You are on page 1of 24



* * * 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. * * * >> LYNN ST. AMOUR: Everything is still coming together here in the room, and, in fact, there are still people coming in slowly. So I will just give it another minute or two before we start. I would like to welcome everybody to the Dynamic Coalition on Internet values. We have one or two panelists that will join us a little bit late. Dr. Cerf should be here in 30 minutes or so. I know we have remote participants as well. Two or three minutes on this Dynamic Coalition and then we will ask the panelists to introduce themselves and respond to a question. This particular Dynamic Coalition came out of a workshop on the fundamentals, particularly around the core Internet values which was held back in 2009 in Sharm elSheikh in Egypt. And then following that a Dynamic Coalition was established and there have been two other presentations since that time, one at the IGF in Vilnius and another at the IGF in Nairobi. This is the third meeting of the Dynamic Coalition, and one of the things we want to come out of this meeting with is really trying to be concrete about some next steps and some work. The purposes of the Dynamic Coalition are to actually do work between meetings. Largely remotely. There's an awful lot of work being done on core Internet values and various parts of Internet ecosystem. I would like to try to define whether or not there's something specific we want to do here, particularly in the multistakeholder format. So the Dynamic Coalition on core Internet values was organised to debate issues such as what makes the Internet what it is? What are its architectural principles? What are some of its core

principles and values and what's happening to them in the process of Internet's evolution? So specifically, when we talk about core values and principles, the things we often quote are openness, transparency, collaborative processes, bottom up, local processes that is embodied in the IRI process and the distributed nature which is central to how a lot of the work actually gets done across the Internet ecosystem. So over time, some of those principles and values have been threatened, I guess, sometimes, you know, perhaps less intentionally in terms of trying to address or solve some problem without clear understanding of the impact it actually has on the Internet, other times we could probably ascribe more intent to some of those actions. Before I do, that I want to ask each one of the panelists to take a moment to introduce themselves. In particular, I would like a quick reflection on whether or not they think the Internet principles are alive and well. Are they thriving or are they under some level of threat for lack of a better word? So I will turn to my right and I actually like to thank Siva. It has been central to the other two and was very central and the driving force behind this particular workshop. So it's really to Siva that we owe all of us being here today. One final comment, while I am with the Internet Society and a number of the members up here are Internet Society. This is not an Internet Society, but a Dynamic Coalition. They have a minimum of three multistakeholder commissions. If I say we, I'm doing my best to say we as a Dynamic Coalition, not specifically to an ISOC set of activities or ISOC kind of ownership, if you will for this. We all own the core Internet values. So Siva? >> SIVASUBRAMANIAN MUTHUSAMY: Thank you, Lynn. I serve as the president of Internet Society in India, I'm from India and that's in brief about me and responding to the question by Lynn, I think Internet core values are under a serious threat and a lot of things that are happening all around us, a lot of changes, a lot of regulations that are proposed, a lot of legislation is underway. They seek to threaten, to alter the core values considerably. And in my opinion, a lot of these changes are happening quite unintentionally, it's not that governments want to alter core values intentionally. It is just that Internet is new to us and Internet is new to governments and there are several departments handling Internet. For example, in Germany, at least, six different ministries deal with different policy functions related to Internet and then France, there are roughly three ministries

that handle different policy aspects of Internet and there are often not sufficient coordination between these ministries and it so happens that sometimes somebody in some department who does not quite sufficiently understand how Internet works tens to make some policy changes, some policy proposals that end up being very, very harmful to the Internet and its core values. For example, we know that government of India has been very, very positive, and the minister from India was here at this IGF, and he has understood Internet and he's understood how Internet Governance works and he was that the term Internet Governance itself is an oxymoron and he was talking about Internet accountability and to that extent he was positive. He was reaching out. At the same time, somewhere else from somewhere else in India, a proposal was filed at the ITU that was very bad. I don't want to use a different language. I would simply say that it was very, very bad. This is how lack of coordination between government departments gives rise to some proposal that inevitably threaten the core Internet values. So what the core values coalition and what the Internet institutions could do is to make sure that every corner of the policy making sphere understands how the Internet works. Once there's sufficient understanding of how the Internet works and how it has to evolve, I think most of the policies will be in the proper direction, thank you. >> Lynn St. amour: I'm going to go direct through the panelists. I would like the remote participation. So we want to get a broad spectrum of views. Sebastian. >> Thank you, Lynn, and thank you, Siva for organizing and supporting this Dynamic Coalition. I'm a member of ISOC and I am board member of ICANN. But I am not talking on behalf of any of those organisations. I want to push a little bit farther what Siva said, whatever country, democratic or not democratic, we end up with the same type of decision to make a law each time we have trouble with something that happened once on Internet. And we end up add law to law to law, and, in fact, the situation will be better handled by the private sector, the civil society and in discussion, in finding some consensus discussion, and the fact that it's very often ending in the parliament where people are really not aware of what is happening. They take bad decision and then it's one element to threaten more Internet as we knew it and as we would like to have it in the future. Thank you. >> LYNN ST. AMOUR: Thank you, Sebastian. Paul Wilson. >> PAUL WILSON: Hi. I'm from the organisation APNIC so we're

a member of the technical community, and have been for coming up to 20 years. We operate as a nonprofit, mutual organisation that has this technical responsibility of managing IP addresses. And I guess because we are a predominantly technical organisation, we have taken a fairly pragmatic and practical view of what we do. We know what we have to do and we know technically how to do it and probably haven't spoken so much about the values, the vision of the values behind what we do. But I think as years have gone by and particularly as we bet into this much more complex world that I think the IGF exemplifies, it becomes more and more important to talk about our values, to have people understand what we as an organisation are and I think it's it can be said fairly reliably that movements and organisations that actually have values and vision to express are generally more successful than those that go from day to day on a just knowing simply what they do and how they do it. So we have been spending a bit of time on this. I think the same thing I described actually goes to the Internet itself, that the idea of having identified some identified vision and a set of values for the Internet gives us a very good a very good idea, if down the track the Internet were to change, I mean, and that's what we are talking about here. We are talking about the way the Internet might evolve in future. I think of what network we are using in future, it's going to be an IPbased network and we will call it the Internet but how would we know if the Internet 10 or 15 years town the track became a different Internet than the one we enjoy today. It may not be so easy to tell, but it certainly helps if we have an idea of the values that are supported and the vision of the Internet and how it is really intended by a consensus of us to operate. I think to the question that Lynn asked is whether the principles of the Internet, which I think we do need to enumerate, whether those principles are here with us today. I think they are. I think the only reason why the Internet has been absolutely the only reason that the Internet has been so successful is because of the values that are either implicit or explicit in the way it's been envisioned and the way it's run, and the Internet is thriving. The growth of applications, of content, of usage and the user base of the internet is phenomenal. So today we are doing well. The question is whether tomorrow the Internet or as a said 10 or 15 years down the track might be on a path towards change that does damage those values and the success. So the values are things like the Internet as a single global accessible network that links every point of the Internet to

every other point. The fact that it's a neutral network, where the actual infrastructure of the Internet, the Internet itself is separate from and can be separated from the applications and the content that run across it, whether the Internet continues to be open and accessible. These actually are these are values that I think we all actually understand these days and they are they are critical values. They are values which have been actually delivered to us and they have been enabled by the both the original design of the Internet and the way that it has been maintained. I mean, we tend to take these things for Granted. The Internet is the Internet, but they have not been delivered magically they have been designed and maintained. So there are numerous ways in which those values may or may not be served by developments. Over time, we might see a sort of fragmentation of the Internet down the track and an increase in the complexity of the Internet down the track, where you have fragments of the Internet which have more complex interconnections between them than exist today. That could happen. That would be as a result of the failure of the IPv6 in the next decade and it could be due to policy regulations that start to break the Internet up. The neutrality of the Internet, likewise, is something that could be broken up, whether it's predominant or unregulated, whether it's other governmental or regulatory actions. I mean, the interesting thing about network neutrality, the term didn't exist before the Internet at all. The term prior to the Internet, there was no such thing as a neutral network, because a network was provided by telecom's carrier that bundled the transportation and the applications and everything you did into a stack of services and it was never neutral. It couldn't be neutral. So network neutrality, the ability to have a debate about network neutrality, no matter what your position on it, is the privilege we have of having a debate about it is something that the Internet has delivered to us. That could be eroded and disappear so that we find ourselves technically up able to deliver a network that's neutral in the same way that the Internet is today, and that debate then becomes a thing of the past. So there's many aspects of this and I won't go on hogging the microphone, but I think the the Internet is thriving. The values are still with us. I think there are there are all sorts of circumstances, call them threats or inadvertent circumstances that might change or threaten the values that we have and I think it's really useful in this forum to actually be able to talk

about them, identify them and help to understand how we would recognize if they dis appeared or how we might help avoid that from happening. Thanks. >> LYNN ST. AMOUR: Thank you, Paul, and that was actually a nice level and a nice thorough, sort of expose of some of the Internet values. I actually can't see what the name tag says right to your immediate left and if it says okay, Desiree. Desiree was a tentative and apologies on some of the flux. There are a number of other seminars and people are fighting over resources. So let's move to Alejandro. >> ALEJANDRO PISANTY: Thank you lip. My name is Alejandro Pisanty, I'm the chair of ISOC Mexico and the professor at the National University of Mexico. I'm not speaking on behalf of the university, and I'm very tentatively speaking on behalf of the chapter because this is work that will go back there. First, I want to join Lynn in embracing, enormous, the efforts of Sivasubramanian Muthusamy, he has kept the continuity of the efforts, and I'm enormous thankful and in recognition of what you have enabled us to achieve and achieved yourself. We really have a great debt of gratitude to you. It's hard to improve on what Paul Wilson has already said. I think that there's something to add, which is these threats the threats that I see are very concrete. They are pervasive, they are of a permanent nature, and they are of a recurring nature. It's not only that some actors or some involuntary circumstances will continue to present, but it's also that new actors and circumstances will continue to present. We can only not foresee when and how strongly a company will do something, including lobbying a government for legislation. That actually interferes with network neutrality. That's one of the most visible threats right now, that will interfere with the endtoend principle. I think we should see the threats coming and be warned about them. That's my assessment about this general let's say, at the more technical levels of the core principles and certainly the precipitations of collaboration, decentralization, the whole multistakeholder setup are continuously both being built up and being threatened. When I see this type of circumstance, my reflex is to think of performing a risk assessment, which has to be very objective. It includes strengths and weaknesses. It includes threats that are very improbable, very unlikely but would be a very high impact and those classifying the threats by their impact and probability and to try to make a rational, assessment, I think there is an important space to do this in the format of a Dynamic Coalition or a similar one in the sense that

many organisations that come together in different fora are able to perform some parts of this and we are able to outsource and bring in a more popular and open participation to these by individuals, small companies, small consultancies, the whole multistakeholder gamut and that's one possible task to perform that would grow on the competency and the strength of the existing organisations and do that a lot more to the mix. >> LYNN ST. AMOUR: Thank you, Alejandro, excellent as ever and thanks for repeating the thanks to Siva as well. Nick, I want to make sure that you are not falling off the table there and you are really part of the panel. If we need to scoot down, please do so. Give us your thoughts on the Internet values. >> Sure. Thank you very much and my thanks also to Siva for keeping the flame alight when there weren't many others to carry it and I'm glad to be here today. I'm Nick Ashtonhart, I'm the Geneva representative, we have the privilege and the burden of being the only technology industry association that has a permanent presence in Geneva. So I get to watch the sometimes painful way in which the struggles over the identity of the Internet play out in different aspects of international policy, be they at the ITU, or in the World Trade Organization, where there are negotiations on liberalizing services and in recognition that the openness of the Internet is of key economic importance to the future, interestingly enough. And there is I think there are values to the Internet, there's no question. The application of those values, I think is the difficult part. If you think of the Internet as a general purpose technology that affects everything, not just some things, the last, I think probably the best example was the development of the steam engine in the 1800s. And if you think about that, before the steam engine, time was not synchronized. The reason they had to create a common time was because of railway schedules. Railways that were made possible by the steam engine. People literally traveled by horses that it took so long to travel between points you didn't need to have common time. You think of just changing from having village time to national time. And I think this is what the Internet is doing to the modern world. It's completely transforming everything about it, and not everyone wants to be transformed. Not everyone wants to see the same videos. Not everyone wants to see their national see the same information. Human rights are recognized in pretty much every country but we would not recognize those rights being congruent with what those rights mean.

I think the challenge is to recognize that we need to have common understandings of the architecture of the Internet and the core characteristics which must be respected in order for it to be used for any purpose. While living with the fact that at times the application of norms, social norms for what people use the Internet for will vary widely and there are societies which are not willing to accept a globalized concept of the individual at the same pace as others. Whether we like that or not, I think we are going to have to recognize that different culture is going to have the right to define their norms slightly different even if we don't agree with them, otherwise we will see internet vulcanized, and see private Internets like Iran and the like. Then we are all lessened I about the result. I suspect that's a controversial conception. At the moment, I see the way in which conflict is perceived and it's conflated together. It's easier for organisations to say let's turn off the connection and set up a fire wall and remove what we don't like that. It's not very successful. Freedom finds a way and speech finds a way. I think the key challenge, those countries in which socially even had a consensus. This is something that we are not willing to see or read or hear, how are they able to be able to feel comfortable with the globalized parts of the Internet that do work for them and for everyone else? This is going to be a key policy challenge, and an uncomfortable one for those who would like to see the democratizing of the Internet carried every corner. It may take a little longer for that vision to become reality than we would like. >> LYNN ST. AMOUR: Thank you, nick. I want to moderate this in quite a light way. I will first ask the panelists if anybody wants to react to nick's comments. I think he was trying to elicit a response or a reaction there. Second, to ask if there's think discussion among the panelists and I'm looking to see if this any a remote participation or participation from the audience. I see there's one back there. While we get a mic, can I see if there's anyone that would like to take up Nick's challenge on what he thought was a somewhat controversial statement? Sebastian. >> SEBASTIAN: Yeah, to what Nick just expressed, I fully agree with him, but I'm not sure if it's just the case of the democratic or not democratic country, it's also happening in the democratic country where there are the citizens are part where the publication can be on the internet and that the open

Internet, it's not anymore open and when you have difficulty to to access two different publication, it's the start of censorship. Of course, we feel that it's more important when it's happening in some nondemocratic regime but I would like to say it's more broader than just those country. Thank you. >> LYNN ST. AMOUR: Thank you. So there was a question from the audience, which we will go to and that will give me a moment to get Vint settled. >> AUDIENCE MEMBER: Thank you. Can you hear me? >> LYNN ST. AMOUR: Yes and could you introduce yourself? >> AUDIENCE MEMBER: My name is Courtney Radge, I'm with Freedom House and I'm academic and writing my dissertation by cyber activism. I'm sorry by the last person's comments, Nick. You mentioned at the end about the efforts by Iran to create their own national Internet. We see this very much across the world as the regimes are learning from each other, et cetera, but I was fascinated by your example of time and how that developed out of the steam network. Steam doesn't belong to any countries. The sovereignty is not over time. Let me rephrase that, why are we conceiving of the internet based on sovereign nation state boundaries? Doesn't the Internet hold the potential along with other trends such as the power of multinational corporations and the power of individuals to connect cross borders, hold the potential for a different set of organizing principles out of nation state sovereignty. I wonder if we can get beyond the idea of the nation state, it concerns me from the human rights perspective and also an individual who drew up with the Internet that we are still conceiving of the Internet and its rules as being governed by states and that they govern their citizens so we don't care what they do inside of their borders. Online, we have the potential to have something different. I would love for us to think about, how do we make that possible? >> LYNN ST. AMOUR: So thank you. That's also a very I'm lacking a word this late the day. I will go to Nick and ask Vint if he has any input. >> NICK: I would say can we move to a conception that it's not open the old century's old concept of sovereignty. I certainly hope that's true. In fact, I think it's inevitable that we will do. I think you already see social constructions on the Internet, which are not boundary related. They are bounded by what people identifying with other people that are perceived to be like them, which is a more human construct than a physical border. But just like it wasn't overnight that people say I will

give up my concept of time in my village and agree on a national or international concept of time. It actually took a little while. There's some interesting books on it. It was quite controversial and people felt very strongly about this. They felt if they gave up the ability to tell what time it was, they were giving up their concept of the world in a real visceral way. This is why you still have daylight savings time and this kind of stuff. In two and a half centuries, we still haven't disposed of this. We are changing the time in the summer because of people who wake up in agrarian environments. I hope we will get to that vision. All I'm saying is I think we may have to be patient. It may be time for the social construction to catch up with the bounderless world. >> LYNN ST. AMOUR: Vint, could you introduce yourself. >> VINT CERF: They will wonder who was the bearded, ancient person. Hello, I'm the talking dinosaur. My name is Vint Cerf, I'm the chief Internet evangelist at Google. The question you raised, I have become interested in that, partly the consequence of this Internet governance forum. Bertrand de La Chapelle. He gives us much to think. He says that the notion of sovereignty in a highly connected environment may have to change because actions taken on the sovereign grounds may have impact on others outside of the territory of that sovereign domain. He gives an analogy where river is flowing through country A and country A pollutes the water, just before it goes into country B and has serious and deleterious results on country B. The extra minister from India, Mr. Sepaul made a statement that sovereignty was dead and the concept of sovereignty was no longer appropriate in the Internet environment. I'm not quite prepared to give up all notions of sovereignty but I will tell you that John Perry Barlow wrote an interesting manifesto about the online environment of cyberspace. I can't reproduce it literally, but it basically said the cyberspace is a different universe and you governments can but out. I don't think we can get away with this yet. If we want to adopt a nonnational kind of environment in the Internet, we have to emulate at least some of the protections that are given to us under the notion of sovereign social contract. We expect the government to protect the citizenry, we gave up some of our benefits for the protection of the forestry. That the victim has resource against the party perpetrating the harm the. There are a variety of other social order elements that show up in this social contract. If we are going to move away from

the mechanisms that sovereignty gave us, we will have to find a way to reincarnate something like that in the signer space environment, if we don't we have no resource against harms occurring against us in that space. This is not to argue that sovereignty needs to be retained but it's an argument that something has to be introduced into the cyberspace environment that provides protections and assurances of safety for people who are using that space. That may take some effort. >> LYNN ST. AMOUR: And just while the mic is going to the young woman there? Is there any participation from the remote participants in queue. >> AUDIENCE MEMBER: I think that might be the case if we are talking about democracy. If you look at North Korea and Burma before the transition. If you look at many authoritarian governments, there's no social contract, right? So we are talking about sovereignty, I think in the United States and the United States, it's very different but the problem with this idea of national sovereignty is that that means they get to control whatever they want to do over that population of the citizenry. And so, you know, when we are talking about the Internet. I think as looking at the state over that's what's happening in Iran. That's why they can create their own Internet and Saudi Arabia being able to create one Internet access point. I think getting above and beyond that notion, I think there's a strong push back. There are many states, democracies included who are very much trying to maintain the traditional concept of sovereignty. So I would push back on that. >> VINT CERF: Let's keep pushing. I still want to debate with you. First of all, you seem to have avoided the point that I was trying emphasize, which is that if we are going if we are, in fact, possible to create a uniform Internet, which we don't have for exactly the reasons you outlined, but suppose we had one, we will expect a social contract in that environment. May I ask if you reject that? >> AUDIENCE MEMBER: Sure. >> VINT CERF: You want to be unsafe? >> AUDIENCE MEMBER: I think we have to figure out a multistakeholder. >> VINT CERF: You have to come back to the table with a design of what you want to do because right now I'm hot seeing it. I'm not disagreeing with the vision that you have necessarily, but I would posit that he will have to have some type of protection, you are saying more than one. I don't understand how the jurisdictional question gets solved. Let's set that aside for a moment. The other side of the coin is the reality. The

Internet is created out of real things. It's made out of abstractions but it arises from a real, physical system and the real physical system does lie inside of nation state boundaries, unless we would do away from nation states which I don't think is likely to do in the near term, they have the ability to do a certain amount of control. So the attractive vision that you dangle in front of us is not necessarily reachable if nation states as they exist today have the ability to control that virtual environment that that you seek to instantiate. I don't know how to undo that either, no matter how we may work at special pieces of software to tunnel our way out of the traps that we might exist in. That is still an artifact and anything we can do, another person can interfere with. I think we are a long way aways from recognizing vision. We still have to figure out how to make it the place that we want to live in. >> LYNN ST. AMOUR: And thank you, Vint and Alejandro has asked to get into the queue. >> ALEJANDRO PISANTY: Thank you, Lynn. Again, I'm a little bit uncomfortable with the radio format here. (Laughter). So this Alejandro Pisanty is speaking. There are things to attend to and it will be very productive for a group of interested people to all stakeholder groups. I will go back first. This regime that will look behind let's say a lot more power and a lot more of life defined by life on the Internet, instead of determined by station states has been pointed out long ago by Walter Clinebecker, and others utopian space with John Barlow and Manuel Castellis and it's something that we know a lot about. He would know a lot about that and we know a lot about the limits, the boundaries that we meet and the walls that we bump. We know that some are a lot harder and some of the less porous. We refrain from pointing out specific countries but innuendo and other rhetorics allow you to know exactly who you are speaking about, even more. The way I see this feeds into the Dynamic Coalition is very concrete. It's a very direct funneling. What we want to see happening over the next years is the way the Internet continues to be built and expanded and it's not the way the Internet's growth and expense, it's people, companies, governments, technical organisations doing it. The way the Internet continues to be built and expanded has to be in such a way that it allows by design or incentivites or invites by design to live more in the space of flows, to live more to make more easy to have the those transnational knows that are easy to do, that are the low

hanging fruit like the transfer of information, for example, communication right to free speech, right to free association. These are easily available, compared to things like taxation or as Vint mentioned, the social function and the legitimate force, to protect people at military or physical security. That's a harder wall to climb but we do want to make sure that the design with neutrality, with openness, with interoperability and with multistakeholder decentralized decision making goes in the way of enabling these transnational global way of working against a trend that would enable more easily the national boundaries to prevail more strongly against even those things that you have already achieved to do in the space of knows. That will tell us a lot of what we will have to be watchful for. If we see, as you mentioned national Internet, or if we see layers of national Internets like proposals to administer the IPv6 addressing with national administration, if we see coercion or legal mandates to link IDNs to ccTLD, and some of the enlightened ccTLD and to do things like taxation, civil life expression, individuals registration, before speaking, anything that builds that platform, that would would have to cause an alarm to be sounded and action to be taken by those who can actually take action. I think that feeds directly into this Dynamic Coalition to elaborate. >> VINT CERF: It occurs to me that if you look at this sort of utopian view of Internet, one thing you need to keep in mind is you are not your Avatar. You are you. Your Avatar is only a representation of you. The map is 23409 the territory. And it's inescapable that the Internet is routed in a physical world. So if we are going to move away through purely natural boundaries to legal jurisdictions and the like, there will have to be some amount of multilateral or global agreement about social norms and at least legal norms that will allow abuses to be dealt with in this cyber environment. >> LYNN ST. AMOUR: Well, I have to thank you for the question. It's obviously given rise to a lot of very interesting debate and I also appreciate Alejandro starting to move with what will we do going forward? Before we pick that up, this was a question from a remote participant. (No audio). >> Thank you very much. As a followup to previous questions, we got several questions from remote participants. First, a question from Joly MacFie. As the Internet content distribution networks, how many of these affect arrangements and the endtoend principle, as the user content goes forward.

The next question was from the United States, from Marcus Ledbetter. Do we all agree that this is just one Internet? And the last one, was to Mr. Vint Cerf, this seems to be a very tricky and hard nobody to do. My question to Vint Cerf, which body do you think would have the task to manage this complex task. >> VINT CERF: Shall I try to answer the last one? Maybe this Dynamic Coalition is where that solution starts. Maybe this is a group that can begin examining what's possible and what is not. It's pretty clear, though, if you are going to have international agreements that create a kind of homologized legal framework, you will have to go to parts of the UN or a collection of multilateral treaties in order to establish agreement. I think we will start with the lowest common denominator, simple things. What does a notarization mean and what does a digital signature mean and does it have common weight in all countries? We will have to build it up a little bit all the time. I don't think there's one body that solves all the problem. >> LYNN ST. AMOUR: There were two other questions that were posed. One was do we all agree there is one Internet and the other has to do with content and peer to peer and whether the impact on the endtoend. I'm sure Vint is ready to jump in and respond. Does nip want to >> Nick. Nick. Go. >> LYNN ST. AMOUR: Nick. >> NICK: I will be cursed for the rest of my life in dealing with copyright material, given that way a musician for 20 years off and on. This is a perfect example of the clash between sovereignty law and the real world of the Internet and how it's really used. The copyright system is a national system and it's implemented different in different countries and yet cloud computing by its nature means that you access the same resource, two different times in the same day and you are accessing multiple different servers in multiple different countries on each of those occasions. And the application how to deal with the legal issues there. There has been a treaty negotiation going on in Europe for 50 years to try to determine how international law and private law works together? They haven't been able to agree to this. It is an enormously thorny issue. It's certainly true that the desire for impact. We can see that the eye tune store has different material at different times. I think we will have to rationalize the way in which rights the national rights work in an international environment. It's not just for gent contentment

but simply for the efficient function services upon which increasingly large amounts of economy rely. Pfizer, one of the world's largest drug companies recently transformed the entire ply chain and directed all of the vendors to a cloudbased sim so they can see in realtime absolutely everything about their product. Whether they are being shipped, where when are they saddled? This will become increasingly the case and the more the world is integrated in that way, the more of which the context are of law will be totally different. This has to be some change in how laws work on the Internet. I think the 50year conversation will end it won't take another 50 years because the special realities of dealing with this will require a pragmatic result that was not required by the situation over the last 50 years. It was an academic situation but now it's not academic anymore. >> LYNN ST. AMOUR: Paul? >> PAUL MAASSEN: I wanted to answer a question about one Internet in a slightly different way. It depends on how you define the Internet in asking the question. You used the term, what would the Internet be like in ten years down the road. It's the university that we are talking about. If you drill down through that through the level of users or applications, then it's really the Internet is in the eye of the beholder, that's where we get confused. Technically the Internet is the transport layer of the Internet that we are talking about. It was the thing that I was referring to before that is the single global mutual network that allows any point to connect to any other point and actually that thing is in its ideal form that we are working to preserve. It's one network. That's the beauty. Let's not confuse yourself about the Internet. If you want to be specific about the Internet layer that we all enjoy, the Internet layer is the transport layer. There has to be just one of those and it's really not a matter of perspective, it's the technical infrastructure and that's something that as within this discussion about values, we should really identify, as I say, which Internet we are talking about and be precise about that. >> VINT CERF: So it's Vint again. I would like to make a small nuance here. The Internet protocols top have to be used in the global internet. But they are lowercase I, that don't have the same scope and probably have different intent. I wanted to come back to rights management in the digital environment. It occurs to me that if we treat content as digital objects for just a moment, whether they are books, novels or some game or some other thing, piece of software, just imagine them as bags full of bits.

If we thought that it was possible to build mechanisms for access control to those bags of bits so there was some form of enforcement for access and use, if we thought it was possible to achieve that, then we might come to a general purpose solution to the problem that you were talking about, Nick. I think this may be technical mechanisms that make access to digital content manageable. Here if we were able to demonstrate that you can establish whatever terms and conditions you wished and these are access and use, and if those terms and conditions could really be enforced, technically enforced. Then many of the problems that have arisen in the national copyright, and be assimilated into this more general system. >> LYNN ST. AMOUR: I want to see if there are any remote participants or anybody here in the audience who would like to either follow up or engage on any of the discussions to date or a new topic. We need a mic up here in the front row. >> AUDIENCE MEMBER: Hi. I I wanted to say I'm a teacher. It's been a fantastic experience for me to be here and experience this. There are several threats that I observed just now and the fact that we are having a discussion. I'm coming from a country which is India, and when we talk about access, diversity perses access and I do not think that the question of Internet as a physical layer that transports data because the Internet in India, per se has been an enabler. It's been a facilitator and it's meant different things to different people. And probably as Susan would read things, its not one thing but many, but we are looking at core values. I. I wanted to particularly address this because I would slightly disagree. The discussion on the Internet and the future of the Internet has almost been not academic enough. It's in almost every space possible. I would suggest that we need to institutionalize learnings both from the IGF. It's been a fantastic bottoms up approach. There are two questions there because there's clearly and I'm putting this across in the context of the ITU and the ITRs we are looking at a situation where we could be writing binding, mandatory treaties. What happens to core values such as permissionless, innovation, openness and putting together the structures in modularity. Some of the issues that the ITRs are addressing are local and domestic. We are try to bring in IP to IP interconnectivity to spaces such as those. My concerns are many and there are strains of questions. I don't know if I have been able to articulate the right thing but if some of the panelists could comment or take those issues up. >> LYNN ST. AMOUR: I'm sure Vint is in the queue, Alejandro

and others. >> ALEJANDRO PISANTY: Thank you. I will ask you for your name later for record keeping. Especially at the same time that I hear that the discussion is too academic. I think we are lacking. We are continuously lacking in both instances. I think there's Dearth of solid academic research that has to expand the body that's already growing and on the other hand, we have to be able to take the knowledge, the informed opinion from academic discussions down to the questions as you have mentioned, how to institutionalize the knowledge coming from the IGF without institutionalizing the IGF too much because that's one thing that we continuously want to I won't say to avoid but to manage properly. An, again, you mentioned what happens to the core values, things like the ITRs have the potential to crystallize or to yeah, or else I will keep it to that, to crystallize things that should continue to be flexible, and that's the kind of permanent watch that a world functional Dynamic Coalition on Internet core values should be able to report open and maybe deliver the appropriate calls for action. >> LYNN ST. AMOUR: Then to Nick and Vint and in the next 15 minutes, I would like to go what should this Dynamic Coalition address going forward. We have interesting discussions like this and we find enough of interest to get us hooked. We have to take the next step and be a little more concrete to keep it live between forums. So Nick? >> NICK: I will try to start on that with this. Your questions are excellent ones and it made me think that perhaps one of the answers is WCIT itself because Alejandro and others, WCIT is designed to impact the permissionless interconnectivity the way you put it, the fundamental foundation of the Internet. That's why they have attracted such a visceral and a strong response. And so it occurs to me that perhaps one of the things this coalition could do is to try and articulate a vision for the fundamentals of the Internet and then recognize that people may take a different view about how societies, not necessarily nation states but how society's approach information that is sent differently than they approach the importance of preserving the free flow of data inherently and the inherent architecture of the Internet so it can work. I hope that's not true. I hope that people understand that you can't have one without the other, but maybe we can start we can get a broader start, how do we ensure the widest possible access to the Internet, on a permissionless basis, such as we have enjoyed so far, so that we get as much the

world online at the lowest cost possible, as a starting place, which is obviously clearly happening as Internet access growth is exploding in areas where it's the least dense. Maybe that's not the right solution and you can all tell me I'm wrong but >> LYNN ST. AMOUR: Vint? >> VINT CERF: I don't think you are wrong, Nick. It's Vint. Let me start by asking you to think a little bit about how the Internet is actually constructed it is a layered architecture. I don't want to make that overly rigid or prescriptive, but it's helpful to think of it as a layered architecture, and what happens as you work your way up in the layers, you abstract from the behavior of the lower layers. You actually hide some of the details and as a consequence of this abstraction going upwards, there are emerging properties that come out of those abstractions and what is interesting about the emergent properties. When you get up to the point where you are in the application space, you are in a universe that's nearly unbounded because it's an artifact of software. It's literally an artifact of software and how it interprets bits that it's moving around. The consequence of this notion of emergent property is that the jurisdictional aspects, how do you go about enforcing some mar practice may vary from one layer to another, which is why, for example, we might tolerate an ITR that's focused on the layers of physical interconnectedness, and then we might not tolerate something that says something about what we can or can not do or say. I think we have to keep in mind that order arising out of this abstraction and emergent properties will vary from one layer to another. Second point is the Internet has evolved successfully over the last 30 years of its operation primarily because it's a regulationfree environment. Most of the decisions that it made are freely made among parties. The protocols invented and adopted are a consequence of consensus in the IETO and the decision to interconnect or not or even to build a piece of Internet or to choose a particular piece of equipment or a particular version of software is entirely open. And each individual operator chooses, even you do when you buy a router to put at home and build a WiFi choice. Nobody dictates to you anything except you should buy one that does the following things because if you don't it won't work. It should do IPv6 now because you need IPv6, things like that. So I think one core principle that we want to use, the relatively deregulated environment has allowed other forces and incentives to choose a way forward for Internet to incentives to find a way forward for Internet.

>> LYNN ST. AMOUR: So I will ask Siva to say some comments and see if we can get a mic up here at the front. The small committee who was pulling the panel together failed horribly in the gender balance. I'm proud to say that the questions have come from women in the audience. If we can get a mic here. >> SIVASUBRAMANIAN MUTHUSAMY: It was supposed to be here, and I made some miscommunication error and so she's not here. I want to reflect on the suggestion by Nick Ashtonhart. He talked about the coalition for the future of the Internet. We can bring together some of the most brilliant minds. Vint was talking about 18th century philosophy being reincarnated. I can think of people like John Perry barlow and Vint and not only think about Internet as the layer, as it means to technical people, but to think of Internet as what it means to the common man. It is it is much broader than the layer. It is much bigger than the layer, because everything for the common man. And we want to articulate a vision for that Internet, put together some of the brilliant minds and come up with a vision and communicate that vision to governments and other stakeholders so we start working on it in the long term and that's one of what I think we could do, and it's open for corrections. And the other thing we could to is have even between IGFs and not I'm not talking about only about events, but some activity between IGFs. It could be an event. It could be it could be anything. It could be anything happening in different parts of world, one in New York, one probably in Mexico, India, Pakistan, everywhere and so that way we can continue our activities and we can expand the participation in our mailing list. These are some of my ideas and suggestions. And it's for Lynn to think over and do it for the next one or two years or more. >> LYNN ST. AMOUR: As somebody on my staff says, I think that was a lateral pass to what he believes is a more nimble player! (Inaudible). >> VINT CERF: That's called delegating upwards. >> LYNN ST. AMOUR: I'm doing what Siva tells me to do. Do you have any comments before we go to Fitima. >> AUDIENCE MEMBER: I'm ISOC ambassador, I'm Fatima, but I speak in my personal capacity. We are speaking about bottom up processes and regarding to the future of the Dynamic Coalition, it's a suggestion, I think it would be a good idea to do the outreach in the national and regional IGF, to get information from the community and build a Dynamic Coalition. Thank you. >> AUDIENCE MEMBER: I will just make a quick comment. I

couldn't agree more with Siva when he mentions this should be more IGFs. One would want a thousand flowers to bloom. Internet largely has become for us in this part of the world, public good. When you are looking at any policy that affects that, it has to be taken into consensus by multistakeholder and it has to look at opinions because it will affect our future. So that was one submission. And the second was we had the occupy wall street, we had the Arab spring. If you could look at this as an Internet Governance movement and not merely a forum and keep us all connected because there are vulnerable communities and I speak from the margins and mostly women and children are used by a peg by a lot of governments in a lot of spaces for backland regulation. So that must not happen. And if we could somehow facilitate this process of engagement, and disseminate the learnings, that becomes crucial because we celebrate this move. We celebrate this opportunity but I do believe we owe it to the universe to protect what we have. >> LYNN ST. AMOUR: I would follow you into that vision. >> VINT CERF: Did you just delegate in the other direction this? >> LYNN ST. AMOUR: Just pulling in other people. Let me see, is there anyone who wants to come in or that or any other suggestions? I mean, we certainly have taken a number of possibles away in terms of things we might go do more concretely, and we will get you the mic back. There's a mailing list open. Let's see if we can identify some concrete activities. We will go to you and then to Vint. >> Hello, so on concrete recommendations we were on a panel yesterday about national and regional IGFs. And I think for those of us who are attending the international IGF for first time, but who also attended the national ones, it is very unclear how are these related and how do these feed into each other? And I want to go you yes, so Siva, you have a very long name, the gentleman from India, what can we do from in between. One of these things could at least be to create a wiki or something online where some of the outcome documents, request be put online, I think having physical meetings, can create barriers. I think there are multiple ways of doing that, and the core values of internet, ultimately, I think is one of the most important debates that's at hand. So this is a great opportunity. One thing I would like to get from you guys before this ends is how to continue this discussion between IGFs.

>> LYNN ST. AMOUR: I really appreciate your comments and we will go to Vint and I'm really heartened to hear the support for the core Internet values because within ISOC, we spent so much time talking about it, you could feel it is overdone, and though more is feed. Vint? >> VINT CERF: So I have two suggestions, maybe three. In the Internet engineering task force where working groups develop standards one of the things is to send a design team out, maybe three or four people, not many more than that, to work through the problem and make concrete propositions. We might pick particular problems and have a design team approach to proposals to solve them or at least proposals to approach them. Example, Internet I'm sorry, intellectual property management, of course, is a huge area, but design team that tackles a conceptual framework for dealing with that in an online environment may be a concrete thing. I'm not saying that's the own thing. I'm picking that as an example. The other thing I find extremely appealing is this notion of Internet Governance. Sometimes the words capture exactly what you want and this is not a point solution thing. It's a continuous process. And in the case of core values, this Internet Governance movement, I would interpret to mean the preservation, a movement to preserve the values that have made the Internet what it has been and should be in the future. I like the term very much and thank you for introducing that into our universe. Google plus has a service called hangouts and if you have adequate access to Internet bandwidths, hangouts turn out to be a good way to have discussions if you are not in the single place. >> SIVASUBRAMANIAN MUTHUSAMY: That's limited to ten users. >> VINT CERF: But that's why I said design team, which is usually three to four. >> LYNN ST. AMOUR: I think it was a product message. I want to go around once more, giving preference to those who have not spoken much, Paul, Alejandro, Nick, closing comments? >> ALEJANDRO PISANTY: Yes, it's a comment on the comments you have made about the Internet forum, and the fact that you start to be involved at the national level and the regional level before to come to the international one. It's interesting because IGF was created the other way around. It was created not bottom up, but top down, and and even at the beginning, it was very difficult to make understood that we need regional and national IGF and it's still not understood everywhere. In France, there's no IGF at all. And I don't see when it will be. It's interesting the way it was done and the way you leave. I would like to take as a very good suggestion, how we can, under

this subject, in each and every IGF and not just traveling because it's quite complicated but people who could be involved like you in your country or in your region and with the tools we can have to be in agreement and participation on that subject. I think if we can globalize this local intervention, it will be a good way to go. Thank you. >> LYNN ST. AMOUR: Thank you, Sebastian. Anyone else? >> Final remarks. Well, I think the suggestion with respect to the national and regional IGFs is very well put. The ongoing process that's employed by Dynamic Coalition is a really good one for linkage at the regional and national levels. This was recently an Australian IGF, it was a really nice approach to Internet values which started with a brainstorming are what are the aspects of the Internet that we believe are fundamental and which we take for granted, as I mentioned before or that we would regret if we lost. And I think that's a really interesting approach, but one of the sort of problems I had with the process it was a little bit over expansive to me. It sended to capture everything we wanted from the Internet, whether freedom of speech was on the list, I'm not sure, but it could have been. I think the powerful term is a word I learned to spell during WSIS which is subsidiarity, it's located closest to that problem. It doesn't mean geographically. It should be limited to what they and they alone need to do, in treaties. I would like to suggest to bear that in mind and hook at what is fundamental to the Internet, not to do with our higher aspirations. We know that's unlimited, really, but to look at it from that point of view, and maybe that's something that an exercise in the meantime, or through or sort of linkage to regional, national, IGFs we could look at. Thanks. >> LYNN ST. AMOUR: Some very interesting comments. Alejandro, or nick, any closing comments before people need to run? >> ALEJANDRO PISANTY: Very briefly, I think the issue of subsidiarity, we must make form follow function. The national IGF is like kicking a sleeping dog while you are rising under a thunderstorm and painting yourself a target, and a few more of those, but it's really not necessarily a desirable thing you. You have to find the tactic that's locally appropriate. I do take very seriously, the excitement and the enthusiasm, the wiki actually already exists. We have to I take responsibility, I guess, together with Siva who made it available for you to contribute and we have a mailing list that we will include you in and make more active, all the things exist and I'm committing to you to put a lot of the effort into making it

continue and be of service and be actually fed by everybody. >> LYNN ST. AMOUR: Nick? And just one quick comment, you can actually get the Dynamic Coalition from the IGF home page on the lefthand and we will make sure that you can get easy access to the list and that sort of information from there as well. >> NICK: That was going to be my question is do we want it, like, people to give an address or something, or is it easy to go to the IGF website or something? >> SIVASUBRAMANIAN MUTHUSAMY: What you can do is give me your cards and straightaway, tonight, I will give you the mailing address, or send you an invitation to the mailing list straight away. >> VINT CERF: I'm having a small cognitive dissidence right now. We were talking about trying to move away from nation state, sovereignty and everything else. So why do we think that we have to have national and regional IGFs? Why aren't we talking about people who have common interests, no matter where they happen to be and the organizing principle is not where you are but what you think and what you are interested in. >> It has to do with travel costs. >> VINT CERF: No, that's why we use the Internet. >> But Google hangout only allowed ten people. >> VINT CERF: That's why there's design people. There are a bazillion people to listen in while the other ten are talking to each other. >> LYNN ST. AMOUR: So you think we need both obviously. There are some discussions that are really well advanced local level, local language, really particular, and you can take it to the concrete, and then you can actually use that to move forward and drive action. And yet there's an awful lot of learning that happens in broader forums and exchange of best practices and thoughts and your ideas are enriched. I think there's a lot of value in both of them. That's one of the good things about the global IGF, if that's what we are calling it and a whole host of different forum, whether it's a national IGF or some workshop, but it's about discussion, communication and exchange of ideas. We are a little over time. I would like to thank the remote participants for hanging in there. I'm sure this is not nearly as robust or enriching activity as when you are in the room. And I see one comment back here from >> AUDIENCE MEMBER: Just one comment to the enter recent comment of Mr. Cerf from a remote participant. Johnson says, the general purpose nature of corporate comes from the inherent flexibility of information, once it's published. This is reflected in the fact or the idea or wiser expression. You don't

really deal with the nature of corporate line, if you talk about work as bags of bits. So I think this is a question. Why is it strictly limited to rights? People are sure their rights via local sovereignties. The people must rely on that for rights, versus the broader oversights the nation states attempt. So it was a comment, general. >> VINT CERF: If you want me to respond, one of the things I need to respond, the bag of bits is not static, necessarily. Because if it's a piece of software, or if the bits need to be interpreted by a piece of software, it's a very dynamic thing. So if the criticism is that the bag of bits is similar to a book or other static object, I don't think they have to be. >> LYNN ST. AMOUR: I wasn't forcing to you respond but I always like your responses. I thank everyone for engaging and obviously some good suggestions. Thank you not panelists and a very big thank you to Siva as well. He's really been, as Alejandro has said, the person who has kept this alive from forum to forum. I would like to give everybody a round of applause and thank you very much. (Applause) (End of session) * * * * * This is being provided in a roughdraft 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. * * * * *