ourselves on it. Spanning 150 countries by definition we are in every region of the world with respect to mean, the most important is Tunisia which is an education‑based study and done fantastic work and spoke at an IT event by invitation in Morocco to share with those communities some of the things we've learned and this is very preliminary about six months ago it's something, actually, in the next phase are looking for venues to speak and share the learnings after we've consolidated them so we'd welcome the opportunity to engage.
>> TATIANA TROPINA: Thank you very much. I see Oliver wants to ask a question but (?) region, for example, Dynamic Coalition on access to public libraries also had a case in Tunisia. And now Olivier.
>> OLIVIER CRÉPIN-LEBLOND: Thanks very much, Tatiana. You'll notice that most of the Dynamic Coalitions perform their own outreach in their own ways in their own networks at the same time there's also an outreach reached at the IGF level and this very meeting is a meeting to outreach to all of you to take part, the Dynamic Coalitions really welcome new participants, all of them welcome new participants, we're not just here to talk to each other actually we have regular calls the different DC chairs have very regular calls and one of the ‑‑ the discussions we've had is to have better outreach within the IGF how to get more people involved not only in the global IGF but regional IGFs and in the national IGFs so it's really a case of trying to pull more people in and get more people to be involved in the Dynamic Coalitions. So we can't really give all the answers. I think part of it is you have to give us some answers as to how we could do this better. It would be great to have some input from participants here in the room and how we can actually get the Dynamic Coalitions work more upfront and get people to have easier access to it, et cetera, thank you.
>> TATIANA TROPINA: Thank you. Thank you very much (?) next question.
>> UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yeah, just briefly to point out the international which is on child Internet safety is I was a global NGO and I think we have around now around 80 chapters on five continents including several in the Minna region who have contributed in one way or another in the international's work and into the Dynamic Coalition. So whilst the coalition itself doesn't focus in a regional way it's absolutely the case that contributions in different regions including Minna have been reflected in the work we've been working both in the declaration and Rome and here today.
>> TATIANA TROPINA: Before I move to the next question, I think there was another intervention on Minna question, so we wrap it up. Yes, Marilyn. Yes, please.
>> MARILYN FRANKLIN: Yes, thank you. Marilyn Franklin, to cochair of the Internet Rights and Principles Coalition. To follow up from my cochair colleague, Hanan Beaujoli (phonetic), the Internet Rights and Principles Coalition and the charter has been very present and involved in the European dialogue on Internet Governance which is held around the larger Europe, the government itself is a place where we take the work, the charter has been taken in public places in New Zealand and in Italy. So whilst we are all limited to human resources and human power we are (?) hard to take the work out and bring the work in so in that sense there's a joint effort. There's a lot going on we just need to be clear on what's been done and bid on that thank you very much.
>> TATIANA TROPINA: Thank you, and you had a question, right, so let's start with another question, thank you.
>> AUDIENCE: I wanted to pick up ‑‑ (saying name) speaking on the Dynamic Coalition on Child Internet Safety. I wanted to pick up on a point what (saying name) made on concept of design. I think that's a very important concept that should be shared to more people. I've been to so many sessions where we were talking for example, about violent content, about out of my hands session, about sextortion, we're talking about the (?) becomes very important in the next year in Europe, so the concept of concept by design could be very useful for a lot of work that we're doing and I really appreciate the efforts you are doing, thank you.
>> TATIANA TROPINA: Thank you very much, you want to address this comment?
>> AUDIENCE: Yeah, I want to thank you, Tatiana, because till you asked that question, I hadn't actually thought of consent by design, I think part of the issue is because we do talk about privacy by design, right? And it is getting rights for acceptance. So I think we would love to actually collaborate and see how we could move things like this forward.
>> TATIANA TROPINA: Are there any further questions right now? I don't see any hands, but I would like to take it further with Nicolo from platform responsibility, Dynamic Coalition, what would be your opinion about your platform's participation in all these processes, you know, building in ethical issues? Because apparently there should be a balance on what the platform can do and not do? Can you maybe share your thoughts? I know it sounds like a very kind of rather question which has no answer for now but how to keep this balance between what is needed ethically and what platform can do without stepping into private regulation with no borders.
>> NICOLO ZINGALES: Okay, that's a hard question, but I think that the notion that was put forward here of consent by design is an interesting one. And also I like the reference to the responsibility not only of platforms but users themselves because many of the issues are not so much about the role of the platforms in policing, the relationship between users but it is also about the user ‑‑ about the actual impact that they can have with their actions. So I think a key role there is not only allowing users to participate in the governance of the platforms through transparency, but also informing users about the potential harm that their actions can cause. And another issue which I think is important is the role of anonymity on these platforms. This is a key question. Because many of the hateful speech that you see on these platforms is generated by individuals who feel that there will not ‑‑ they will not be caught. So should platforms preserve full anonymity for users that's one of the key questions that we have to grapple with. I don't have an answer, unfortunately, to that.
>> TATIANA TROPINA: Thank you very much. (saying name) you wanted to add something.
>> JOHN CARR: No, it was a question I was treating myself as a member of the public.
>> TATIANA TROPINA: This is very good, I welcome this please do ask the question.
>> JOHN CARR: It was the Dynamic Coalition on Trade. One of the things that we as children's organizations have been very concerned about is in the (?) discussions that are taking place between the U.S.A., Canada and Mexico which could be a precursor for similar negotiations that will take place in the future but at the moment it's limited solely to Canada and México, in the first drafts of the documents that the state department presented to the Canadian and Mexican government there is a proposal to replicate Section 230 of the communications decency act of 1996, a clause which will thoroughly discredited because the way it's protected back page, for example, in fact, it's on the verge of being amended by the U.S. summit following recognition of its inadequacies so I was wondering if that was the kind of issue that your coalition was interested in 'cause we're very concerned, first of all, that it doesn't appear in the final text of the trade agreement between America, Canada, and México, and that it certainly doesn't appear ‑‑ by the way, speaking as post‑Brexit Britain I'm guessing as we try to deal with the United States itself we certainly wouldn't want anything like that to appear in it, is that the kind of thing you're looking at or could look at it in which case if it is I'm your friend.
>> AUDIENCE: And you won't be my friend after you hear what I have to say about it.
>> UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: (Off mic.)
>> AUDIENCE: Okay, cool. So Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, for those who don't know what it is, it's a provision of U.S. law which is basically a safe harbor for Internet platforms. It means they're not liable for the speech of their users, in other words, if a user uploads content to a platform it might be defamatory or a sex advertisement, it might be exposing ‑‑ it might be illegal for the user to do that but not illegal for the platform to host it because the platform is not treated as a publisher of the content, they're treated as an intermediary what Section 230 is provides a safe harbor as I say for platforms for most types of content with the exception of a few things like federal criminal law is exempted from Section 230 already and copyright law is not treated under Section 230 it's treated under the Digital Copyright Act so with that explanation out of the way, the issue is whether this provision of U.S. law should become a regional standard in the NAFTA agreement and México and Canada at the moment ‑‑ and this is the good news for you at least I think ‑‑ are opposing that because their law doesn't work in quite the same way. They do have conditional ‑‑ I mean, platforms are not automatically liable for their users' content but neither are they automatically given protection from liability. Rather, the courts in México and Canada will take that on a case‑by‑case basis, they will look at, for example, has the platform encouraged or become aware of and somehow assumed responsibility for a user's speech on the platform.
So I think, yes, in answer to your question this is an issue that the Dynamic Coalition could take up but whether we would come down on one side or the other I'm not sure. I mean, it is an issue probably where it would be difficult to reach a consensus and in those cases at the moment we've started by avoiding such contentious issues and focused on the ones that are more easy like, as I said, transparency and participation.
So I ‑‑ I'm not sure. I think there is merit in at least discussing it and exploring the areas of possible consensus or possible disagreement, but I very much doubt that as a coalition, we would come down unanimously about the kind of safe harbor like in Section 230 I hope that answers your question.
>> TATIANA TROPINA: Thank you very much and I see Nicolo has a question or content.
>> NICOLO ZINGALES: Since we're talking about platforms I can't refrain from just mentioning it here what we're talking about Section 230 is one of the hot issues of discussion in the United States at the moment because for about 20 years, this has served, according to the common understanding of this safe harbor, it has generated a lot of innovation, it has allowed U.S. companies to go and many would say that the reason why all these platforms are based in the U.S. is that they have this protection where they were not considered publishers and there is also a word that says (?) so whenever you intervene to remove content you're considered inappropriate for the platform you should not be responsible for that. So now that we recognize that these platforms have ‑‑ get an immense amount of power there is a discussion about reforming this law in the United States. And this is precisely also this type of discussion that we're having in the European Union on putting more responsibility on platforms to detect and remove potentially illegal content. So here the point that I wanted to take following up Jeremy's is that a lot of this is being injected into trade agreements and then requiring states to impose these safe harbors into their laws or responsibility of platforms directly implementing to international laws without the participation of individuals.
So this is why I think our Dynamic Coalition is important, because we want to have this discussion by involving everyone here because we feel that otherwise these new notions of responsibilities will be inserted into the laws by policymakers or, even worse, they will be the results of agreements between copyright holders and intermediaries that lack the participation of the society that we want.
>> TATIANA TROPINA: Thank you very much. Are there any ‑‑ yes, please.
>> SHADI ABOU-ZAHRA: I wanted to say this ‑‑ this discussion is fascinating and I do want to echo what other speakers said before by having more exchange between Dynamic Coalitions. I think in these discussions of ethical rules, I think we really need to make sure that all aspects of society are included. I was several weeks made aware, and I was totally unaware about that in ‑‑ in the ‑‑ there are European countries where hate speech, for instance, the definition excludes People with Disabilities. So ‑‑ and this was completely new to me understandable. So I think this is just an anchor here that in these discussions when we're defining ethical requirements and making suggestions that we have the broad reflection of all actors in society.
>> TATIANA TROPINA: Thank you very much so for the purpose of transcript it was Shadi Abou‑Zahra who was speaking. Now the next, thank you.
>> AUDIENCE: Yeah, I totally agree and I want to kind of talk about and stress that actually there are real phenomenal limits to encode our values into technology. Technologies understand few technologies understand our intentions, it has to have an idea of the source of some information and that has to do with like credential management and credentials can be compromised and the only way to deal with compromise is to have waiting for other events and that is an experience issue because before you do an action you have to wait just in case that action is actually done by someone who is impersonating you and furthermore we can ‑‑ you know, the idea of withdrawing consent or action not knowing what you fully intend until you see what happens or realizing that you didn't intend something, it's very hard to encode in technology, it's very hard to even predict what software will do and the reason why we have had relatively ‑‑ we don't have that so much in platforms today is because platforms have administrators who can see the human reality and who can make changes to respond to that, we've moved to a world of more automation and less input then that kind of human thing that's actually necessary to encode and actually to bridge the gap between our ethics and our intentions and the technology, you know, is ‑‑ it's more challenging, more automated. So, you know, encoding consent is not easy from a technical point of view.
>> TATIANA TROPINA: Thank you very much. I think the gods of transcripts refuse to recognize the name so that was Vlad. One more intervention please.
>> AVRI DORIA: Please, even people who were speakers before, remember to give your name at the beginning because I'm not sure that they can necessarily see who's talking so they really need to hear your name at the beginning, thank you.
>> TATIANA TROPINA: (Saying name), You would like to add something to this, thank you.
>> AUDIENCE: Thank you, Tatiana. I would just like to add because we have been talking about cooperation and how everyone can have input and I was just linking it up to the resource guide because obviously an idea behind the resource guide and the reason why you brought it here in the first place because the resource guide was first developed in the United States by law students from Syracuse University and that's when we first brought it to the main session, the Dynamic Coalition session last year. And now we felt the need that you want to open it up, and you want the input of any other country, any other stakeholder group, soap even input of all our sister coalitions so I think this conversation about the importance of working together, the importance of coming to a space like the IGF is really what we want to do to have this global feedback and to have a document that can really be inclusive. So I just wanted to ‑‑ to show that that's really, really important discussion here about cooperation.
>> TATIANA TROPINA: Thank you very much. Anything else to add to this an absolutely fascinating debate, I'm really happy we have this discussion. You know seemingly and I think this will be my last word from the moderator when you open certain papers and I had to read them all right whether I was interested in the topic or not I had to read the papers. And in the end they all raised important point ‑‑ points and you feel like you're interested in any of the topics and then you have to make a note to think about the flow of the session to think what kind of questions can be asked mere. And what I saw is that the Dynamic Coalitions have much more in common, they seem to be 13 disconnected papers or 13 disconnected names of the coalition, and I'm glad that so many of you had something to say on ‑‑ on several issues so thank you very much and with this I think we will be running out of time soon. I would like to give it back to Avri and Markus.
>> AVRI DORIA: Thank you, Avri Doria speaking. I would like to thank the Dynamic Coalitions that went to the work to put up these papers. I want to thank everybody who commented on the papers. I'd also like to mention that the papers are still available that they're still open to comment. One of the things that really impressed me and this builds on what Tatiana said is the commonalities, the common themes, the threads running through, the notion of consent, jurisdiction and such. I also think we've got a couple messages to take back to the Multistakeholder Advisory Group, the MAG, I'm in my last day of it but I'll take ‑‑ actually, next‑to‑last day of it and I'll take the message back that one about the time and the importance of the time. I think that the Dynamic Coalitions that grew up very independently have now begun to coordinate and ‑‑ and, you know, come up with a certain commonality are an important basis, an important sort of ongoing engine, a continuity for the IGF that's important. I think that we're starting to get to the point where they'll actually have things that are very valuable outputs that can be used as inputs to other processes, to other organizations, to each other, the notion that coming together in this conversation actually enabled you to find out, oh, we actually have agreements, or, oh, we actually have disagreements that are worth discussing and perhaps turning into larger discussions as we go on.
I want to thank Tatiana for drawing out these threads, for reading all the papers more than once, and drawing out the themes that basically show us that continuity. So I want to encourage everybody that's working on Dynamic Coalitions, I think I'll actually be working on a new one that's forming here and so I'll be involved in the next year, but as ‑‑ as ‑‑ in one of the ‑‑ the Dynamic Coalitions. And I actually, since I will cease being the cofacilitator of the Dynamic Coalitions group, I want to thank all the Dynamic Coalitions and my partner Markus in basically the partnership over the last two years. The work we've done to basically take Dynamic Coalitions sort of out of the basement of the IGF and really bring them into a certain amount of visibility and let people see how incredibly valuable they are. Thank you all and I end this session so that we're in time for the next session to be able to set itself up. Thank you all.