Transcript of the Dynamic Coalition on Core Internet Values

http://bit.ly/igf10core

IGF 2010
VILNIUS, LITHUANIA
16 SEPTEMBER 10
SESSION DC3

1630

DYNAMIC COALITION ON CORE INTERNET VALUES

Note: The following is the output of the real-time captioning taken during Fifth Meeting of
the IGF, in Vilnius. Although it is largely accurate, in some cases it may be incomplete or
inaccurate due to inaudible passages or transcription errors. It is posted as an aid to
understanding the proceedings at the session, but should not be treated as an
authoritative record. [ Link to this transcript at the IGF Web bit.ly/igf10core

>> Now you are talking. We will start in few minutes. The time that the Chair of this
Dynamic Coalition sit in his role and -- you will have to forgive us for the -- some
unprofessional way we will run this -- he will run that very professionally. I was asked by
Siva who is not here unfortunately to take his role during this meeting. But today it was
quite difficult but fortunately you are around this table. A lot of people know the subject
and a lot of things to say and it will be very easy. I am sure. I will try to make the
moderation -- nobody is designated for this meeting.

>> I was.

>> Now you are the Chair. You are in the moderating online and I will give the floor to
Alejandro and you will run the meeting. Thank you for accepting.

>> ALEJANDRO PISANTY: We will do this together in teamwork. This is a very unfortunate
circumstance that Sivasubramanian Muthusamy from ISOC who put together a lot of the
work, put in a lot of work to create this meeting, to find an agenda, to invite the speakers
and to coordinate it fully was not able to come to Vilnius and it is only in the last day that
we found out that he was just not going to be able to come over. So we are going to start
this with the best we can. The goodwill, small number, available number of people present
and focus on our subject. Will surely help us overcome the difficulties that they can see
already at work. One of this is that Siva has engineered the discourse for meetings with
the order of speakers and that has not been transmitted to us in enough detail. But I think
we can make up for that with the collective intelligence that's gathered here in this room
and the wisdom of the individuals which I hope we will convert in to the wisdom of this
group.

And second obvious challenge is the sound level surrounding us. So I will encourage
everyone who speaks to speak reasonably loud without creating an escalation. Speak
slowly because very much the challenge we have is understanding English for many of us
who are nonnative speakers. I always have a free train of thought than prepared
statements that do not match. But just make -- let's all make sure that we express
ourselves with enough clarity.

The people whom Siva have invited are a stellar panel. We have -- I am going to go from my
left in following the direction of the clock. If my memory and notes serve me correctly
Sebastien Bachollet. Peter Dengate Thrush had the Chair of the board ICANN. Well-known,
very expert intellectual property barrister and who is making a mark in the domain system
on the Internet. Glen from -- your family name. Glenn Scott. Sorry for that. Glenn Scott
from the Imagining the Internet Project from the Elon University School of Journalism and
Samantha from the same school. Click plug for you to know that you all have to speak
during this session so that Samantha can know who you are and capture you in the
corridors and make sure that your words about the Internet are recorded.

Danielle former ICANN board member and very distinguished career on the Internet.
Markus Kummer, the secretary of the IGF, extraordinary character. If I start, I will fill the
whole session speaking about you in a good way. And we will start with a very brief
statement that I would like to make to set the scene, and if I am not forgetting any other
appointment speaker, we will immediately hand it over to you. At this time of day the last
procedural point, at this time of day most of you have heard a lot and are itching to speak.
And on the other hand, some of the appointed speakers have spoken enough and are
itching I know to hear what other people think. So we will try to call on you to -- especially
appointed speakers in the initial round to make very sharp pointed statements that invite
discussion and we will carry on from that.
If I see a large number of speakers I will put a very tight limit on the time allowed for every
speaker. I will start with four minutes and if it gets very active, I will bring it down to three
and then to two. As the format demands. Very brief statement to just set the table for
what we want to do. As you remember and Markus will be the best person to correct me
here if I am stating this wrong, the concept of Dynamic Coalitions we are going to discuss
for the case of Internet values came out during the discussions of how to organise and how
to let the IGF evolve and would the IGF be good for. People were mostly in agreement with
a mandate for the IGF to be basically and foremost a discussion forum. A place for the
exchange of ideas and for people who go to other organisations for which they belong and
these fresh exchanges and learning from others would go and start things and continue
things or stop things but would act in this other fora. However, there was a large number
of people with concern that by meeting in a place like the Forum with this open and diverse
format would be inclined to take action from their words.

The view that was expressed at the time by the meeting society was the first who came
with this figure of speech was that surely people would come together in groupings that
would be dynamic and grow according to purpose and grow. And follow on on some of the
issues that would come out here, like accessibility, like who knows what.

That's where the name Dynamic Coalitions first started in my recollection within the
multistakeholder advisory group for the IGF. There have been a number of efforts started
on different subjects they have been working. There is groupings that meet several times a
year in different places. They discuss and put forward proposals for action for different
organisations and so on. For the one that we are meeting here today the proposal was put
forward by Sivasubramanian Muthusamy as I mentioned from my Internet Society to start a
group that would discuss in more depth, and they defined ways to interact with
organisations that are out in the field. Those things that make the Internet be the Internet
and that if you remove them it stops being the Internet. If you attack them you are
attacking the Internet. There has been much speech about these values. Present to this
day was a workshop that was organised by Siva in Sharm El Sheikh. A workshop that was
in the W3C in Raleigh, North Carolina and in both Sharm El Sheikh and in Raleigh we had
the privilege of having some of the founders of Internet standardize of the first technologies
that came together as well as other people who came from other walks of life. I will stop
there and leave it to Markus Kummer. Markus has told me that he is pressed with several
other commitments. I hope he can still make them and have a contribution.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you and hello to everybody. Yes, your recollection of the
beginning of the Dynamic Coalitions is quite accurate. I would like to not correct but
compliment a little bit on your information. It came a little bit out of dichotomy. Those who
wanted the IGF to turn in to an organisation, very structured with working groups on this
and on that and there are others who said the mandate was much more modest, the IGF
was an annual meeting and that's it. And then in the discussion someone came up and
said well, maybe there might be Dynamic Coalitions emerging from the discussions. And in
Athens I think we had six Dynamic Coalitions and then they sort of came and went. And
some of them were more dynamic than others but my feeling was that most of them were
not that dynamic. Some of them only, existed to organise an annual meeting and then
confusion crept in that they were here to create a workshop at the annual meeting.
So we sort of tried to say well, this cannot be the purpose of a Dynamic Coalition if you just
go around and organise one meeting. So basically we said we offer a meeting room to
each Dynamic Coalition provided they have some sort of sign of activity between the
meetings provided that they have reports of their activity. Now we have D-listed some of
them who are dormant coalitions. They can requalify to be relisted if they show a sign of
life but on the whole I have not seen that much coming out of them. Quite often it is linked
to personalities who are active in driving many issues and then they are transferred and it
hangs with them. One of the weakness, we cannot offer any structured support. It
depends on the volunteers who are willing to push this. Two of the Dynamic Coalitions that
we have on the climate change, on accessibility for people with disabilities are actually
supported by the ITU. So they have some kind of institutional support whereas the others
live on the enthusiasm and the drive of their respective members.

Now Dynamic Coalitions therefore are not just to this admin -- I haven't seen the agenda. I
know that Siva has tremendous energy and enthusiasm, tremendous convening capacity. I
was at his workshop last year and I saw the list of speakers and I thought they would never
turn up and they all turned up. He was really quite enthusiastic about that on that
workshop. I don't know what the plans are to convert the workshop in to something more.
And my advice to you will be not just to discuss substance which is very interesting, the
core values and then it is worthwhile discussion, but if you think you want to perform a
Dynamic Coalition you ought to also consider on how to move forward and who does what
and what your internal work programme is but if you meet the next time in Kenya, if
everything goes as we hope for, then I think that will not be good enough. You need
somebody who will take on the responsibility, write the reports. And I think there should be
some activity between the two annual meetings. You don't need to have a physical
meeting, of course. You can have a virtual exchange as you kind of -- there are certain
minimum standards. We were never able to define what these minimal standards were.
Basically what we would expect is an annual report that documents some activities
between the annual meetings. I feel a bit bad it sounds like I am spoiling the party
reminding you of some of the work in between. But I think it is essential that you also
devote some attention on how these more mundane aspects work. I will stay on a little bit
to listen to the discussion and excuse me if I move out earlier. Thank you for your
attention.

>> ALEJANDRO PISANTY: Sebastien. I am going to make the first round with the
appointed speakers and then follow the request.

>> SEBASTIEN BACHOLLET: I want to react on what Markus said about Dynamic Coalition.
I am not sure if you want to wait or because I was one of the first Dynamic Coalition on
open standards. So I went through the process of trying to organise a Dynamic Coalition
and it is true that there is no commitment from members of coalition to actually work over
a period of time. It is all voluntary base and that is an obstacle to deliverable in. If we
define deliverable in a given coalition as producing a document, a guideline or something
like we do in the open standard coalition procurement using open standards, then we have
the issue of promoting it. Is it okay to promote something outside of the IGF area as an
IGF document? The IGF doesn't have this mandate of promoting or deciding on something
whether it is a guideline or something and then promoting to my understanding. We have
this sort of challenge of on the one hand delivering something and on the other hand not
sure what to do with it. We have to decide what are deliverable and what we want to do
with them.

>> ALEJANDRO PISANTY: Thank you. That's an important contribution. I will not be
commenting on the importance of contributions. Sebastien.

>> SEBASTIEN BACHOLLET: I wasn't really prepared to make a statement but just to say
that I am sure that even if Siva was not able to be here today he will be willing to help this
coalition to be set up and to help the work done and to help to do part of the work, of
course, and I think it is important what was said. If this coalition just to have a meeting at
each IGF it is not a good idea. And what is important is to see if there is enough
commitment from the various I will say stakeholders but also the organisations who take
part of this Internet arena where you have -- where we need to share some core values if
they agree to work on that and I will not list all but among them and then with no order
ICANN, ISOC and W3C and a whole lot of others will be necessary to be involved in this
work and I will help Siva to keep informed on what is happening today and I hope that we
will be able to have this Dynamic Coalition working and coming back next year at the next
stage with something done and not just a meeting. Thank you.

>> ALEJANDRO PISANTY: Peter?

>> PETER DENGATE THRUSH: I also don't have a prepared statement. I was only asked to
appear a short time ago. I can say a couple of things. One I think is a Forum where the
core values of the Internet are discussed and refreshed is a great deal of assistance. My
worry is that quite -- there is very little talk about governance. So I would hope that these --
the relevance of these principles when carried in to governance topics would be something
that people would focus on. That's it. I am unable to offer much assistance in relation to
formulation of Dynamic Coalition but note there are people around who are prepared to do
that. If this is a Forum I am sure that I will be able to assist in getting ICANN people along
occasionally to assist. I think the principles that if we get down to talking about those is
something we should be looking at and maintaining. Thank you.

>> ALEJANDRO PISANTY: Thank you. Go to Glenn. Will we hear somebody who is not (Off
microphone).

>> GLENN SCOTT: Okay. It is a great pleasure for me to be here today and thank you for
having me. My name is Glenn Scott. I am an assistant professor at Elon University which
is a university of about 5,000 students, a private school in North Carolina and we have
quite a large communications programme. About one fifth of the students at Elon have
majors in our school programmes. We are very active in that. Today I would like to provide
an update to this Dynamic Coalition on an event that took place and Alejandro already
mentioned it very briefly and that was an event that was held last spring. It was called
Future Web. It was our inaugural three day session, April 25th to 30th in Raleigh, North
Carolina and as mentioned it was held in proximity with the WWW 2010 event which was,
of course, much larger but gave us a chance to involve some of the same people and have
a chance to raise the discussion of core values in a more regional setting.

That event was -- as a matter of fact rather than put something on the Web I thought we
could as long as everyone has good hands and they promise not to drop it will pass around
the Web site on my iPad so you can take a look at it if you choose. If you want to navigate
that's great. I would suggest doing it over here on the side where there are no other links
because it is very sensitive and it will jump from page to page before you know it. So if
that's okay.

>> (Off microphone).

>> GLENN SCOTT: It just got a lot smaller. But that at least gives you an idea. We have a
Web site where we are archiving a lot of information that has to do really with core values
and that's I think my point today. This event Future Web was superbly organised by my
colleague, Jana Anderson who could not come this week. She is the director of Imagining
the Internet Centre which is -- which we do at Elon in conjunction with the Pew Internet and
American Life Programme. Our copartner with that is Lee Rainie, who is the
founder/director of the Pew programme. So I would like just real briefly to kind of show you
with the iPad and talk briefly about the future web but I also thought I should review the
Imagining the Internet Centre just for a minute to underscore I think how it is by nature tied
to this coalition's quest to weigh the essential values of the Internet.

Imagining the Internet Centre, well, I should say the term imagining I think speaks to the
predictive function of our project which aims to document the thoughts and ideas of experts
and stakeholders like all of us about the growth, the change and the future of the Internet.
So I think it is clear that our project shares some similar aims with this group. We ask like
you do what is the Internet, how did it emerge and particularly where is it going and what
are those implications. It is really no wonder that Professor Anderson who is really the
heart and soul of this centre since the 2006 conference in Athens has organised in-depth
coverage and has continued to conduct our video survey of conference participants and
among the questions that we pose each year one is to name your greatest hope and your
greatest fear about the Internet and we also ask for a very simple response. This year we
are asking what does the Internet mean for the future of the world. Samantha and Kirsten
across the room here are the two doing the interviewing. If you haven't had a chance to
speak with them tomorrow is our last day. I hope you will, because we are actually trying to
get as many thoughtful responses. It is not that any one response is so important but
since we are all here drilling down to think more about what makes the Internet essential.
What are the essential qualities this is I think part of the -- this is
part of our quest and to that degree we held this first conference Future Web this past
spring.
Now since we -- since I am going to pass around -- since the information is being passed I
think it is better for you to look on the Web site than it is for me to talk about it. So I think
I will stop there and pass the microphone to Samantha.

>> SAMANTHA BARANOWSKI: Hi everyone. Sorry, I turned the microphone off. My name
is Samantha Baranowski. I am a student at Elon. I am a newcomer here at IGF. I will try
my best. I was asked to speak about a programme called OneWebDay. So I am
representing thousands of students who celebrate OneWebDay year round celebrating core
values of the Internet and openness of the Internet and the celebration is September 22nd.
And it is much like Earth Day which was its inspiration to celebrate the power of the web
and opportunities everywhere as a tool for positive change and also to take action to
protect what is precious to us about the Internet. We are using this to educate the public
and policymakers and our university students participate each year to have Internet coffee
parties and they have made over 50 videos in the past two years. Pretty much every
marketing ploy.

Last year's theme is One Web For All. Called attention to efforts that will ensure anyone
who wants access to the Internet will have that access to it. And one of the core values
that's most important to those of you who do celebrate OneWebDay is the idea of person
to person sharing because then you don't have that friction caused by intermediary forces.
And by this I mean the return of the middle man which would cause bottlenecking and other
burdens that would interfere with innovation and openness that is so important especially
to the younger generation. There is a short video that we can watch or I can live the link.
Students created these videos to celebrate how important the Web is. A lot of people
don't understand the inner workings of the Internet we use daily for collaboration,
expression, to talk to family, friends, fun. So the students I work with each day wouldn't be
able to do our daily assignment without that access to the Internet. That's why
OneWebDay is so important to us to share because people especially in our generation can
take that time to reflect. One of our professors had a day where we were not able to use
the Internet and every student failed miserably within the hour. And it realised the vitality
of the Internet to us as a younger generation. So if we can maybe bring that up the video
just so you get an idea of how students are sharing these ideas with each other. If you
click on the Internet Explorer just further down -- if we can't get it up, that's okay. We have
time. Nope. Okay. Well, then we will just pass it along. But that's all I have to say for
now. Thank you for including me on the panel.
>> ALEJANDRO PISANTY: Thank you for accepting to be on the panel. Daniel Dardailler.

>> DANIEL DARDAILLER: I was part of the panel on the core Internet values and if I
remember I'd like to talk about sort of the meat of this coalition, the sort of thing we are
going to talk about. So it is not so much the technical aspect that we want to I think write
down as a core value. At the workshop last year we sort of alluded to those but those
things like end to end principle or separation of content from the presentation made to the
user, those kind of things are technical principles that we all lie internally whether at W3C
or IGF or somewhere else. We have to think in terms of what would happen if suddenly the
W3C community crashed in a plane and we have to be replaced. All of us, the staff and
the engineers working on standards, what are the documents that we would have to leave
to people explaining what our core values to go from, you know, the Internet to the Internet
across the Web. So there are things like the first thing that is important is that before they
invented the web we didn't ask anyone for permission. It was the core value of the Internet
was that anybody could do anything on top of it. So that's a real important principle. The
Web has the same capability. You can build on top of the web any application you want.
Like Web 2.0 application and we chap on top of the semantic web is more application.
There is this property of being sort of recursively open.

You are open in a sense that anybody can use your technology and you actually succeed
with your technology because anyone can use the technology below, like the IP and
Internet. So those are the values I think we have to sort out and are related to openness
in the standardization process to participation and to sort of the absolute requirement of
intraoperability for all the devices. So that's the thing that people have to remember is
that before the Internet became the Web and became so popular it was impossible for all
of us to connect to the same server because we had a different brand of computer. So we
have this kind of thing to keep in mind that are basic principles.

>> ALEJANDRO PISANTY: Thank you, Daniel. I think that covers the prepared statements
and will be very glad -- please. I know who you are but introduce yourself.

>> MAX SENGES: My name is Max Senges. I work for Google policy in Berlin. Yeah, I
would like to try to contribute to this soul searching that seems to be going on and do that
in a very constructive manner. I think there is definitely room and a lot of interest in the
things that are mentioned as the core themes of this coalition. I actually see two
directions that it could focus on. One would be values in terms of ethical values. So much
more on the cultural side and, you know, transcultural and intercultural ethics discussion
which the colleague from ICANN would probably agree or not necessarily directly
governance related but they would however very nicely compliment the work that is done.
And one of the coalitions that is actually quite active that is the Internet Rights and
Principles Coalition and as the word -- or as the name already says it takes a human rights
framework and then adds Internet principles which we actually had a long discussion
whether to call values or principles and what word to choose for them and we ended up
with principles. There is a distinction. If the letter is the case, I can only very much invite
you to look at the work that has been done over the last years in that coalition. There is a
document that defines or transposes the human rights in to the online context and then
there is a second section that talks about the core principles and I am sure all of the
expertise that is in this coalition will be very, very welcome in as a contribution to our work.

I am not 100 percent I wasn't part of the emergence of this group but maybe just for those
who haven't been following the developments there was a Dynamic Coalition in the
Hyderabad meeting that was created by IT for change by Parminder Singh and Milton Miller.
Again had very similar agenda to work on and after some discussion we saw that the
overlap between them called Dynamic Coalition on a bill of rights for the Internet and this
coalition was so close and so much overlap that we decided to merge them. And in that
regard I think it is interesting that there seems to be an urge and a need for a coalition that
deals with values and principles in particular. But yeah, I would hope that we find good
ways to compliment each other. And again as a constructive proposal I think this coalition
works mainly through a blog during the year in between meetings and the Dynamic Coalition
and Internet Rights and Principles has a quite active mailing list where a lot of people that
are interested in the subject are already exchanging stuff during the year and are working
on concrete outcomes, a/k/a this charter in particular. Thank you.

>> ALEJANDRO PISANTY: Thank you.

>> WOLFGANG BENEDEK: My name is Wolfgang Benedek. And I can follow very well to
what Max just said because we yesterday presented this, the first draft let's say of a
charter of human rights and principles on the Internet. I have a few copies still here if
somebody is interested to get them. And in this draft we also refer already in the preamble
to the core values of human rights and then elaborate a number of rights and principles
which certainly are based on such core values as open as digital inclusion, equality,
diversity, sustainability, participation and so on. So the question is where do you end,
what is core principles and what is just a principle. Network neutrality, is it a core principle
or, for example, free and open software, is it core principle that you should use it or is it
just a principle. So that is something such a coalition might have to clarify. And as we are
still working on this charter we are now in the process of getting feedback and elaborating
on it further so that 2.0 version could be presented at the next IGF.

We would also benefit from the work of this coalition if it is able to deepen the issue of
core principles. It is also important to do this because this is a common basis for
everyone who is in the Internet, who is part of the information society. We have a great
diversity here from the regions, cultures, religions, whatever. And if you are able to identify
core principles this is at least something we would have in common and certainly one has
also to build these core principles together. It is not something that you can just take out
of the air. Something that you have to build consensus around and in that sense it is also
an activist role such a coalition should play.

Having the experience of the other coalitions which Max has just elaborated about and to
which he has a lot contributed also in his earlier study on values, principles, rights it is
something to look at for maybe the coalition. I would recommend that paper. Then I would
suggest that you also think about concrete outcomes. Where would you like to be in one
year's time. And in my view that could be a list of core principles with a kind of
commentary or whatever but something, concrete product. Because if you only remain as a
discussion group then fear you would easily share the experience of other groups and we
have heard Markus Kummer telling us what was the final outcome. So in that sense it
would be very useful to have clear objectives, clear outcomes and certainly some body or
several people like a steering committee who takes the commitment to get you there.
Thank you.

>> ALEJANDRO PISANTY: Is this boring?

>> I think coming -- I am also part of the Imagining the Internet Centre and I think one of
the issues is that a word like net neutrality to youth just don't make sense to the younger
generation and these are the people that are going to be effacing these core Internet
values in this changing document. I haven't seen the document but I have heard a lot of
about it. I think almost dumbing it down and putting it in to plain text so that younger
people can understand what net neutrality is, what open access to applications means for
them and I don't think it necessarily makes sense to those outside of the discussion who
are the users and those that are actually going to be implementing some of the things that
we are talking about right now. So I think it just needs to be simplified a bit and made in to
terms that everybody can understand so that it means something outside of this room.
>> Just give me a second.

>> ALEJANDRO PISANTY: Nope, nope. Please allow me. Anybody on that side of the table
where I see people would definitely call young, do you agree that net neutrality doesn't
make much sense for youth? Is any part of the discussion making sense to you? You may
-- no, it makes no sense. That would be a very important piece of input.

>> I don't think I qualify for being young just like the girls here and yes, net neutrality does
mean something to me. I work with industry.

>> ALEJANDRO PISANTY: Could you state your name please?

>> Repeat please.

>> HENNING: Henning. I am actually here -- I was interested in the title of the workshop. I
have also been attending the Dynamic Coalition that Max has been talking about both at
this meeting and at several earlier IGFs and I must say that I think it is very impressive
what the coalition have managed to produce so far. Yes. It is a rather good text and it
makes the human rights more relevant for the Internet, interprets them in an Internet
context. I want to see how this coalition might differ from the other coalition. Thank you.

>> ALEJANDRO PISANTY: Thank you. And let me make -- yeah. Please.

>> Sorry. First regarding your question about how much --

>> ALEJANDRO PISANTY: Since there is a written record it is useful to have your name.

>> MEIRA KUMAR: My name is Meira Kumar and I am from Lebanon. And regarding your
question about how important net neutrality is it is not a question. Of course, it is
important to everyone and especially to me because when I want to express my opinions
which sometimes are not popular with adults, if I don't have a -- if we don't have the
neutrality we may not be able to have this different type of freedom of expression. Of
course, it is an important issue for even the young. I think for the young more than the
adults. And sorry for not replying immediately to your question.

>> ALEJANDRO PISANTY: It is fantastic you thought out your reply. Kirsten?
>> KIRSTEN: I don't think what I am trying to say that net neutrality is not important. It
doesn't hold traction because the terms are so large and sweeping that sometimes people
outside of the discussion just don't understand what it means. And I think in simple terms
we would all agree that net neutrality is important.

>> ALEJANDRO PISANTY: I am having three speakers because that's what my memory can
hold. So...your name first, please.

>> My name is Muriel. I am an ambassador but I am also speaking in my own capacity. I

probably will be referring to something that happened and the other speaker who asked for
was in the same workshop that I was yesterday and we were just talking about network
neutrality and in an indirect way, because we were trying to figure out how important it was
to protect children from certain types of content. And it came to the thought that how does
-- then in the main session the same question became raised because of a question and
then I think really it is a big issue. But I agree with you that the concept is not clear at all.
When we talk about network neutrality we are including so many different things in the
concept. But anyway, building a concept is also a difficult work to do. And you face some
kind of also difficulties, issues and tasks. And you have to agree in a lot of stuff. So the
point is when we were talking about network neutrality we were trying to figure out how
identity is becoming an important issue regarding the use of the network and in relation to
the importance of protecting children. That is an important idea in terms of defining the
idea of network neutrality I think. That's my opinion.

>> ALEJANDRO PISANTY: So I have you.

>> I was talking about a global I.D. system that day.

>> Name, name.

>> CARLOS: Sorry. My name is Carlos. I am a local journalist. I think that the discussion
doesn't make any sense. Because the Internet is just a tool as any other tools and we all
in the United Nations agree that democracy is a good thing and Internet should be
governed in those basic principles which are implemented in the western society for the
last 250 years.

>> ALEJANDRO PISANTY: And I have Samantha.

>> SAMANTHA BARANOWSKI: Just to add on to what Kirsten had brought up and what you
brought up I don't think it is necessarily young people but users in general that aren't
understanding the jargon. It is similar for us as students coming in to these conferences
not necessarily knowing the technical words and I brought that up in the beginning. So
after interviewing nearly six people -- 60 people at this conference in the last two days one
thing that has brought up which is an issue with IGF there isn't much representation of
users and if the users can't understand some of the issues that we are bringing up, I am
just curious as to the grass roots engagement that democracy requires is going to happen.
How we can pass these things along because I feel like a large barrier to what we are doing
is awareness, if we can't explain exactly what's going on in simpler terms if we will.

>> ALEJANDRO PISANTY: Thank you and I have -- it is Meira.

>> MEIRA KUMAR: Yes. Sorry. Regarding her question, regarding her saying that net
neutrality is not important to young people, I want to give her a concrete example.

>> ALEJANDRO PISANTY: She said it is important but that she defines the concept -- what
she said in English, it doesn't carry a lot of traction. I was just going to explain. This is a
very American expression. So let me explain American English to you quickly. My
non-American understanding remember, I am from Mexico. So we are neighbors but not.
Not there. Well, one day we will take over.
(Laughter).

>> ALEJANDRO PISANTY: Just leave us one more generation. The traction, not attraction.
But traction is what makes cars move. It is like friction of something that moves that's
called traction. Like you call four wheel traction vehicle. And the expression means that
when they say that something doesn't have a lot of traction, it means that it is expressed
but it doesn't cause a lot of movement. It doesn't inspire action. It is not well understood.
So talk about cross cultural.

>> MEIRA KUMAR: My apologies.

>> ALEJANDRO PISANTY: That having been said you are not going to speak in favor of net
neutrality against Kirsten, but I would still think that we would love to hear you speak about
net neutrality.
>> MEIRA KUMAR: Just one thing, I was going to give her an example that, for example, I
am from Lebanon, from the Middle East and we have many topics especially related to
sexuality stuff that the only space to discuss all those topics and to find information about
them is on the Internet. So without net neutrality it is like the only place where we can
breathe. Actually it is, for example, it is illegal in my country to have -- to be gay and to
express this. So without net neutrality and without the net you will not be able to form
groups and communities to resist the actual government. It is very important and depends
in which part of the world you are. Sorry.

>> ALEJANDRO PISANTY: I am glad you brought this forward in this way. I am trying to
actually move the discussion not to impose a view on it. Maybe we can dedicate a few
minutes to I think to go through a door I think you opened, which is the door of
understanding network neutrality. There are many different ways in which people
understand network neutrality. So do you think you could provide a sound byte of what you
understand?

>> MEIRA KUMAR: Net neutrality is about people being able to access the Internet without
having control of what they are saying and ability to maintain the privacy of their identity.
Like, for example, the Government should not have the right to track all my international
activity and link it back to my physical personality. I should have the option to be
anonymous on the Web. It is like remaining and I guess we can all go to Wikipedia to get
the definition of this term.

>> ALEJANDRO PISANTY: I have to say that's brilliant. Thank you. I cannot not say it.
Janis?

>> JANIS: One of the main principles of democracy is ensuring that private property is safe
and when you are anonymous it is much more difficult for the law enforcement to ensure
that whole private property. I mean private property of artists in the Web like songs, books
and movies are protected. We should get a global I.D. system.

>> ALEJANDRO PISANTY: And a global identity system, that you are identified every time
you are on line you check in.

>> JANIS: Yes. It would be easier to catch thieves and protect children from abuse,
protect people from stalking, protect from money theft like in electrical banking systems
and stuff like that. It should be diffused. The banking identification systems with --
everybody should get an I.D. It should be made possible.
>> ALEJANDRO PISANTY: I will leave us a footnote that they have some disagreements but
the discussion you open, I mean Meira has opened a very interesting door and you have
opened an even more interesting one. I would like to know if someone wants to react to
that and I am looking at the guy who is itching called Victor Roberto.

>> I think I -- first of all, I had -- I was trying to understand the point of the meeting in the
sense whether we want to discuss the different possible core values or whatever or just
prepare a discussion on that but then, of course, I would have to comment on that.

>> ALEJANDRO PISANTY: I think that the way we are proceeding is going to be a healthy
one which is to -- we are in the middle of a brainstorm. It is getting to ve a very lively and
interesting brainstorm about some issues that are related to values people hold and they
think they should be reflected or protected by the Internet. I think we begin to see that
some of them may be contradictory with each other. So I think that we should carry on this
brainstorm part for a few minutes more. We will not exhaust all issues. It seems it will be
on one or two issues and then I would like to come back to a more procedural thing and it
would be how to proceed if people want to proceed on core Internet values.

>> I am President of the ISOC in Sweden. You can view net neutrality from a purely
technical view as well. Meaning that any operator should not filter any protocol. Like, for
instance, the application Skype which you can use for telephony should not be filtered
through the network. That's another view leaving out the various privacy and what
Governments can think of. I would supply that. That's a different view in light of what we
talk about -- what we talk about net neutrality.

>> ALEJANDRO PISANTY: Thank you. So I will have Victor thank Peter for your presence
here and wish you the best. So I will have Victoro and Meira. Do we allow Victoro first?
No, no.

>> If you like. No, I just wanted to make a point which already came up in the discussions
in the Internet rights coalition which when you start talking about values it is very hard to
find common ground. If so, actually in this kind of an idea it is very easy to have an initial
founding group and knows what they want to say and protect values in some manner. It is
harder when you go out and discover more people and you discover they have more views
and it becomes more difficult. So this is one problem that whatever groups comes out of
these might have to confront with. And yes, I think that network neutrality is still a concept
not well understood, not well explored, especially because it is not at a technical level. By
the way at a technical level it might be easier to understand. So that might be an easier
part of the work. It come up network neutrality at the economic level because people
started to understand you can really affect competition and now several people are starting
to realize it comes up at social and political level because it can affect freedom of
expression and your ability to choose the source of your information, your news source and
newspaper. And the Internet is not neutral, the circulation of information and the ability to
self-organise from the bottom can be stopped. Then, of course, you will have to
understand at which level you want to bring these coalitions there or whether you want to
work on technical principles and economical principles and political whatever.

>> ALEJANDRO PISANTY: Thank you. Meira, do you feel comfortable speaking?

>> MEIRA KUMAR: In reply to the guy I saw your tweets earlier that you were saying we
should have this kind of I.D. before going to the net, we should use it. Actually it is one of
the -- if this happens I consider it a nightmare personally because you are creating a lot of
data and you are giving it to Governments and to other people that can have access to
those systems illegally. For example, hackers hack credit cards and bank systems and
very secure systems. So are you -- you are not only creating this data you are assuming
that Governments are good. That all Governments in all the world are good. And that there
are no other like criminals, partisan governments that will access this information and you
are building a big data mining for marketing companies to track your behavior. It will be
hell if it is built.

>> I think you are good and I think you have voted in the election in Lebanon. I think you
have voted. Governments come from people at one point.

>> MEIRA KUMAR: You should live in the Middle East for like five days only and you will
change your mind.

>> I am not going anywhere except Israel. I am joking. I think that no companies or no
governments should collect information about people without their consent.

>> MEIRA KUMAR: How can you ensure this?

>> Well, the European Council is preparing a recommendation for whole Europe to
implement in the judicial systems for -- well, it is -- it has much flaws but the main idea is
good. Like if 47 country members would -- by their own will implement that law Google and
other companies should always ask in a simple way, not 50 pages document, if the person
wants to continue because his data will be read; does he want to give out the data and
stuff like that. I don't think that anything should be done against anyone's will. But to
ensure that to protect people, to protect children, to protect businessmen, to protect by
saying businessmen, I mean artists because I think the next step of the economy is going
to be all arts. I don't think the leading countries of the world are going to make cars,
refrigerators, computers. I think the biggest countries in the world are going to make arts
and if we want to be competitive we have to protect private intellectual property as much as
we can. By no means ensuring in anyone's life doing anything against anyone's will.

>> MEIRA KUMAR: That doesn't justify a system that you have to use when you go on the
Internet. You can use the system when you log in on a Web site where an artist is showing
off their work. So I want to log in to this Web site that is sending artwork. I have to use
some log in but not creating a identification system that has to be used when going on the
Internet. That's very huge. 1 million Web sites on the Web. 10 million are for art stuff and
for selling stuff and intellectual property. You can't justify this, and if you measure the
risks and benefits you are saying the benefits are tracking criminals. We already have ways
to track criminals and track identity theft.

>> Sorry. I will just -- I will finish in two minutes. I don't think that the Internet will be
separate from the world and you won't be able to enter U.S. servers freely as you do now
because we see the borders are being raised and, for example, you cannot watch some
videos on the net if the company, for example, didn't pay for the broadband to the foreign
countries of the U.S.

>> MEIRA KUMAR: Do you think we should encourage those borders by creating those
nationalities and tracking those people? Do you think --

(Talking at the same time).

>> ALEJANDRO PISANTY: I will move to other speakers for a moment and this is -- I think
you are hitting really the core of the issue with one issue as an example. So I am
personally not stopping the discussion. I am just giving other people a chance to intervene
and also that may -- Carlos, I am sorry to lose you. Okay. So please introduce yourself.

>> Thank you. My name is Blogi Rebullo. I am from the Philippines. I value what Wolfgang
mentioned awhile ago. A lot of principles that can apply to the Internet but we have to
figure out which ones are the core values and it is a quarter before 6 p.m. and we have not
even decided on one core value yet. I suggest that we include feedible expression as one
of the core values.

>> ALEJANDRO PISANTY: Thank you. I have Kirsten.

>> KIRSTEN: Well, he is gone now but I just wanted to respond to this I.D. Everyone is on
and this is open accessibility and the one way to cancel all the progress we made of
getting so many people hooked to the Internet is to say if you have to log in and everything
you do will be tracked and I wouldn't be interested in and I would stop using the Internet if I
had to agree to something like that. There is a fear that Government is not always going to
act for us and in your best interest and honestly the criminals before are going to take the
new rules and the new laws and still find a way to break them. I don't think it is going to
solve the problem by adding an I.D. and it is going to create a new problem and creating
fake identities and using somebody else's name to do your crime. So I don't think it will
work.

>> ALEJANDRO PISANTY: Thank you. Do you want to talk?

>> MANS ADLER: Hi my name is Mans Adler. I handle all the user that get angry when
things don't work the way they want it to work. Yeah, if the policies or a Web site doesn't
follow their things and I think it is something that, of course, the users on one hand is very
nonpresent in those discussions that we have during the IGF. I also see very few of the
entrepreneurs during their daily lives have to answer 50 questions a day and whereas I
have this delete button, et cetera, et cetera. This is something to keep the net neutrality
really up there as a topic as something that, you know, the Governments or the
organisations such as this should help entrepreneurs and innovators of those services. I
don't see Mark Suckerburg sitting back thinking five years ago how the privacy policies
would rise, and if he made those decisions earlier maybe he wouldn't have those problems
that he had the last couple of years.

I missed a lot in the discussion here. It seems like the people talking do not handle users
in everyday lives which have complaints about policies and privacy issues, et cetera, and
also they often take in to consideration that most of those services are small companies, 5
to 15 employees. We have a quarter of a million users that cover 170 countries. We have
no way of ensuring that freedom of speech is kept right. There are more languages spoken
on our Web site every day and a small organisation like that can hold. So there is a lot of
things that in the practical world does not look as beautiful as it might sound in here
sometimes. Just a view of it.
 >> ALEJANDRO PISANTY: And views is what we are looking for. So thank you. I will hand
it over to you.

>> FELIX: My name is Felix. I am a student with the DiploFoundation, but I also have a
background of Government. During the discussion that we were having it was like
Samantha said the users are the ones that should be represented more in the building up
of the principles that we are trying to come up with. If we as the Government or NGOs
without taking in to consideration or taking input from the users I think we will miss the
point of building this principles. And with the discussion that was going on I think there is
a need to separate net neutrality from anonymity. From my digital forensics background
which I also have I think we are being profiled left, right and centre without knowing. So
whether it is going to be done in the open or continue to be done in the way it is being
done I think it is neither here nor there. We might as well if it means using identities to log
on let's do so and so that everyone is in the open. We don't have people hiding behind
others because we are not really enjoying anonymity. The anonymity that we think we are
really enjoying is not really there. Thank you.

>> ALEJANDRO PISANTY: Thank you. So I would recognize if we have two more speakers,
Charles and Sebastien.

>> CHARLES GAY: Thank you. My name is Charles Gay, one of the Internet Society
ambassadors. And I am speaking in my own capacity. When we talk about net neutrality in
a security and then we also talk about freedom of expression it is a little bit difficult for me,
for us to find a solution to this problem right now. Because when you say security then we
at the same time we are talking about freedom of expression, freedom of connection, net
neutrality. See there are many topics that we are dealing with at the same time and even if
we discuss these topics when it comes to security we should also understand that even
the criminals even as we discuss they, too, are finding other means every day. So can we
just take one of these topics and see, find a solution to that topic first so that that which is
very important then we can get to the other one, but I can see we are carrying everything at
the same time. And next thing is the Internet was free from the beginning and I am sure it
will continue to be free. Because those who discover the Internet just imagine they call a
meeting that everyone was going to give their views before they can put the mechanism
together for the Internet to operate, it is going to take a long time. Because one says I
want it to be this way. It won't go as we see it today. So what we can do is that let's think
about a way in making the Internet just to be free as we are talking about net neutrality,
security, freedom of speech, freedom of connection. Can we just address one and find a
solution because there are too many? Thank you.
>> ALEJANDRO PISANTY: Charles, Sebastien. And I think we will end the brainstorm for
now unless some points have to be made but I think we should move to the procedural
aspect. So I ask you to -- okay. I will have you. And then I will ask the people present in
the room to think what they want to say for that the last segment of the session which will
be how to move forward.

>> Thank you. My name is online moderator. I will read some of the comments on the
chat. It was before the last presenter but some like why can't you focus on the core value
subject. Just speak a few and talk about that. Conversation while entertaining is so broad
will end up being useless. Another is in the ISOC Indian hub. This session is getting --
digressing in to broader areas. And I will read a more longer statement made from the
orgainser by ISOC Green Lakes. Business gets affected when they are biased to free flow
of trade information on the Internet. Governments are stressing when (Off microphone)
DPIC inspection for political espionage. The common man is affected when there is
censorship and filtering. What could happen to all stakeholders if the free Internet
regressed back to be the electronic equivalent of a control like postal services or managed
telephone service characterized by your cable TV, like pricing button. Thank you.

>> ALEJANDRO PISANTY: Thank you. So let me first make a very brief comment on what
we have been going through. I beg to disagree with the comments which I find the
discussion we have had, the brainstorming we have had of little use. I think that we
needed to go through that. It was absolutely necessary to go through that discussion and I
thank Meira and I think Carlos even in absence for being bold. I am thanking you for being
bold in putting forward your points of view as well as Meira. You have each provided -- yes
and Kirsten and everybody else, but I think that the part that I think was maybe a little bit
of a cause of a complaint would be getting in to these issues in such detail and at the
same time making -- in the perception of some of the listeners overbroad.

I think this discussion was absolutely necessary before we decide how to organise
something like a Dynamic Coalition which Wolfgang Benedek correctly said would require
some organisation and would require some formalization. Some set of even minimal rules
that would make people say well, I am in or I am not in. Things like that. We needed that
discussion in order to see the depth of the disagreement that can exist about values on
the Internet. We start -- you both start from very similar point of view which is the Internet
should be open and valuable for young people. And you put forward two things, two sets of
things that young people and also grown-ups find valuable and useful on the net. Carlos
put forward the protection of intellectual property and the protection of theft which are very
important values for people who are going to go on the Internet to make money, to make a
living from intellectual, from knowledge work. Knowledge workers should be concerned that
they are able to make a living. Whether the way to do that is by a strict intellectual
property protection system and whether -- and the strict system of security for eCommerce
and whether the way to achieve that is by a strict identity system and logging in is an open
question.

My view is that we have to live with the openness. But again I mean that's -- that is one
rationally well constructed view and its principle based. It is based on a set of principles
and interpretation of them for real life. What I see in Meira's view which I share deeply is a
view of things people need to do on the Internet like find information, think about it,
discuss it. Maybe with other people through the Internet. Maybe because some of these
people live in countries where the subjects they are discussing are very sensitive or as you
mentioned in one case clearly illegal and the view that you put forward is that the only way
to achieve these things that people need to achieve on the Internet for their lives and for
their individual and society lives is through a way of running the building and running the
Internet. That is so open that you can be anonymous and hard to identify you. Even if as
Alex says are being profiled all the time, at least it is harder to stick a profile of your
activities on you in real space to take you to jail.

So these are two opposite views. These are starkly opposite views. Sorry Carlos, we are
trying to move now to a procedural stage and what I am saying this controversy between
you and the rest of the room that you marked it and I am very thankful that you were bold
to come through with your views, this controversy shows us that Internet should be so open
so we can live our lives reflected on the Internet, find the information we need for our
identity and health and create and publish and sell our intellectual work. Even with that
basic statement we can come to very opposite views. So now let's think a second and I
hope I can elicit thoughts from people who have been through similar discussions earlier,
how do we build a group. First if and then how do we build a group that we would call a
Dynamic Coalition under the very vague open rules of Dynamic Coalitions in the IGF that
can be useful and these values can be as Wolfgang Benedek very correctly said be
developed. We don't take these values from writing on walls or stones or read them in the
clouds or tea leaves. We discuss them and we build them as we apply them and interpret
them. So if we can do that that is one point of discussion and how to approach it. Now
moving beyond the brainstorm that shows us how stark differences we are going to find in
this process forward.
>> Yeah, I think one of the first items we need to study is what Max mentioned which is
the other coalition working on this sort of similar theme than this one and see that we
don't reinvent the wheel and what are our specificities compared with those. I think we
need to start with them and then once we have done that we saw what others are doing
then we can try to sort of identify the scope of our work. I think it is important to do. I
didn't know that it was so similar in a sense that it was a merge already of another
coalition, start of principle for the Internet. So we need to explore that a bit.

>> GLENN SCOTT: This is Glenn Scott. And I was fortunate to sit through that Dynamic
Coalition meeting a couple of days ago and in fact, this is aside from the point but we will
have a report on that on our Internet site. What was nice about their work is that they had
a document to work from which was the 1948 UN declaration of human rights and as
Wolfgang will say that served as the basis for their efforts to consider what human rights
need to be laid out because somehow they are more particular, more unique to an online
experience. So where do they need to take this great leap to their own charter. In this
case I would ask is there any starting point, are there any documents in place right now
that might serve to be some sort of a foundational blog?

>> ALEJANDRO PISANTY: Thank you. I think we are coming to some responses but I am
sorry I skipped you earlier. Fully apologetic for that. Your name again for the record.

>> HENNING: Henning. It might have seemed as a starting point at that meeting but I
have been to four IGFs and in front of the discussion, on the side line and actually that
discussion took off as far as I remember a bit like this without a particular goal at the first
meetings and after having discussed well, different settings they decided that it was not
really possible to agree globally once again on values, which is why they could take the
values that already existed at the creation. And I think that it is -- there is some good
things taken in the declarations, a starting point. It is widely accepted and if this work is
ever going to, I don't say it is supposed to be, but if it is ever going to be a political
document that we are going to formulate here then the receivers of this document would be
more tuned to the ideas that we might have, it might be an idea.

Anyway, as a way forward I would suggest that the group actually read the document from
the Dynamic Coalition and Internet on Human Rights and Principles and see if you agree
with the principles, consider if there is a lack of principles according to your opinion here.
And also perhaps consider if it would be possible to formulate them, the principles in a
more understandable way so they can be communicated not only to young people but I
would say to normal people. That is not the people that attend the IGF because we are
more or less salvaged before we come here. Thank you.

>> ALEJANDRO PISANTY: Thank you, Henning. Wonderful.

>> I am Sara from Thailand. I would like as long as we discuss and the issue that come
up about like Internet value has come about how Internet is open. So I think that maybe
we just stick with the value and try to ensure that openness of the Internet is still like not
done, daunting about like the way try to like a filtering system, things cause. This idea is
very bad. We spent our life in a day through the Internet pretty much. So Internet should
be like a kind of basic, I don't know, basic space for us as well. It seems in the developing
countries when we build a road, we build a road that we can transport food, transport many
good things. In the sense of Internet as well we should ensure the Internet will expand to
be like accessible for the people in the outer world. Not necessarily in the Internet access
can like do best like this. Thank you.

>> ALEJANDRO PISANTY: Thank you. Sebastien?

>> SEBASTIEN BACHOLLET: I read the comments made by Issac, Great Lakes hub.
Believe that all problems can be solved with a right base approach. The theme of this
coalition is in no way related to the rights coalition which became the coalition of rights and
principles sometime last year. Thank you.

>> ALEJANDRO PISANTY: Okay. Any other interventions?

>> Thank you. Like I speak before I come here from the curiosity of trying to figure out
what these various principles and rights are all about, but I see the challenge that we have
is that these values, principles and rights are different according to communities, according
to regions, according to nations. So I think what this Dynamic Coalition can do is to do
maybe best effort. That is build up from regions and find the common ground to come up
with the global definitions of these values, principles and rights. Otherwise it is bound to
be a lot of conflict. And I have to assume that we are working on the premise that our
Governments are working to the benefit of the Internet users rather than to consider
Government as wrong elements. Those Governments are elected by people. So if the
Government is a problem, then that is a problem that can be solved as opposed to bringing
that aspect in to the issue of values, principles and rights. Thank you.

>> ALEJANDRO PISANTY: Thank you very much. Any other thoughts on a procedural way to
go forward? Again state your name so the interpreters --
>> Blogi Rebullo. One long term well, I wouldn't say solution but one long term thing that
we could do probably to address this and to continue this Dynamic Coalition is to support --
well, for IGF to support regional and national IGFs and that to encourage these IGFs to
continue this Dynamic Coalition. For example, it is very premature to say but we are in the
conceding stage, in the thinking stage for a regional IGF and if that does happen, we would
like to continue this Dynamic Coalition on perhaps formulating or coming up with a set of
Internet core values. Perhaps that's one thing we can do. And another thing probably is if
we are talking about procedures then perhaps Mr. Chairman could gather e-mail addresses,
if everyone is willing to create possibly a space on the Internet for us to continue
discussing this issue. Thank you.

>> ALEJANDRO PISTY: Let me just introduce I mean a piece of fact here, Blogi, which is
that IGF, I will be as bold as to say that IGF does not exist. And I see some ascent from
old IGF timers. It does not exist in the form of an organisation. IGF is an event. It is an
important meeting and we can make it an important meeting or we can kill it by reducing its
importance. We convey a view through a summary that we believe this discussion will be
invariably continued in regional IGFs or national IGFs which I am not sure that -- I mean IGF
is not a brand. So IGF does not decide what regional or national IGFs. If someone comes
up in your country and says this is an IGF and that will be then -- that will a Philippines IGF.
That will be the IGF that will be.

We say that the discussion is going to continue in meetings which are like the IGF
elsewhere and we find value -- we the people seated here signing with our names some of
us -- you can see that I didn't even pass a roll call. So every one of is not assuming a -- I
am not assuming a lot of consent from you to use your name even as reporting the
discussions because you may be uncomfortable with that. Some of us will sign our names
in the summary. Some of us thought this discussion could be enriched at the regional and
national level. I mean I will interpret some of the things that Meira has said, for example.
Meaning that probably -- not probably, to be very hard to organise a meeting in a country
where there are concerns about Government law and attitudes like the ones you
expressed. It would be very hard to make a physical meeting there that discuss these
things in the terms that you have here. Actually be putting some people in to peril or in to
a position that they don't want to be. And then, you know, saying that we will only learn
from people and regions with value sets like yours or the ones in your environment. In the
global meeting where it is perceived as safer or more comfortable.

So that's the most we will be able to say. I fear that any Dynamic Coalition on values that
and -- as we heard reported this is also -- you are the witness here, Glenn, even the human
rights one has some serious controversies. We all agree on the text. But some
Governments will immediately create a place where others will solve in order to reach the
declarations there. We would run in to a lot of trouble if we try to build this around any
given set. I think that what we will probably have to do as a programme of work is to create
a discussion space. To make sure that some of the participants today feel comfortable
with possible forms of anonymous participation. And on the other hand, Carlos would have
to feel comfortable in an environment where people are deliberately anonymous and offline.
We would have to see why this is reasonable and to put forward what have been mentioned
as Core Internet values like openness, intraoperability and end to end, these very basic
original values and see the match or mismatch with the human rights Dynamic Coalition.
Engage in that dialogue.

That programme of work seems enough for a year for any number of people, be it three in
Elon University or a half a million all over the world. Will that seem to represent a
conclusion that we see that -- even the discussion of -- the summary would be a discussion
of even one word in the list of core values of Internet like openness creates such a lively
debate that we perceive that the first step that has to be taken is to create a discussion
space to build up an understanding of the issues. Does that seem to represent what you
would all agree is the minimum? Sebastien?

>> SEBASTIEN BACHOLLET: Yes, I totally agree with your conclusion. I just want to make
one single point that if you are willing to be part of this coalition don't give your business
card to the Chair but give it to me. I want to decrease his load of work because he already
has a lot to do and I will try to involve you and also the people who were on line today on
the full wrapup of this work. Thank you.

>> ALEJANDRO PISANTY: Meira?

>> MEIRA KUMAR: Sorry, I am taking the mic a lot. Regarding what you said I think it
would not be fair not to include everyone who could be interested. Because the people
here, we have other people in other panels. So we can't assume that we are the people
that should decide on this. So maybe if we can set up something that like a Web site, like
maybe we can have the link on the main IGF Forum. Maybe we can have a couple of
journalists covering an event chair this initiative. So maybe we can call for people to join
us and what I personally think is that if we are going to sit and discuss all the time what
should be our values we are never going to end up discussing and even if we don't agree I
think we should work together. Because eventually I cannot be the same -- I cannot have
the same values as you and you cannot have the same values as me. It is not discussing
to reach common values. We must have a discussion on the values. That's the core of
having a coalition. We must have values and goals and guidelines, but at the same time
we must start working actual stuff to start protecting the people who are suffering the lack
of net neutrality. And regarding meeting at my country or local IGF it is not that bad. Not
like that you imagine. We have plenty of events and it is like some topics --

>> ALEJANDRO PISANTY: There are worse places.

>> MEIRA KUMAR: Okay sure.

>> ALEJANDRO PISANTY: I didn't mean to interrupt you. No, I didn't mean in any way to be
exclusive of other people. I only think that we can make commitments to work right now
with some of the people who are here. I hope you can tell -- Sebastien as he mentioned he
will be glad to identify those of you who want to continue this. What you want to do. You
want to go on or just want to be informed of progress. And we should look at setting up a
Wiki, Web site, blog, forum, some form of online interaction. And give discussion, some
guidance. I would suggest that exploring the issue of openness and the issues it opens,
the questions, I mean like the very rich lively and significant debate you already had here,
this is how it branches out and just map out the discussion and say okay, then maybe
there can be agreement on things where people don't -- the problems they didn't know exist
they will find they are agreeing and problems they know well they will finally agree when
they explore further. Some mapping out of the debates that branch out from what at the
very minimalist that has been listed as core values. So yeah, I mean it is not a debate
thing. I am endlessly debating society by it has the programme to map out debates. We
will say okay, there is no conclusion here because the differences are too stark, but we
know the debate goes that way and we hope others will follow up and we go back to the
core and branch up elsewhere and see what the debates are.

>> MEIRA KUMAR: I will contact the guy here and -- sorry, and I will contact and we can set
up a Web site. It takes me like 30 minutes to set it up and maybe you can give me the
contact info of somebody in the global IGF so we can have it on the main Web site. That's
great.

>> ALEJANDRO PISANTY: That's the way to go. Just build it. I see -- go ahead.

>> GLENN SCOTT: One last thought just to add on it is a provocative idea that a Dynamic
Coalition like this could be exploring values without necessarily seeking agreement. I like
that idea. Given that we have a global context here. It differentiates this group from the
Dynamic Coalition working with human rights and principles. Because they are trying to
seek a stronger agreement per point. But the notion that we might be more interested in
maps and ranges and circumstances and extents as opposed to one sort of overall value
that everyone can buy in to might make more sense in some ways. At least as a first step.

>> ALEJANDRO PISANTY: Thank you. Unless someone is itching to speak I will make a
very brief closing statement. It is -- yes. Very brief.

>> I wanted to add just a thing related to the last comment. And regarding what Charles
has said before. I think the important thing about rights in the context of Internet deferring
from the rights before the Internet appeared is they have different dimensions. We were
used to thinking about rights in the kind of social, political, economical ones and now we
are seeing that some rights in the context of Internet have all those dimensions. So the
approach that is proposed I think could be enriched in that sense.

>> ALEJANDRO PISANTY: I have a very, very brief statement in closing. I am impressed
and overjoyed to have been able to attend this meeting. Having been able to moderate, to
participate designator as moderator. I won't say I moderated. It went better than
moderate. I am very proud to have been here this afternoon. I am very glad we have been
able to have such bold, clear statements that are rather unusual for the IGF. The IGF is
more about don't bother your neighbor. And that is absolutely glorious. The fact that
people with white hairs have been able to restrain ourselves for awhile before trying to
speak again and letting people who are living the Internet in a very different way, it is an
environment you found already started and built and are now going to build and transform.
That is genius work and I am very proud again in the name of all participants to have been
here.

>> I wanted to say this is the advantage of having young people because young people are
usually less diplomatic and they have less image to worry about and less concerns.
(Applause.)