Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
>>Bob Boorstin: Okay. Thank you, voice of God, whoever that voice is.
This is our last session, formal session, for today. I appreciate everybody coming back
inside during the rainstorm. I did not time the rain to get you inside.
I'm simply going to introduce our terrific moderator for this session. And he will introduce
the panelists, and we'll move forward. So we're very, very grateful and lucky to
have Riz Khan from Al-Jazeera with us today to do this session, and then the program over
dinner. Riz has been with the BBC, with CNN. He's
done more than 1500 interviews at different times with CNN and others of world leaders,
presidents, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, Dalai Lama, Nelson Mandela, just to name a
few. In 2005, he joined the Al-Jazeera network
to set up its English language channel, Al-Jazeera English. And he hosts its flagship program,
which is a daily live topical show that features the world's top us in makers.
We're very happy to have you with us today, Riz. Welcome to the stage.
[ Applause ] >>Riz Khan: Thanks very much for that, Bob.
I'm always worried when there's applause before I have said anything.
I will ask the panelists to come up and I'll introduce them in just a second.
Ben and Gary, please come up and grab a seat. Excuse me.
Can you get in? I'll get to Ben and Gary in just a second.
But as Bob said, I'm Riz, Riz Khan. And I've been working with Al-Jazeera now the past
five, six years, having helped set up the English language channel.
Usually when I talk about Al-Jazeera in America, and I do some conferences in America, but
I usually tend to do conferences overseas, not so bad. But here, people run for the doors.
I think since Hilary Clinton said it's not as dangerous as people think, it's helped
us a lot. Times have changed. We don't have to lock the doors anymore.
But I do say that the word "the" has become the most dangerous word in the language, in
the English language right now. If you say it in Arabic, because if you say "the" in
Arabic, it's "Al." And if you add "Al" in front of anything, it suddenly sounds dangerous.
You know, you have Al-Qaeda, Al-Aqsa, Al-Jazeera. I remind you, of course, you had Al Gore.
[ Laughter ] >>Riz Khan: And started with Al Capone.
But there was a time when "Al" represented something positive, because you had alchemy,
algebra, alcohol, actually. It's true. The alcoholic's clapping.
So it's an interesting time, of course. And, you know, the Al-Jazeera reference was because,
of course, Al-Jazeera was in the center of a very interesting time in the Middle East
with the Arab Spring and reporting the Arab Spring, which no doubt will get into the debate
at some stage. Considering the Internet has grown so rapidly
as a communication medium, more than any other technology in history, it's caught many governments
and authorities by surprise. The traditional media, newspapers, radio, and television,
have largely been the target of authorities who want to control the message.
And it took some time for them to realize, wait, people are communicating and planning
and mobilizing through this lesser-understood medium and all that it brings.
Well, that lack of centralized control is perhaps what's allowed it to develop so organically,
without an international body to regulate and standardize the network officially, you
know, up to now, the governance has been divided among a patchwork of public and private organizations,
and maybe to some degree by individuals themselves. But there are mixed views on how to move forward,
with some wanting a much more centralized control system while others favor this current
organic system. There's always a danger in mixed messages, especially when politicians
were involved. I was recently with the British prime minister, John major, and very funny,
actually, he always says how difficult it is to get a straight message out of politicians.
He quotes the time he was with Boris Yeltsin visiting him at the Kremlin. He said I thought
I'd test YELTSIN with a question. If you could describe the economy of Russia with one word,
what would you say? Good.
>>> If you could use more than one word, what would you say?
Yeltsin said, "Not good." [ Laughter ]
. >>Riz Khan: You can see the challenge we face.
The International Telecommunications Union, the ITU, a specialized agency of the United
Nations, has been set up to oversee information and communication technologies, and there's
been a call recently for light regulation of the Internet. You know, I'm quoting the
Secretary-General there. What exactly does that entail?
Russia's current president, Vladmir Putin, wants negotiations to end with the ITU, given
the power to monitor and supervise the Internet. His country is often criticized as one that
stifles free expression. Of course, China gets accused of that a lot as well. What does
a more centralized system mean for the world of Internet users?
What do you think is better? We have a chance here in this discussion to get your views
in as well. Should it be more centralized? Should it be more organic or remain organic
as it is? I'll give you a chance to get your questions to our panelists in just a second
when we open it up for Q&A. But let me introduce them formally now. They've
been sitting with me. To my immediate left is Ben Wagner, who's
researcher at the European University Institute in Florence and coordinates the Dynamic Coalition
on Freedom of Expression at the Internet Governance Forum.
His research has covered trade and censorship and surveillance technologies and on the Internet,
freedom strategies in international relations as well.
Gary Fowlie is with us, the head of the liaison office of the International Telecommunications
Union, an agency of the U.N., as I mentioned. He spent more than ten years as a news reporter
for television. And he'll give us a great perspective on where
the issue with the ITU and these calls for regulation come in as well.
I'm going to kick off with questions but then open it to you.
Let me start off with you, perhaps, Gary, the best way is to get a perspective on what
the ITU is about. Not everyone fully understands what's it's there for, its origins, and what
it's aiming to do. >>Gary Fowlie: Thanks, Riz. Let's start with
the origins. You talked about a patchwork quilt. We'd probably be the oldest piece in
that patchwork quilt. The ITU was formed in 1865, as the International
Telegraph Union. It really wasn't until the invention of the telegraph that there was
a need for a multilateral stakeholder tree that dealt with issues beyond military concerns.
It was with the invention of the telegraph, we realized there needed to be sort of standards
and ways to ensure that interoperability and connectedness worked, expanded, and people
benefited from that growth. That's been the basic principle of ITU since
the beginning. That's changed, like our name did, from the International Telegraph Union
to the International Telecommunications Union. We deal with, under treaty, the spectrum,
the spectrum that -- electromagnetic spectrum, which manages all the wire and wireless connectivity.
If you -- We -- if you want to put a satellite in orbit, you have to have a slot from the
ITU. And we've dealt with standards. So anything that runs on the need for spectrum, anything
that has standards -- not anything, but most information technologies, including the Internet,
at least at the transport level, depend on ITU standards. But we're only one of many
players. We are a member-based organization, member state-based organization, as Riz said.
We're a U.N. specialized agency, have been since 1947. We have 193 member states. But
we're also the only U.N. agency that has sector members. These sector members -- there are
about 700 -- include private sector members like Microsoft, Intel, Cisco. We haven't been
able to get Google into the fold yet, but now that they have gone into the mobile business,
maybe they will join us sooner rather than later.
But we also provide sector membership to academia, and to ICT-related telecoms, so NGOs.
So that's what we do. And I think you're going to find my response to this question kind
of disappointing, because it's hard to argue with success when it comes to the Internet.
Twenty years ago, we lived in a world where very -- where most people did not have access
to even the most basic telecommunications. Today, there are more than 6 billion mobile
subscriptions, and two and a half billion, almost two and a half billion people have
Internet access. And a great deal of that success is related
to a treaty that deals with international telecom regulations, the ITRs. And this is
where I think part of this confusion that we want to manage the Internet comes from.
The ITRs were -- is a treaty from 1988 that came into force in the '90s, early '90s. It's
been -- how many years is that? 30-plus years since that treaty came into force.
At the time, what governed telecommunications was place, location, and distance. That's
all changed. Yes, there are more I.P. protocols that are operating out there. We need to respect
that. We need to find a way to ensure that the interconnections and the interoperability
of the telecommunications network survives. This conference, which is -- everyone is referring
to, and many of you have heard of, which will happen in Dubai, is not about Internet governance.
I don't know how many times I'm going to have to say that in the next half an hour, but
it's not about Internet governance. It's about interconnectivity, establishing a framework
so that infrastructure will be supported. We're looking at up to an $800 billion shortfall
in infrastructure. If we want to keep the mobile miracle alive, we're going to have
to find a way to build and extend that infrastructure. So there's a bit of background.
>>Riz Khan: A quick question about that, $800 billion short by 2015, presuming the demand
grows the way it is? >>Gary Fowlie: Yes. And that's a number that
came out, I think, of the Mobile World Congress a few months ago.
>>Riz Kahn: Gary, you had said that there's a lot of confusion about the regulations,
the ITR. What about the ITU itself? What do you think is the most misunderstood aspect
of the ITU? >>Gary Fowlie: Well, I think that somehow
it's a monolith, that there's this group of people that meet behind closed doors and that
have no responsibility or -- to anyone else but themselves. And that's not the case. This
is a -- you know, a treaty-based organization of the United Nations, and like the United
Nations, has 193 member states. At the end of the day, on the treaty, yes,
they're going to be the ones that sign. But sector members, civil society has to have
input. We're the U.N. agency that brought the -- and have been bringing the issues of
the information society to the world for quite a while, since at least the mid-'80s, we've
looked at the divide between the -- access between the developed world and the developing
world. We -- it was an ITU resolution that created
the World Summit on the Information Society that was a U.N. summit. That gave birth to
the Internet Governance Forum, which is the forum in which, you know, Ben's actively involved
in, and which has become the forum in which all the stakeholders can have a say on Internet
governance. Telecommunication regulations are a different
thing. Spectrum is a different thing. ICT for development is a different thing. But
there's a bunch -- there's three basic principles that we need to adhere to. And, you know,
you said we want to regulate. Well, there's -- if there's any regulation
for telecommunications, it really does have to be, you know, light handed, it has to be
forward-looking, it has to be transparent, because we need an efficient framework for
investment. That's what the process is there. It needs to be evenhanded in the sense that
it needs to bring -- make sure that the least amongst us, the least-developed countries
and the developing countries have an equitable stake in the information society.
But one thing that people need to realize, too, is that the ITU is -- as a U.N. agency,
is -- has a responsibility to uphold article 19. We were talking this morning about constitutional
guarantees, the First Amendment. Article 19 in the U.N. Charter of rights and
freedom says you have the right to hold and express opinion across all media and all frontiers.
That's a very broad guarantee, I think. And I think what we're seeing with the Internet,
and maybe this is the scary part, is the first real challenge of Article 19. Because as an
infrastructure, dare I say utility, it -- it's, unlike water, power, and transportation, not
so easy to control at the border. So it really has attracted that kind of attention. It's
something we all can benefit from, but we all have to manage.
>>Riz Khan: Gary, thank you. It gives us some perspective for discussion as it goes on.
Let me bring in Ben Wagner here. Ben, you know a lot of this from the inside, what is
done with the Internet right now. How much real regulation is there?
>>Ben Wagner: Well, I think it's a difficult question in the sense that you can't say how
much regulation is there or isn't there, because lots of the Internet just happens. There's
various different organizations that are in some way or another multistakeholder fora.
There are national governments at some levels regulating in certain spaces.
But, in general, most parts, states have been left out.
Is that better? >>Riz Khan: Down a bit towards you.
>>Ben Wagner: And I think in most parts of the Internet community and in the world in
general, there's an agreement that part of the success of the Internet is that states
have been left out so far and that states haven't had a hugely significant role in its
development. And, of course, this, then, leads to certain
suspicions or concerns when states are then seen to take a more active role.
And I'd say that it's -- it's an extraordinary contrast. You mentioned the Internet Governance
Forum. I was -- had the interesting experience of taking part in the World Telecommunications
Policy Forum, which was an ITU event in 2009 in Lisbon. And it was an extraordinary contrast.
I went to the Internet Governance Forum the same year. And at the Internet Governance
Forum, it's normal that a group of stakeholders sit together at a table, discuss issues on
an equitable basis, and try and develop different types of Internet governance concepts. Whereas,
at the World Telecommunications Policy Forum, which was at the time, I was told, going to
be this multistakeholder fora, I thought great, wonderful, we can go there and can really
sort of discuss some of these issues. And then there were, I think -- I didn't -- I
lost count, it might have been 12 or 14 lines of state delegation, state delegation, then
came the last row of state delegation. Then the press. And behind the press, with all
due respect to the press -- [ Laughter ]
>>Ben Wagner: -- civil society. And civil society was sort of tacked on at the end but
didn't really feel like they were part of the process. So I realize this is an ongoing
development, an ongoing debate that we have on what the future governance model for the
Internet should be and that there's many different fora and spaces to develop different things.
At the same time, the greater involvement of states is -- almost automatically, that's,
like, a reflex which directly causes concern. >>Gary Fowlie: That's the nature of the U.N.
model in some ways. It is a member state-driven organization. But as you have said, Ben, it
has to be a tent under which everybody feels they have a part. And that was the -- really,
the first big challenge for ITU, to do that with the World Summit on the Information Society,
which I think was successful in that sense. We managed to get everybody in under that
tent. Everybody had a say. The Internet Governance Forum came out of it.
But, you know, it is a member state-driven organization, and they are going to have their
say. And as long as spectrum is involved, where, you know, member states do have a right
to license that spectrum to develop their industry, we can help guide them, and civil
society and the private sector definitely needs to help guide them on how that's best
developed. >>Riz Khan: Ben, let me ask you how you feel
the Internet would be compromised if some kind of more formal system of regulation is
set up. >>Ben Wagner: Well, again, it's a very broad
question, and it's hard to develop specific answers to that. But in a general sense, there
have been a lot of proposals in the last few years that have raised eyebrows in many parts
of the world in -- regarding giving either a more centralized system or a more formal
role for states and intergovernmental organizations. And given that -- what we've seen the Internet
can do and given that many of the developments that have been extraordinarily positive in
the last few decades, as you mentioned, both in mobile and in fixed land spectrum, it's
-- it would be extraordinary to give all of that up simply because certain organizations
have decided now it's -- this is far broader than the ITU. There's numerous proposals here
that are on the table suggesting that there should be a greater role for states, that
they should be more involved. And the question is then what's -- what can
be gained from that, and also, if that is then to be the case, how can it not break
many of the things that we've come to love and expect from everything that we know, and
works so well. >>Riz Khan: Let me ask you to answer that
issue that Gary had raised about the $800 billion shortfall in infrastructure, and that
perhaps some kind of more structured system would allow money to come in, that the investment
could come in under this. >>Ben Wagner: Well, that's one way to consider
it. But I don't see that there's any -- there's any disagreements in either the developed
or the developing world, so if those worlds even exist anymore. I think in the modern
world there's lots of countries, lots of states. But I think the divide that is created by
that and the need for investment is the wrong one. Because there's this separation between
these two worlds, one which is developing faster than the other, which already has far
higher levels of Internet and telecommunications penetration.
There's also a strong divide that increasingly becomes obvious, especially on the Internet
and with its multistakeholder governance model, which is the divide between states in their
capacity to represent their citizens and equitably develop policies for all of their citizens
and other stakeholders who also have a say in that decision-making process.
So I think it's important to consider several different divides in here. And I think that
the multistakeholder model is also the one most likely to develop the investment necessary
to bring that model forward. >>Riz Khan: Gary, you talked about light touch,
quoting the secretary-general of the ITU, Dr. Hamadoun Toure, saying light-touch regulation
would -- you know, would be something to consider. What exactly does "light touch" mean? How
would you define it? >>Gary Fowlie: Well, I think it's -- you know,
"light touch" means something that's going to encourage investment and basically not,
you know, kill the goose that laid the golden egg, and enable us to ensure that the mobile
miracle that will we've seen and the mobile broad Internet, which I think is really what
the -- where the future lies, doesn't disappear. We need, basically, principles that outline
a transparent sort of efficient frame for investment. How can you invest? Who can invest?
How can that best be laid out? I think Ben's -- it's a multistakeholder model. And if you
look at the history of ICT networks and their development -- this is my opinion, and I stand
to be corrected -- I think it's maybe the oldest and best example of a private-public
partnership in many ways. You know, the public sector had rights to that spectrum, but if
you do it -- you had to do it right. You had to -- certainly have an open regulatory, transparent
licensing system or the private sector would not come in and invest. And if they do invest,
you'll gain from the benefits of the information society.
If you choose to take that money and put it in your back pocket, why would the private
sector want to come? So it -- yet, the public sector, the government,
the member state, can put provisos on that. We'll give you this license. We encourage
open competition. But, you know, you have to hook up our schools. You have to hook up
our health centers. So there's a give-and-take in it. But it's
got to be evenhanded and it's got to be fair and it's got to be an open framework. There's
no doubt about that. >>Riz Khan: Ben, respond to that before we
open to questions. Any thoughts on that? >>Ben Wagner: There's several points. You
describe it as a public-private partnership, but itself for the model of the ITU is quite
possibly one of sort of the earliest types of that model. But I think it leaves out quite
important other components as well. If you look at the multistakeholder model, it explicitly
includes the civil society participants, the technical communities. And at least from a
lot of the concerns I've been hearing in the last few months on these issues is that even
the invitation to participate in the process that is maybe then claimed to be transparent
is seen as dangerously co-opting civil society actors. And when they feel that they're not
even able to reasonably participate in the process, which they could in any case only
have an advisory role, it's sort of difficult for them to interact at a level that would
be seen as reasonably multistakeholder. >>Gary Fowlie: Point well taken. We need to
find a way to, you know, engage civil society and incorporate that feedback.
I would take one exception to what you said about technical, you know -- marginalizing
technical input. That's not the case. In terms of our standards, we have three bits of business:
Spectrum management, radio communications, standards where the -- that's where the industry
comes in, works on a standard together to, you know, see what benefits -- that -- So
they're including. The challenge is civil society. This is a
science and technology organization of the U.N. It's not -- its community of stakeholders
has been science and tech and government. Civil society was something new. So that's
-- that -- And, I mean, not that new. It's always, obviously, been an important player,
especially the private sector. But, you know, you can't have an open -- you
can't have the benefits of the information society without having that involvement of
civil society. And the fact that the very technology itself
is empowering civil society to demand that they be heard. And that's the best thing about
it. I think it's -- we were talking earlier. It's kind of ironic, but it's important that,
you know, you're using the technology to make sure that the people that sort of develop
that technology and the standards and spectrum and -- or use it for their best purposes.
>>Riz Kahn: We will have a chance to pick up more of these in just a second. Let Me
open it up now, because, of course, you are our participants, it is really very much about
getting your voice heard. If you'd like to raise your hands. We do have a microphone
there, if you do want to line up. We will get microphones out to you as well. Let me
get to this gentleman first, then I will come to you, sir.
>>> Hi, I'm Berin Szoka, TechFreedom. Gary, thanks for coming and addressing us. It's
brave of you to do. It's not a friendly audience. I will try to open this up with a gentle question.
I think a lot of folks here both in this room and in the U.S, in general, but also in lots
of other countries that value Internet freedom are really concerned when they hear that it's
Vladmir Putin and the Chinese government and others that have been encouraging the ITU
to get more involved. Do you understand the concerns that that raises? How would you respond
to us and to the general preference that I think many of us have, which is that, to paraphrase
Winston Churchill, that the current multistakeholder ICANN process may be the worst form of Internet
governance except all the others. In other words, so any intervention by the ITU, while
there might be much to be said about it that would be good in theory, would in practice
he happened upturning into a vehicle for control by authoritarian governments that don't value
freedom at least has involved in the came of ICANN.
>>Gary Fowlie: Great question. To put it bluntly, the Russian federation is one of 193 members.
And as are others who may wish to have expressed or wish to express their desire to take control
of what or have more influence on what has been rightfully said a multistakeholder entity.
Within -- you don't hear that. At the end of the day, the member states are going to
look at that and find a way to come to terms with it because it has served us all well.
But there are concerns. You have to put yourself in the place -- I'm not saying of Russia,
but especially a developing country. Where as the Internet becomes really more of a public
utility and important to their economic development -- we heard this morning 26% of GDP growth
in the developing world is based on the Internet -- you can understand why there might be a
bit of frustration. Here's this important utility that you have limited say over. But
I think the need is to find consensus. ITU was always operated by consensus. If it came
to a vote, I don't think that would be a good thing. Consensus is a challenge, as is any
treaty. When we have a something that's so important to all of us in 193 member states,
it's going to be a great challenge. It's not one that hasn't been overcome before.
>>> Just briefly. I think a lot of people will not be assuaged by that. I think the
concern is you are still talking about taking governance and giving it to governments. That
the U.N. in general demonstrates that if a handful of governments can build coalitions
and build a majority of governments. Most governments in the world don't care about
freedom at all or Internet freedom in particular. To say it is just Russia and China and there
are a hundred members doesn't address the concern to transferring control to governments
is going to make things worse from the status quo where governments --
>>Gary Fowlie: Nobody said control is going to be transferred. This is not about Internet
governance. This is about maintaining the health of a telecommunication system that
served us all well. Yes, some governments may want to try and impose their desire to
have more control. The issue we talked earlier of cyber security is one that people are going
to talk about. But at the end of the day, this is about making sure that there's a framework
in place that will create -- that will support a mobile broadband future that I think we
see coming, that will benefit all member states. And at the end of the day, the citizens of
the world will have their say. Whether or not their member state is going to listen
to them is another question. But it's one that I think we need to respect that and we
need to understand where that's coming from. But this is not about -- no one is suggesting
that power should be transferred at this point. Now, this is going to happen -- these regulations
are going to be discussed in December. The treaty will be re-evaluated, redeveloped and
signed or not signed. You know, member states will have -- reserve that right. There may
be many reservations. There may be none at all. Hopefully it will be consensus based.
But your point is well taken. But I think the research that's showing the importance
of it as an open transparent system that enables all of us, many players including ICANN, ITU,
and others, have a significant part to play, there's no desire to jeopardize that, I don't
believe. Let's get a quick response from Ben on this. Two points, there's the question
of effects here or impacts and I think the point that this is not supposed to be about
Internet governance in December is well taken at the conference. I think what's still -- instead
of leaves a certain uncertainty is that could you also say that it will have no effect on
Internet governance at all? And the second thing related to is that there's, apart from
the effects question -- the nature of the ITU in the way it functions, as you mentioned
this public-private partnership, also creates certain obstacles to participation and to
transparent process. The World Bank recently decided to take all of its reports and publicize
them as creative commons on their web site. That's potentially a process that could be
valuable for the ITU as well and shows there can be a very valuable argument in opening
up these processes and opening up inputs and getting a type of participation that's only
possible if you take the documents and put them out there for the world.
>>Gary Fowlie: Obviously we have to look at ways to incorporate that. It's good engineering.
You have to have a feedback loop here. Where is that feedback coming from and how can it
be enhanced? We need to find a way, yeah. >>Ben Wagner: Are you sure it will have no
effects on Internet governance? >>Gary Fowlie: As we said, the old parameters
of time, distance, location have disappeared. They have been replaced like IP protocols
and that in itself is an issue of Internet protocols. I do not have the crystal ball
on this. 193 member states do. The group that's managing this, it's called the council working
group, their report will be made public at some point and we will see what their sense
is. >>Riz Khan: Thank you for your patience, sir.
Tell us who you are and where you are from. >>> Abraham (saying name) from the center
of Internet In Society in India. I would like to thank Ben for celebrating the multistakeholder
model at the IGF. But most governments feel that the IGF does not address what they see
as policy vacuum. The promises of enhanced corporation have not really gone anywhere.
So what do you think of the Indian governments CIRP proposal, this is the Committee for Internet
Related Policy? >>Ben Wagner: Again, to respond directly.
I think that the first response is, AH, states are getting involved in this? Is that a good
thing? It's almost like a reflex. The second response, once the first response has subsided,
is that none of the models that we have that are called multistakeholder are perfect. This
can be seen or International Governance Forum, ICANN and many other spaces. But they may
be the best thing we have until we develop the next best thing. There's going to be an
ongoing debate on how those models can be developed. Forward and enhanced cooperation
is part of that. We will need to take the concerns both of states in the developing
world, but also of civil societies and of other actors in the developing world seriously
if we want to develop that to a point where it produces something that fills the perceived
vacuum. >>Riz Khan: Ben, quick follow-up on that.
If there is no formalized structure for government involvement, governments could get involved
in a covert way if there's general idea that governments are anti-freedom of expression.
There's nothing to stop governments for being involved in a much more secretive way and
actually manipulating from behind the scenes. Surely a formalized structure would be a way
to regulate what governments do. >>Ben Wagner: Again, multistakeholder doesn't
mean that governments aren't involved. It means they are part of the decision making
process like any other actor. The beauty of it is precisely you have the governments at
the Internet governance forum or ICANN and they participate in the process and the participate
like any other actor. It's not that they are not at the table, but they have a different
role at the table. I think with all due respect to the many governments of the world, they
have plenty of spaces to voice their opinions. It's not as if we lack information on what
governments think and I think you're -- [Laughter]
>>Ben Wagner:-- you are a very valuable part of insuring government opinions are heard
in this world. [Laughter]
>>Gary Fowlie: That's why the principal of Article 19 is really so important. You have
a right to hold opinions across all media and all frontier. There is a proviso on that
that says national security concerns may be considered. But because of the technology,
because of information communication technologies, how true those security concerns are can much
more easily be exposed or understood and challenged. If there hadn't been a smart phone or a cell
phone there to report Mohamed Bouazizi when he set himself in flames outside the government
office in Tunisia because he had had his permit to sell fruit and his scale removed out of
frustration, that might have been swept away and we wouldn't have discovered it. That's
why this principle, I think, has -- we're talking science and technology agency, what
do I know from human rights. But I do know that people have a fundamental need to communicate
and that right to communicate, I think, is best expressed in Article 19 in many ways.
>>Riz Khan: Thank you for your patience, sir. >>> Thank you. My name is Hamid Chopin from
Bangladesh. Thank you. This is a nice debate, indeed. The question is actually from civil
society side as human rights activists, in the U.N. process, there are multistakeholder
approached, while there are civil societies hold symposium and put their opinion with
the legal process. But in regard to the ITU, in the WSIS process, civil society had a voice
and then put things together, but in the IGF, the (indiscernible) we get to that, then it
came back. Where does this end to? That is one. The second question is in the country
level, while we talk about global system and then the many countries they have sort of
repressive law and regulations. Then how does ITU respond to, what matters they can take?
But on the question actually, the issue, there is no global communication without local communication.
And when we talk about centralized system, basically a governance issue, there is not
central -- decentralized for better governance. So there are key issues that because on the
one hand the country system, the country ownership issue, whether countries should be -- on the
other hand, the global system. How do you respond to and make balance between the two?
Thank you. >>Riz Khan: Let me get Ben to answer the first
part where you are talking about sort of coming together, where is it leading basically?
>>Ben Wagner: Where it's leading is toward better developed and toward more advanced
multistakeholder models. As I said, I don't think anybody has the perfect solution to
this. Part of the reason that there has been, let's say, what Sunil described as this perceived
vacuum is because some of the multistakeholder models aren't there yet. It doesn't mean that
they are completely broken or unable to solve the problems at hand. It means they are in
a development process. I think it's valuable to keep on pushing them. At the same time,
the second part of the question I found particularly interesting, particularly considering the
events that we saw in Cairo, the ITU must -- or as an organization must have enormous
difficulty seeing one of its member states cutting off the net from tell communications
as we saw happening in Cairo. The process ongoing now and the sort of the debates that
are happening at the council level as you suggested, will insure that things like that
can't happen. >>Gary Fowlie: Point well made. In terms of
that question, I think what we can do to insure that doesn't happen and we do believe in the
right to communicate and that people should express that their Article 19 rights. But
if you're going to introduce, you want the benefits of the information society. You want
the benefits of ICT, you need to introduce what is regulatory reform. The private sector
needs to be assured that when you put out a call for auctions or license spectrum, that
your investment is going to be treated with respect. That there's going to be an assurance
that that money doesn't end up in somebody's back pocket. If you encourage robust competition,
not just create another one monolithic agency, or service provider, you're going to have
healthy competition and you're going to have a way to bring down prices, increase access
and, as I said earlier, put proviso on that licensing so that everybody can benefit from
it. I'm from Saskatchewan in Canada, not your most populated province, but Saskatchewan
-- Plentywood, Montana and Bengough, Saskatchewan are about ten miles apart, but in many ways,
they are a long ways apart in terms of access, because in the United States sometimes getting
access in far off parts of the country, there's a divide within the country. Same thing in
Canada. So we're seeing those kind of divide, development divides happening in the developed
world as well, but you have to have competition. You have to have private sector investment.
>>Riz Khan: Sir, thank you for your patience. >>> Milton Mueller at the Syracuse University
School of Information Studies and the Internet Governance Project. I have a question for
both of the panelists if that's possible. For the gentleman from the ITU, my question
is, what -- you started out by promising this was not -- that WICT '12 was not about Internet
governance and we proceed today debate whether ITU would be a bad thing to govern the Internet.
What authority does the ITU have over the Internet? As I understand it, the ITU is about
layer one and two. That is, physical and data link layers, at best, hardware, those kind
of things. >>Gary Fowlie: Spectrum.
>>Milton Mueller: Spectrum, which is layer one.
What -- you know, if you decide that you want the Internet to be governed in a certain way
and half of the world doesn't agree with that, what can you do about it?
>>Gary Fowlie: Well, if half the world doesn't agree, there would be no treaty to do it,
would it? And that's the point I was making. We -- you
know, we see a multistakeholder entity that, you know, has -- has benefited many people.
But what we need to see, and we're not talking about Internet governance here. We're talking
about telecom regulations. If the discussion becomes one on Internet governance, well,
that will be for you, me, and the rest of society to educate, I guess, the member states
on what exactly -- how the Internet works, because I think there is a level of uncertainty
about exactly how it works. And nobody has given us the power to do that. Nobody has
said that -- There is no provision in a treaty for us to do that. And that's not what we're
talking about in December. We're talking about telecommunication regulations.
>>Milton Mueller: Good. So if I can follow up with Ben.
Ben, I'm a little bit uncomfortable with the counter position of multistakeholderism as
an alternative to the ITU taking over the Internet.
First of all, if the debate's about centralization, what could be more centralized than ICANN,
which is multistakeholder? And secondly, aren't there certain things
that just shouldn't be governed at all? Like, I don't care if the people censoring my Web
site have come to a multistakeholder consensus or not, you know.
[ Applause ] >>Milton Mueller: That was a question, I guess.
[ Laughter ] >>Riz Khan: He's speechless with emotion.
>>Ben Wagner: I'm just trying to imagine the multistakeholder censorship mechanism we would
use to implement censorship on Milton's Web site. So I'm sure that would be great.
No. That either ICANN as a centralized model of multistakeholderism, if you want to call
it that, or the IGF, or any of the other multistakeholder platforms are out there are either perfect
or that they need to govern anything and everything is, I don't think, a particularly reasonable
conjecture. I strongly believe that there's -- there's
ways of developing that. At the same time, I don't want to be standing here and beating
the drum and saying multistakeholderism is the only possible option. It's completely
possible that in many spaces, the way the Internet works, things simply work and things
happen and things can be developed between reasonable people without the need for any
regulation at all, which isn't to say that there may be spaces within which there are
perceived or real lacunae or spaces where things need to be done. And in that case,
again, be wary of the state. >>Riz Khan: Well, folks, unfortunately, we're
out of time. I sneaked in a few extra minutes. I know there's a lot more debate to go --
>>Bob Boorstin: It's okay. Go ahead. >>Riz Khan: We're okay? Okay. Good.
>>Bob Boorstin: Time for a couple more questions. >>Riz Khan: All right. Good. That's good.
I don't have the authority there, but I'm being regulated nicely. Thanks.
[ Laughter ] >>Bob Boorstin: With a light touch.
>>Riz Khan: Yes. Thank you. Thanks. [ Laughter ]
>>Riz Khan: Thank you. Please. >>Cynthia Wong: Hi, I'm Cynthia Wong with
the Center for Democracy and Technology. And first, I just want to thank the distinguished
moderator and the panelists for being willing to come up here and engage on this issue.
I think it's one of great importance. I have a comment and then a question mostly
directed at the gentleman from the ITU. But, Ben, feel free to weigh in as well.
I mean, we've been talking a lot about the other bodies that have helped bring the Internet
into what it is today, a platform for human rights, a platform for commerce and development.
And if you look at those bodies, they tend to have several attributes in common. They
tend to be open. They tend to be very inclusive, they tend to be decentralized and transparent
in their working methods, and consensus-based, but consensus-based means involving viewpoints
of many of the different stakeholders who have expertise to share on whatever the subject
matter of the body that it's working on. And there's been some direct concerns raised
about the working methods of the ITU itself, which may not exactly share some of those
attributes of those other bodies. There's restrictions on the documents that
are being used to prepare for the treaty negotiation. It's very difficult for civil society to understand
what's going on. And some of those concerns have been raised last week by a group of about
30 human rights NGOs in an open letter that was released last week.
So I'm kind of curious just to get a response to that letter, which basically asked for
more direct civil society participation in the process and for the ability for us to
better understand what might be at stake. Just one additional comment, if you'll allow
me. Although the words "Internet governance" might not really be a part of, necessarily,
the official document that is leading up to the treaty negotiation, I think the media
has really made it clear, the reports, that many of the member states that are involved
in the negotiation process are interested in doing things like cybersecurity and online
data protection, spam, other issues that are very core to the functioning of the Internet.
And I think there's a lot of expertise that necessarily hasn't been brought to the table
quite yet. So -- >>Riz Khan: Excellent comments. Thank you.
Perhaps, Gary, I could go to you first on that issue of the transparency factor and
the sort of greater clarity. >>Gary Fowlie: Well, the letter was well received.
You know, it is up -- the rules of this game are set by the member states. So you can be
at least assured that the letter that the -- civil society sent will be, you know, communicated
with the member states that govern the ITU and that have set up the rules of the road.
So it was a -- this is what we need. They need to be told; we need to be told how important
transparency is. I can't -- you know, that's all I can do to assure you that those voices
are being heard. I mean, the proof will be in the -- the negotiations.
But, again, of course, people have brought up other unrelated issues. But the principles
that are defining this treaty are well defined and, you know, deal with international telecommunication
regulations. I think if people go too far off that track, you know, there's not a lot
of appetite for that broadly. But there -- obviously, these are issues that have to be discussed
going forth, have been discussed in the past, and will be with us as long as we have a utility
-- or as well as we have an Internet that's really becoming more and more a global infrastructure
that we all see utilitarian benefits from. >>Riz Khan: Ben, the second part was interesting
there, too, about the need for, you know, utilizing expertise better when it comes to
cybersecurity, spam, and so on. >>Ben Wagner: Right. But I think that, again,
comes down to a question of openness at the end of the day. I think the more prepared
and willing you are to be open on those issues, the easier it is to get different and diverse
forms of expertise, often specifically from voices that aren't heard.
Of course, that then means that a certain level of organizing that information is necessary.
But, again, that could be valuable. I just wanted to come back to one point that
you mentioned before, which I thought was quite interesting, was that you mentioned
that if -- if -- it was a question related to if this becomes an issue of Internet governance
or something like that, then we need to educate the ITU member states on how the Internet
works or how it's run, if I understood you correctly.
>>Gary Fowlie: Well, I think we all -- >>Ben Wagner: As a society, right.
>>Gary Fowlie: -- we all need to better understand how the Internet, you know, operates.
I think that, like anything, there is a level of misunderstanding, expectations that aren't
fulfilled, a -- you know, there are technical aspects of this that are very difficult for
people to understand. And I think we need to do -- we being the global multistakeholder
entities that have created the Internet or have helped to develop it need to do a better
job of communicating exactly what it is. That's what I meant.
>>Riz Khan: Perhaps guidance is a less scary word than governance. I don't know. Maybe
it's a different approach. >>Gary Fowlie: You know, education. Education
is maybe even a better word. I don't know. >>Riz Khan: One last question, please.
>>Smari McCarthy: Hi, I'm Smari McCarthy from EMMI. That's in Iceland.
So Milton actually asked the core of my question, but there's a specific aspect of it that I
kind of felt needed a bit more discussion. So whenever I hear the word "multistakeholder,"
I feel a bit violated. [ Laughter ]
>>Smari McCarthy: And this comes from the fact that whenever there's -- and this is
a criticism of the IGF, the ITU. It could easily apply to any of these bodies, ICANN,
WIPO, et cetera. Whenever they come together, it's normally
delegations of representatives of representatives representing each other and not representing
us. And what I'd like to know is, can either of
you see a future where we can move towards a more democratic model of actual user participation
in decision-making, where things such as, well, the ITU's interest in command and control-type
regulation of -- of the private sector, in particular, you know, for the protection thereof,
doesn't really give a lot of leeway for things like unlicensed spectrum, for shared spectrum,
for community broadband, and so on. So I'd like to know what you think about that.
>>Riz Khan: First -- I'll go to Gary first on that issue of the kind of level of stakeholder
participation and the diversity of it. >>Gary Fowlie: Well, I think there are a couple
of very good models. And the U.S. government provides one of them. Canada, the European
Union, where at the end of the day, yes, it is the member state that signs the treaty.
But they bring into the discussion from a very early stage and through the process a
broad range of representation. You know, I know in the State Department group, there's
representatives of -- dealing with accessibility and gender issues. You know, they reach out
to the private sector. And I think all those global entities that have, you know, established
very strong regulatory structures that encourage open consultation and transparency, they're
doing that. So maybe that's the beginning of that movement.
But at -- you know, at the end of the day, as it is now, it's the member state that signs
the treaty. And that -- that shouldn't come as a surprise to anybody here. But maybe it
does still. >>Riz Khan: Ben, a final thought on that?
>>Ben Wagner: Well, again, I'd like to come back to your earlier comments, which I thought
was very valuable on educating either ITU member states, or more generally, people who
are involved in this process, on -- >>Gary Fowlie: More generally.
>>Ben Wagner: More generally, I'm sorry. -- on how the Internet works, and that this
is a communal effort that is not any specific individual's job, but that we as a community
of people who care about this thing need to go out and do. And that as a result of that,
hopefully, the appropriate topics will be discussed in the appropriate fora, and none
of the concerns will be founded, but that certainly, this year, remains at least to
be seen. >>Riz Khan: Well, you know, one thing, irrespective
of how much regulation there is or not, the Internet can still prove to be a challenge
through user error. And I always illustrate it with a story, I'm sure some of you have
heard about this, about an elderly couple who decided they'd go down to Florida for
their 50th wedding anniversary and decided they'd go back to the same hotel where they
first went out on their honeymoon. 50 years later, they go back to the same hotel. The
way the schedules were, the husband was going to go down first and the wife would join him
a couple of days later. So he went on down there to the hotel, and
suddenly found, actually, the original hotel had been knocked down and just a little bit
further along on the same street was the new hotel. So he checked in there. And though
they were in their 70s, they were very active with the Internet and very happy to use new
technology. So he decided to send his wife an email. And as I say, she was supposed to
join him a few days later. The thing is, in typing, he made one small
typo in the email address. And instead of sending the email to his wife in Washington,
D.C., it went to a relatively young woman in New York who had just been suddenly widowed.
So in this house in New York, this young boy heard his mother sort of scream and collapse
on the floor and ran over and looked at the computer, where she had just received this
email, not knowing in error, that said, "Hi, honey, it's me." Remember, she just lost her
husband. And it said, "I'm not actually where I thought I would be, but since they have
Internet here, I thought I'd drop you a note." [ Laughter ]
>>Riz Khan: "It's as hot as hell. But we're all ready for your arrival in just a couple
of days' time." So I'd say irrespect of regulation. Please, a round of applause for both Gary
and Ben for taking part in this. [ Applause ]
>>Riz Khan: Well, thanks for giving the extra minutes to get those questions in. I'm going
to invite you back up. And, of course, I'll be joining you later at the dinner as well.
>>Bob Boorstin: Again, a round of applause for our panelists and for Riz for a terrific
discussion. [ Applause ]
>>Riz Khan: This is a topic that we'll all be hearing a great deal about in the coming
months. And I encourage all of us to become educated, to quote one of our panelists.
All right. Now, a few housekeeping items. We are now moving not to another formal discussion,
but to a reception, which will involve alcohol for those of you who drink. You do not ever
want to see me drink. It is not a pretty sight. The reception will be on the 8th floor, where
you had lunch, under the tents. Following that, we will have dinner downstairs,
and the staff folks will -- the event folks will guide you to the correct elevators so
that you can find your way down there. For anybody who checked a bag or a coat across
the hall there, those things will be relocated downstairs so that you can pick them up after
dinner downstairs. Isn't that clever of our events staff? I was very impressed by that.
So you don't have to go get all of your stuff and take it down yourself.
So, again, thank you so much for your participation in the first day of our conference. We'll
see you upstairs and then downstairs. Thanks.
[ Applause ]