SEVENTH ANNUAL INTERNET GOVERNANCE FORUM BAKU, AZERBAIJAN SUSTAINABLE HUMAN, ECONOMIC, AND SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT 6 NOVEMBER 2012 14:30 LOCAL TIME SESSION: WORKSHOP 128 EMPOWERING INTERNET USERS-WHICH TOOLS?

idleheadedceleryMobile - Wireless

Dec 10, 2013 (3 years and 6 months ago)

115 views






S
EVENTH

ANNUAL

I
NTERNET

G
OVERNANCE

F
ORUM



B
AKU
, A
ZERBAIJAN



S
USTAINABLE

HUMAN
,
ECONOMIC,

AND

SOCIAL

DEVELOPMENT



6
N
OVEMBER

2012


14
:
30 LOCAL

TIME



S
ESSION:


WORKSHOP

128


E
MPOWERING

I
NTERNET

USERS
-
WHICH

TOOLS
?







********

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

********




>> Hello everyone. We are just wait
ing for of moderator.
She will be here in a few minutes, and we will start.


>>
MERYEM MARZOUKI:

Hello
,

everybody. And I don't know if
you can hear me. You need the earphones to, channel 2 on your
earphones.


You can?


Y
ou need earphones. Please m
ake sure that you get earphones
to be able to hear.


So good afternoon
,

everybody
,

a
nd welcome to workshop number
128
o
n empowering Internet users, which tools.


My name is Meryem Marzouki. I'm an academic researcher on
the Internet Governance issues
based in Paris. I'm also a
member of the European NGO called European Digital Rights, and
I'm here today with a third hat as a Council of Europe expert on
Human Rights on the Internet issue.


I'm grateful to the Council of Europe as well as the IGF
Dyna
mic Coalition on
Internet Rights and Principles,

who
organised this workshop on a very important theme. Contrary to
the title,
which
may let you think that we are not going to
discuss only users, Internet users or consumers issues, but we
are going to dis
cuss full fundamental human rights issues and
how we can exercise them on the Internet.


The IGF is beginning only today, but all over the week we
will have the opportunity to discuss this human rights issue
through different workshops, and it has become

now a top level
issue in this Internet governance circles
.


B
ut it is not a new
issue, although we are glad that more and more people and
organisations are dealing with human rights online.






Human rights was an issue strongly raised even ten years ago
d
uring the World Summit on the Information Society, and it was
mainly a concern for Civil Society through the human rights
caucus. And ten years, almost ten years after this, we have
seen many organisations
,

not only NonGovernmental Organizations
but also
institutions like the Council of Europe and others, and
also stakeholder coalitions
,

trying to tackle this issue with
the understanding that human rights apply online as they are
appl
ied
and as we understand them offline. And we have had
since then quite
a number of initiatives or charters to try to
understand or even I would say to translate human rights as we
know them, as they are defined in the
U
niversal
D
eclaration on
H
uman
R
ights how to translate them online.


What does that mean? What do these rig
hts mean online? How
we could exercise them, how we could effectively realise them.


And among the number of initiatives that try to tackle this
issue, I can mention the APC, Association for Progressive
Communication charter, and
the
Human Rights projec
t that we will
have the opportunity to talk about that and explain this project
with the representative of the APC,
Joy Liddicoat, who

is on the
panel with us.


There have been
,

of course
,

academic work on this, and also
the Council of Europe as an insti
tution has undertaken I would
say kind of
institutionalisation

of these initiatives
,

and most
recently

the Council of Europe has set up a group of experts in
charge of working on a compendium of Internet user rights with
the objective to give citizens a pr
actical means to understand
their rights and to try to have remedies in case of violations
of their rights when they use the Internet.


And another of our panelists, Wolfgang Benedek, who is a
professor from the University of Graz in Austria, will tell u
s
more about this kind of initiative. This also builds on the
work of the IGF Dynamic Coalition on Internet Rights and
Principles, which has developed a charter, taking all the
fundamental rights as they are defined in the
Universal
Declaration

on
H
uman
R
ights and translating them in the online
environment, and this charter is the basic resource for us in
the coalition to build up more practical initiatives. One of
them having been the ten Internet Rights and Principles that you
can find on the coalition
website, and Wolfgang is a member of
this coalition as well.


Then we, even if we achieve such work of translating human
rights in the online environment and finding practical ways that
we would like to find others as an Internet user, we can do
nothing,

we cannot implement this and realise these rights if we
don't have
--

if we don't benefit from the cooperation of other
stakeholders that are essential for some of them, essential




intermediaries when we use the Internet. And to discuss this
with them, we

have two panelists. One is Marco Pancini, who is
senior policy counsel with Google and represents the online
services on this panel. And we will have also Michael Rotert,
who is the honorary spokesperson of the European Association of
Internet Service P
roviders, who are the real technical
intermediaries for all our activities on the Internet.


Last but not least, especially
with

human rights,
since
it is
the duty of Governments to ensure for their citizens the
protection and the true exercise of human r
ights, this is the
duty of the state, and we have also as one of our panelists
Matthias Traimer, who is the head of the Department of Media
Affairs and Information Society with the
F
ederal
Chancellery

in
Austria. He also represents the intergovernmental g
roup of
States with the Council of Europe.


Our last panelist is Amelia Andersdotter. She is a member of
the European Parliament, elected from the Swedish Pirat party,
and we would be very keen to have her inputs in this panel
,

but
I'm afraid she cannot

confirm her participation and maybe she
could join us later if she appears.


Otherwise
,

I will give the floor very quickly to each of our
panelists, just to introduce more themselves in terms of the
main issues that they would like to discuss in the fra
mework of
this panel, and then each one of them will get a specific
Question from me.


Would you like to start, please
, Joy
?



>> JOY LIDDICOAT: T
hanks. Greetings
,

everybody. I thought
perhaps just to give some context for the range of tools, if you

call them that, human rights tools that we have
that
might be
useful. And perhaps just to ask some
question
s that we might be
able to discuss.


I
n a way, you already outlined in a very
b
road

way the vast
number of documents, initiatives, coalitions, that

have
developed around Internet
R
ights and
P
rinciples. I mean, the
APC charter, which was developed in the late 1990s, really came
from a
--

out of the movement of the communication rights where
activists were trying to articulate the kinds of rights that

they had offline and their application online.


Since then, and even before, but since then we have seen kind
of a blossoming and a flowering with many, many different kinds
of similar initiatives. And I think that in a way these are all
the same tools
, the tools are human rights. The way in which
people give expression to those rights, the motivations which
drive the particular moments in time that they reach for them
are different
,

b
ut essentially the same thing is happening, that
rather than protect
ing users, what people are asking for is to
protect their rights. And we see this in different countries.




Even traditionally the private sector, which has said human
rights are not
--

they are the field of Public Policy. They are
not relevant to us
--

h
as started to articulate human rights
principles.


For example, the Global Network Initiative, look
ing
at human
rights in business, we have seen Governments also taking human
rights principles into ICANN
.


F
or example, the Government
Advisory Committee ha
s a set of principles which they developed,
and noncommercial users in ICANN have done so as well.


So I think the key
question

for us is not which sets of
principles, you know, are the right ones or how they might
become a list
,

b
ut rather what are the
reasons why people are
reaching for rights as leverage on Internet Public Policy? What
are the issues that we're confronting that drive us to focus on
the right to security, from unreasonable search and seizure,
prohibitions on filtering Internet content,

harassment of online
blogs and so on, and how does that shape and drive the future of
where these human rights and principles documents are going
?

Thank you.


>> MERYEM MARZOUKI: Thank you. We will certainly get back
to all of these issues.


Wolfga
ng, may I ask you shortly on the main objective for you
in such kind of work.


>> WOLFGANG BENEDEK: Thank you very much
,

Meryem,

and thank
you for coming to the workshop and participating in it.


I think there is no shortage of declarations which talk
s
about the empowerment of the users. But when you look at
practice, then this empowerment does not really exist.


For example, what you click every day is that I read the
terms of service and I agree with them. Certainly you have not
read them. You s
imply have to agree to them, because you have
no choice. You have no alternative. You have no options.


And the
question

is about this imbalance of power between
monopolies or between the state and the individual user, which
finds it increasingly diffi
cult to have its rights respected.


And here the issue is about human rights of Internet users.
So these human rights are usually public, Internationally
supported rights towards Governments, but increasingly it has
been recognized
,

as Meryem said
,

that

these rights are also to
be respected by the private sector. And the driving principles
around the framework confirms that there is such obligation also
on companies
,

and companies usually do not deny that.


The issue is how to operationalize now this
obligation. How
to make it work for the users
?

And here the issue is about what
could be possible avenues in this respect.


When it comes to the issue of state intervention, we can talk
about this blocking and filtering or the requests for disclosure




o
f information or we can talk about other things. When it comes
to the
question

of companies, we can talk about, for example,
the role of ISPs as they are here on the table or so. There is
a lot of pressure on them to fulfill certain expectations. And
in

that, they should also be supported and protected by human
rights, not to act against them.


What we see in practice often is a lack of due process,
whether this is copyright or libel accusations. We see also
over reactions and lack of proportionality
when it comes
,

for
example
,

to child protection
.


A
nd this goes to the detriment of
freedom of expression.


So the issue is also the balancing in the right way. Now,
what are the
remedies in this

respect? And you can go to court,
but court is quite cum
bersome, time consuming
.


I
f you go to the
European
C
ourt of
H
uman
R
ights it can take four or five or six
years, so it's not really an effective remedy for the problems.


What else could be done? And this is the
question

here.
Should we use competition

law? Should the European Union get
more active? They have actually promised to do this. For
example, in the context of new proposals and
protection
, in the
context of the Council of Europe, we see a number of guidelines
and codes on human rights, how t
hey should be implemented by
social networks, by search engines, et cetera. Also, in the
context of the Council of Europe, the modernization of
Convention 108 and data protection, so there is a number of
issues of processes goes on. Still, the issue is n
ow we have
all these rights or the users are claiming they are given these
rights, like, for example, access to the information which is
held and the right to correct and delete information which is
new, help to discard search results, to be able to destro
y your
content
, et cetera, but in practice this is often not working.


And so the
question

is
:


W
hat are possible new ways to
strengthen user rights or how to strengthen existing procedures
in order to make user rights a reality
?


A
nd I could say a
little

bit more on that later.


>> MERYEM MARZOUKI: Thank you. We will have time to enter
even more into details on this discussion
.


B
ut as for now I
would like
--

you mentioned the private sector and the
intermediaries. I would like to ask Michael Rotert
for the
objectives of the ISP in such a world. Are they keen to
cooperate with such work? Do they see an interest for them even
when they are not forced by Governments or by some legislation
to implement some activity
?



Please, Michael, could you give
us your understanding of this
objective?


>> MICHAEL ROTERT: Well, yes. Thank you, Meryem.


Internet Service Providers do a lot without being forced by




anybody, but
they

cannot be and should not be considered to be
deputies for either consumers or la
w enforcement.


For instance, what we have done in a very early stage is the
Human Rights Guidelines

for Internet Service Providers,
especially
.


A
nd the way we handle these guidelines, which were
worked out together with the Council of Europe, that is w
e asked
as an association our Members if they can sign off this paper
and of course act on what is in this paper.


I can tell you, it's a hard way, and it's not that easy on
one side. On the other side, there are a lot of projects coming
out from reques
ts from users like complaint hot lines, like hot
lines for
--

well, also for human rights questions and similar
things. But these are much more country by country handled very
differently. Some of them have telephone lines, where users can
place a call.

Others have Web sites where they can put their
complaint in
.


A
nd what exists at the moment besides those
guidelines, which are not signed by every ISP in Europe or
outside Europe, that is that there exists a network of hot lines
but they are primarily fo
r law enforcement for child
--

fighting
child pornography or other unwanted content, so to say, which
means it's not directly in a first approach on human rights
issues but much more on law enforcement
.


B
ut in some countr
ies

it has changed a little bit an
d the hot lines also take requests
from end
-
users for whatsoever.


And I can tell you most of the user requests, and they can
complain about human rights issue
s
, about privacy issues, about
whatsoever, most of the complaints are coming about unwanted
mail
s, also called spam, where people are complaining about the
huge amount of spam which is still going on.


The ISPs are very often named as gatekeepers, because they
are somewhere in between. But you have to check when you talk
about the ISP industry, wh
at sort of ISP you are talking to. An
access ISP, that is the
Internet Service Provider

who gives you
the direct access to the Internet
,

has totally different
obligations and tools to work on than a provider who hosts Web
sites or who hosts other content,

just to name the biggest
distinction between providers.


So whenever we talk about Internet Service Providers, it
should also be named on what sort of Internet Service Providers
we're talking of, because the technical issues are totally
different from t
he various providers.


I can tell you, to come to an end, that we are currently
reworking the
Human Rights Guidelines

in order to reflect social
networks and privacy issues, and to make them a little bit more
practical and hopefully then much more Intern
et Service
Providers are signing these
Human Rights Guidelines

off, and
treat them or behave
by
whatever is written in here.






Thank you.


>> MERYEM MARZOUKI: Thank you, Michael. As you said, we
have to make a difference between the different gatekeep
ers.
You mentioned the role of the access provider, which is
different from the role of the host provider
.


B
ut we also have
other kinds of gatekeepers, mainly working as a gatekeeper,
content gatekeepers, and these are
--

they are emerged and
developed w
ith Web 2.0 and these are the online services.


And
I

would

like to get the impression to Marco Pancini,
representing

Google
,

on also this initiative on trying to
translate to understand human rights and to define and implement
some remedies in the onlin
e world. Please, Marco.


>> MARCO PANCINI: Thank you for inviting us here to speak
today. I will try to bring to your attention some example
things that Google does in order to empower the Internet user to
express and to find the complete realization
of their rights
online.


First example, we believe that privacy and security are
extremely important for the Internet user
.


T
his is why we
provide for all the communication that the Internet user
exchanges online
in
a secure connection. We know that th
e
Internet is an incredible tool in order to empower the
communication
,

and we know as well that Government and a lot of
interested parties are looking at ways now to improve the survey
tools of the Internet user. This is why security in terms of a
secure

Internet connection is a way for us to offer services
that are actually not putting the user at risk.


Another example, always on the field of privacy and security,
is the double factor authentication. We know that interception
and access to Internet u
ser communication, in particular e
-
mail
communication, is a very important issue. We know users care a
lot about the security of their communication. This is why
we're offering for all the gmail accounts, but business and also
private
gmail

accounts, a s
econd factor

authentication. The
second factor authentication make
s
it possible that even if your
password is stolen, you can always have the security in order to
not let anybody access to your
gmail

address. And this is a
situation in which
--

so we are

not only talking about possible
access for fraud to your
gmail

account, we are also talking
about possible access to your
gmail

account in order to apply
surveyances to your communications.

So we know how important this can be for Internet users in
speci
fic countries.


Also on the security, an example of the way we wanted to
provide user control over the data is the Google dashboard. It
is all the tools that we are offering
.


F
or example, in order to
get back your data if you decide to leave the Google

services




and then move to other services
,

t
his exercise is called the
data liberation. But in going to the nutshell, it's adjusted to
empower the user to be able to get back their data and do with
it, do with their data
--

we are talking about e
-
mail, vi
deos
posted on YouTube, in g+ now
--

to get them back, because they
own the content. We don't own the content. The user owns the
content.


The second example of tools and ways for Google to help the
user to empower the rights online is the transparency
. We are a
huge believer in transparency
.


T
his is why already if you
--

years
a
go we launched the first transparency effort, which was a
way for Google to give full disclosure of the requests that we
are receiving from Government all across the world, to

have
--

to receive information about the user
,

s
aying that any
--

there
is no process of communication of user data to law enforcement
or to Governments, which is not following strictly the rule of
law.


At the same time, on top of them, on top of the r
espect of
the rule of law, we also want to provide full disclosure to the
user on how we are handling these requests, how many requests we
are receiving and answering.


Recently, we did another
layer

in terms of security, which is
--

or in terms of trans
parency, sorry, which is the transparency
also for the copyright requests that we are receiving. These,
together with the possibility for users to make
--

to provide
their opinion and to make appeal to any kind of decision that
Google is taking, also to e
nforce the right to rights online
,

is
a way for us to provide the transparency control on the process
to the user.


Also, as mentioned before,
with

all of our activity around
the corporate social responsibility area and in particular the
GNI, I want to m
ention the GNI, the Global Network Initiative,
we believe that the GNI is a way to move forward in the
direction of improving social responsibility of the Internet
companies and service providers
.


I
t's a way for us also to
discuss issues in specific juris
diction
s
. It's a way for us to
bind our works to specific standards in terms of respect of
specific human rights in specific countries, where this is
needed.


And
,

again, we believe that this is an effort that cannot be
done alone. We are a great belie
ver in multistakeholders
.


A
nd
this is why the GNI tool is an open tool and a different
representative of the ecosystem.


The last thing is the Internet Rights and Principles
exercised on the Charter of Human Rights.

This is another good example in our
opinion
,

and probably not
well publicized, that we didn't get enough visibility as it




deserves, of coming together with different representatives of
interest and discussing some clear and straight
-
to
-
the
-
point
principles in order to empower user rights onl
ine.


And
,

again, that is not the end of the process. So I'm
looking for possible follow
-
up of these initiatives. Thanks.


>> MERYEM MARZOUKI: Yes, thank you. We will also, I hope
so, we will also discuss whether this tool
--

and you have
mentioned

some examples from Google's side
--

whether these
tools are themselves respecting human rights. So this is
--

this will be another part of the discussion.


But I would like to ask also the representative of the
Government, Matthias Traimer, representin
g the Austrian
Government, I would like to ask you whether you see that with
the current set of legislation and regulation, do you think this
is enough to really protect human rights and also to allow users
to have access to remedies, or do you think we st
ill need for
more tools?


>> MATTHIAS TRAIMER: Thank you, Meryem.


Good afternoon. Well, yes, I'm a civil servant and in my 18
years of
being a
civil servant, it's already my
seventh

Government that I have in front of me. They change and we stay.


So I try to explain a little bit of my visions that I have so
far. Government representatives normally at IGFs are some kind
of suspicious to the mostly nongovernmental representatives and
immediately they are linked with restrictions, regulation,
interv
ention and so on. But that's not, let's say, the way how,
for example, the Europe
C
ourt on
H
uman
R
ights sees the roles of
Member States of Governments
.


B
ecause the
Court on Human Rights

says two Governments do not only refrain from intervening in
your pe
rsonal human rights spheres, don't just be inactive, but
that the European
Court on Human Rights

says to Member States
you have to be active, you have to do something that your
citizens really can make best use of their human rights.


And then we are at
the very important point
,

from my point of
view, teaching people what are your human rights? And making
them really the feeling yes, I understand what I can do in a
certain situation. It's a positive obligation of the state.


Now, this can also become
a dangerous task when a state is
teaching you what rights that you have, because not all States
are doing this in the very best mood. But from the ideal field,
I would say States really should start asking themselves what
have we done for our citizens so
far that they know about their
rights?


I tell you something very simple. We have rights, as was
said. We do not have to reinvent rights for the online world.
We have remedies. In most States we have remedies. We all have
the problems with the effecti
veness of these remedies.






Now, why is that? Because when it comes to crucial points,
for example, and crucial points are often the very simple
points. Somebody is looking for something on Google. Something
is on Facebook.

When you ask people out in

the street
-
-

and I was doing some interviews for another conference
recently
--

when you ask them: Do you know why it is free for
you? Most people say
:


W
ell, it's advertising
.


O
r well, yes,
maybe to have some commercial interests. Yes, they are righ
t.
But very few people know what is happening to that data. And
therefore I think it's very important that this topic, what
data, what happens to your data, when you, for example, are
moving in search machines, it's also taken up by the state as an
impor
tant tool.


Last but not least, it's not only the state, but the state
should support private initiatives which care for the, let's
say, making knowledge to the people of their rights.


In Austria we have, for example, very good let's say
practices wit
h our Internet ombudsmen
.


A
nd the Internet
ombudsmen is a private organisation but supported by various
ministries of the Austrian Government and is working in the
network of the safer Internet programme of the European Union.
Not officially supported, b
ut I realise by some also Government
people, including me, for I like Facebook very much and I'm on
Facebook
.


A
nd yes, I use Facebook nearly every day
.




T
here is
,

for example
,

a young Austria student called
M
ark
Shremp. He started an initiative which I

wouldn't have started
in this hostile way, it's called Europe against Facebook. But
what does it show? He showed that when you give information on
Facebook about yourself, you do not know what happens to it.
And he wanted to know it from Facebook. And
all his attempts
were stopped, let say, at the Irish
D
ata
P
rotection
A
uthority,
because they said we do not have really the instruments for it.


So these are the ways, the concrete topics we have to talk
about when people move on the Internet. Academic
discussion,
I'm an academic as well, but I think we should go more in
practice.


Let me say this very last sentence and I may excuse to the
organizers of IGF, which I principally really show all my
respect
,

b
ut when we give up morning sessions like this
with
speeches and speeches and speeches we hear every year, taking
three or four hours, were you watching the people? Nobody was
listening. And you have all of these representatives. If we
had taken the time, three or four hours, to go to the public and

tell what is IGF about? What does it mean concrete for you?
Without repeating 20 times a transparent
,

open, secure Internet
,

t
his would have been a big step
,

and that's what we should think
about
.


O
therwise
,

IGF becomes
s
tale and stays the same old




clu
b. Sorry about that. But I'm
,

let's say
,

a little bit
worried about the future.


>> MERYEM MARZOUKI: Thank you
--


(
a
pplause)


I couldn't agree more with you. But
,

you know, there are
some countries
--

it's an issue with the IGF in general, but
also t
here are some countries where speeches are made not for
people to listen, because it's not
--

I'm saying this as a
Tunisian, too, so I know what I'm talking about. Tunisia

and
France, we have had more problems in Tunisia than in France
,

I
have to recogniz
e. But France is not a perfect Democracy. So
there are speeches that are just given because there are other
means or other coercive means, the exercise of people. And this
is the very
--

our very point in this work and in this workshop,
to check at leas
t in the online field how we can have less of
this
.


A
nd we have people who really exercise your right.


Maybe you have noticed that this panel is not only European,
but mainly European
,

and only from the western world. But we
have here the representati
ve from the Association for
Progressive Communication, and the association is truly
an
International association, and I would like to have your inputs
on whether these issues and this discussion
--

these discussions
are also taking part in the global south

and if they are taking
part in the same way as we discussed them.


I remember yesterday I attended the session organised by APC
and others, and I listened to Parminder Singh saying rightly, in
my opinion, that most of the decisions, most of the policy
d
ecisions and the global policy decisions
,

are decided in the
western part of the world, and they are exercised on the global
world
.


A
nd also we have the issue of multinational global
companies. We have Google here on the panel, Facebook was
mentioned, an
d we have some others.


So could you give us some feedback from the discussions from
the global south on this issue?


>>
JOY LIDDICOAT:
Thank you. And I think it's very
important to remember that only one part of the global
population is currently conn
ected to the Internet
,

by ITU
statistics. So that means two
thirds

of the global population
are not online.


And one of the things that keeps me awake at night is the
fact that I know that for people coming online for the first
time today have less free
dom online than those who came online
ten years ago did.


There is so much more interference with and shaping of the
online experience now compared to previously. And my worry
,

and
I think particularly from
an
APC perspective, and those in
developing coun
tries in the global south which are coming online
now, the context in which they are thinking about rights and




thinking about development is vastly different from those who
are coming online in developing countries. So I think that's
the first thing.


A
nd I think also we mustn't forget that our ability to
express our rights online is very much connected to what is
happening offline. So if we have countries in which the rule of
law offline is not settled, countries are oppressive,
antiDemocratic, where n
ew forms of Democracy are still emerging,
I think we need to keep in mind that the rights discourse, the
way in which rights are being discussed an
d

in which they are
enforced offline will be different from the way in which they
are being experienced in th
e global north.


And so I think yes, there are different conversations, for
sure. And I think also that the
--

you know, I mean I think
it's really good to hear about the initiatives that the private
sector are taking
,

and I salute those
,

and also the g
ood
initiatives from Governments, but I think that many users are
very frustrated with their ability to get remedies for rights
violations online.


And I think about the work that APC does with women's human
rights
,

w
omen who are stalked online, who are
arrested, where
violence is propagated through the use of ICTs, pictures of them
are posted online and they can't get Internet intermediaries to
act under those intermediaries
'
own terms of service. So I
think it's important to be honest about the good ef
fect it's
been making but also be realistic about their ineffectiveness at
times.


Other issues in the global south and the developing economies
I think that we're seeing is that there is a desire from, you
know, Latin American countries and African coun
tries to
participate more in the rights discourse. But their agendas are
very different and the rights which concern them are very
different. So I think it will be exciting to see and we have
seen in African contexts their articulation of rights online.



But I do think we are headed for a crisis of confidence
,

to
be honest
,

around Internet related rights issues and the way in
which we get remedies for them. I think in the Google context,
I'm a big fan of the Google transparency report, but I think if
w
e look at countries where Google has national offices, where
they are required to be based in countries, and subjected to
national laws and as a result we're seeing content, filtering,
content interference, in particular in Pakistan and the recent
case of
the controversial film, which was posted on YouTube, and
the Pakistan Government requested that it be removed, the
YouTube refused, and as a result the Government simply blocked
YouTube.


Which completely disrupted the entire gook he will platform




in Pak
istan for hundreds of thousands of users.


So I think if we think about effective remed
ies
, we have to
be thinking about how to be much more collaborative
.


A
nd I
worry particularly for those in developing countries that their
Government's frustration an
d desire to control offline
Democratic processes is starting to impact very
,

very severely
on Internet related experiences.


Thanks.


>> MERYEM MARZOUKI: Thank you. I'm sure this was not your
objective, but I think we shouldn't split the world into
D
emocratic countries and so
-
called Democratic countries and so
-
called nonDemocratic countries, because we are seeing and we
have been seeing for years in Europe regulation and developing
legislation which can go against due process and the rule of
law. As
a matter of fact, Wolfgang mentioned this.


But
,

Wolfgang, I would like to ask you to be more
pedagogic

with us and to explain more maybe with an example how some
rights could be translated online.


And let's not talk about freedom of express
ion
, becau
se it's
very important of course, but there are a lot of discussions
around this. But maybe the right to privacy or the right to a
fair trial, speaking of due process. How could they
be

translated in the
--

how should we understand this in the online
wor
ld
?


A
nd also, are there in the whole set of rights as
defined in the
Universal Declaration

of
H
uman
R
ights, should we
have a translation for each right? For instance, the right to
live prohibition from torture, et cetera, should we have a
translation for

each of these rights
?


O
r are there some rights
that could apply in the online world and others not?


>> WOLFGANG BENEDEK: Thank you, Meryem.


I personally think that most human rights translate somewhere
also in the online world, and we have checked

this in the
Dynamic Coalition on Internet Rights and Principles by
developing this
C
harter on
H
uman
R
ights and
P
rinciples on the
Internet. And we realise that practically all rights of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights

can become relevant in
some

context.


There is not really a need for new rights in that
respect
.
What we need is rather to interpret and to adjust those rights
to the online context. And this is also what we hear from the
UN Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression
,

Frank LaRue, who
is also
at this IGF.


Now, when we look at examples, I wanted to come back to
Marco, who has given us some examples of what Google is doing
,

and I'm sure that Google is living up to or trying to live up to
its motto, which is practically "Do no harm." Bu
t in practice,
it is also following
--

so its terms of service, methods of




behavioral

tracking, and when we agree to these terms, we also
agree to these methodologies.


And to give an example from Germany, there is an association
of consumers which recen
tly has sued Google in front of the
court in Berlin for a number of such clauses in the terms of
service, because they feel that these clauses leave the
consumers without any choice
,

maybe in violation of their
obligations of Google under the contractual m
ode in Germany.


Now, we will see what is the outcome of this. But in any
case, the
question

is: Do we have an alternative? Could I
,

for
example
,

say okay, I don't want to be tracked. My behavior
should not be recorded. And I'm ready to pay somethin
g for the
services instead.


And so one of the complaints we have had in our Committee was
from people who said I'm ready to pay, but I don't have this
alternative. It's not given to me by Google. Or if I go to
iTunes,
G
enius is used by some people, ma
ybe also here in the
room, and they have similar ways and methodologies, so they
offer you the music you might like most and they say this

is
in
order to improve our services to the consumer.


Yes, it could be that, but you have no way to opt out from
th
is. And this is the
question

whether you have this authority,
whether you have the possibility of saying this is my digital
identity. This is what I want. And I do not want this kind of
--

these kinds of services. At the moment it's very difficult
to d
o that.


And then I think Marco mentioned a number of
activities

that
the ISPs are actually undertaking, and I think this is a good
move and very necessary move as well.


Still, the
question

in that context would be
:


C
an we have
more of the services in
different countries or better companies
themselves? So, for example, to give an exam
ple
of good
practice of Germany, so to say, there is an association of ISPs
and other business
es
, echo, and they have indeed such a hot line
or help line where you can add
ress them on all kinds of issues.
This can go from child pornography to spam to problems which you
as an Internet user are finding that you are confronted with.
And I think that is the least what could be done by the
responsible and accountable, let's sa
y, businesses, to offer
such a quick service to the users, to address their concerns.


>> MERYEM MARZOUKI: Thank you
,

Wolfgang. This is indeed one
of the issues that we can explore and discuss more with the
private sector operating on the Internet.


Before going ahead with the panelists and other questions, I
would like to open the floor so that we can have some
interaction
.


A
nd may I remind you that as I mentioned in the
beginning, the Council of Europe has a group of experts which is




taking the wri
ting of this translation of human rights and
identifying what are the practical problems of the user and
trying to make some proposal on maybe innovative kinds of
remedies. So we would very much welcome your input on this if
you have encountered particula
r problems or if you have any
solution to propose. Of course, we will discuss what was said
already.


We also have online moderators. I don't know if we have any
questions from the online people who are following us. Please
mention them.


Any
questi
on
? Yes? Please. Go ahead. Please identify
yourself.


>> AUDIENCE: Hello? Okay. Hi. My name is Anis
.


I am from
Syria
.


A
nd I have two small questions for Google. One of them
is the
--

I think that Marco suggested it's in Syria
,

and
another friend

from Belarus is mentioned the same. Two factors
of authentication. In countries like Syria and other similar
countries
, the countries control

the GSM operators
.


A
nd
whatever method that you try to send something, they can
intercept and they can have ac
cess to it. So there should be
some alternative or something. I think my colleague had a
suggestion, maybe we can talk about this later.


The other thing is, also, based on the, I think
,

the U.S.
s
anctions against Syria, Syrians are blocked from access
ing
essential and important things that we can get from Google,
because of these laws. For example, if we go to download Google
C
hrome, they would say it's blocked in your country. If we have
to update our Android phones
,

it would be blocked in your
coun
try. If we have to download something from the Google play
store, something to protect our online privacy, it would also
say that it's blocked in your country.


>> MERYEM MARZOUKI: Thank you very much. Maybe we can
collect all three questions, mention
ing this kind of problem,
and this is a very practical problem that we
--

yes, please. If
this is
--

we will have a second round of questions and
proposals, but if you have a practical problem, identify it
.


P
lease, go ahead.


>> AUDIENCE: My
name

is Nic
ot and I'm from
Pakistan
. I work
for the
Digital Rights Foundation
. I have two questions for
Google.


First
,

what was your response when the Pakistani Government
asked you to block content? Second, what was the process you
guys

followed to block conte
nt in other Islamic countries as a
result of antireligious movements? It's more than a month now
in Pakistan, and it's not just the
blasphemous

which
the
Government found on YouTube, there are so many other
stakeholders and actors who are
deprived

from ge
tting benefit




from YouTube
,

s
o many institutions and students
.


S
o I just want
to know your take, how do you respond to the Pakistani
Government and how Google is trying to unblock this important
channel in Pakistan.


Thank you.


>> MERYEM MARZOUKI: T
hank you. Google seems to be the evil
one. I wouldn't say if I agree or disagree. But at the same
time, as being the evil, you are the most desirant.


Any country have a third
question

on a specific problem?
Yes.


>>
AUDIENCE:
Okay.
My name is Vale
ntina.
I'm from Bosnia.
One
question

for Google as a user. At the second level, it's
about the second level protection.


I travel
,

and yesterday I received a nice e
-
mail saying we
decided not to allow connecting on the Internet because we
wanted to ma
ke sure that it's you and not someone else. You
know, I'm traveling. And you are supposed not to know that I'm
traveling, but you know. And I cannot access the first time
,

and if it's me then I don't need to do

anything
. But you forbid
me first time.
If I was in need, what to do?


So don't protect me before I ask you to protect me. I think
it's a basic human rights.


>> MERYEM MARZOUKI: Thank you
,

very much
,

Valentina
.


B
ecause in Google's discourse
,

and don't take me bad, but in
Google's discourse

what you presented is a lot of tools to
protect the Google users from surveillance, but I haven't heard
anything to protect the user from Google and from the other
companies that Google has contracts with.


And I would like to add to Va
l
entina's
questio
n

a very simple
question

on whether Google is ready to implement very, very
simple means such as do not track feature on its service.


Any other
question

in the same way? Not to direct it at
Google, necessarily, but in particular problems that you have
identified. Is this this kind of
question
? Yes. Please.


>> AUDIENCE: Hello. Are you hearing me?

It's okay?


Okay. My name is Ali
e.


I'm a social activist from Lebanon.
So as Matthias mentioned, if we ask anyone on the street, do you
know where you
r data is going or what Facebook or Google or
anyone else
's
website is doing with this data, they may not
know.


So my
question

is
:


I
n what situation Google may give the
data about users to any Government
a
nd any country?


And then the second
question
,
if you don't mind, as
J
oy
mentioned about the film that was blocked in Pakistan two or
three weeks ago, Facebook was blocked, or removed a picture from
a Facebook page from a woman in the Arab world. It was about
--

the woman was withholding her identity
with a Veil, and she took




off her Veil. She wanted to say that now she has the choice to
express and to say that I don't want to put it on my head. I
want to feel the air. That's what she said. So Facebook
removed it. I don't know, maybe he got some r
eports from angry
users or fake users. I don't know.


My
question

is, in what situation Google can block or erase
something or a photo, and how can Google protect the freedom of
speech
?


A
nd specifically in Arab countries
,

I mean. And are
there any sit
uations that you blocked or you removed some links
or a picture or video?


Thank you.


>> MERYEM MARZOUKI: Thank you. So I will give the floor to
the evil, I think it's obvious. And please answer these
questions on the relation to the Government, ho
w you give data
or you participate in surveillance
.


A
nd also with respect to
the company, what do you do with the data and where do you keep
our personal data even if we want to leave Google, for instance?


But before that, by the way, I have heard in one

of the
questions the word "Blasphemy." And I
--

maybe it's not the
issue, but this issue came back with the movie, you know, of
Muslim. And there is a real threat now that many countries want
to have the blasphemy or the defamation of religion as they sa
y
recognized by the International institution and that. So we
should be careful when we use the word, because we
--

it's kind
of penalizing this one.


So the evil, please, answer.


>> MARCO PANCINI: Thanks. You know I'm not evil.


So I want to ans
wer two factors on the
authentication,

b
ecause they are similar. Again
,

we don't believe that one
single tool is solving all the issues. For example, I was
talking about the two factors authentication plus the secure
connection. Together, these two tool
s can, in combination with
the knowledge and how to use it and how to know about the risk,
that in some countries Internet users are
--

especially Internet
user
s
active in the political life
--

can improve the situation.
In order to improve the situation,

we need to create some kind
of pattern which can raise the necessity of the second factor
authentication, especially if you choose not to input the second
factor authentication every time you log into your
gmail
.


One factor is connecting from an IP loc
ation which is not the
usual one. For example, we are very transparent about the fact
that we are collecting IP location
s
. It's useful for the
services that we are providing for our user
s
, and it's useful
also to protect their privacy and their security.



Every
gmail

user can access to the list of the locations
,

to
the IP locations from which they are accessing into their
gmail

account in the past month. So, again, informing the user that




this is important for
--

to allow them to have control over
thei
r
gmail

address
.


T
his is something that we believe
is

useful and probably is perceived as something not correct, it's
because we didn't
--

have done a good job in communicating
around this tool.


On the blocked access from
--

because of the U.S.
l
aw, we

are
working on that. We were able to have some progress in some
countries, some other countries. We have not yet finalized our
way which is to provide access to all of our tools across the
globe. So if there are laws and restrictions not allowing us to

do that, it's because the existing rules should be challenged.
We are ready to challenge the rules. We are not breaking the
law. But this does not mean that we are okay with the status
quo
.


A
nd we really would love to offer all of our services to
all
the users across the world.


Around the situation in Pakistan, and not only in Pakistan,
we touched about how we deal with content, I want to be clear on
two things. First, we want
--

our approach for content online
is to let the content flow. This is
across all the globe in all
the different situations. Our first goal is to allow people to
express their opinions online
,

and at the same time to have a
variety of different opinions in order to assist the content
online and people can form their own opin
ions. That means that
in case we
are

challenged in some jurisdiction about the content
which is not illegal and is not against our terms of service, we
resist as much as we can.


And in all the possible way
s
, which means that we can run the
risk that ou
r services are blocked in some jurisdictions
,

a
gain,
this does not
--

again, this is an open, never ending discussion
with the Governments. We are very open to discuss with the
Governments. But we are not open, you know, in order to take a
step back in r
elation to our position on the Freedom of
Expression.


We hope to solve the situation soon
,

but it's important to
stress that this situation is created by our choice, which is to
let the content flow.


On the way to that, in the sense of Muslim, it's i
n all the
newspapers. We took initially a position to take down the video
in specific jurisdiction
s
and countries
,

in particular in
Libya,

because of the events that were pending. We know that this is
not an easy job. We are not in the position to say l
ook, we
found another solution. The way Google is dealing with these
issues is the only way. When we have a lot of doubts, we have a
lot of discussions internally, we try to stick with the rule of
law, taking into consideration that in some jurisdictions

the
rule of law is clearly used or abused in order to take down
content that is not considered friendly for the local




Governments. Again, this is why we're engaging with the
Global
Network

I
nitiative and the Council of Europe in discussing about
mass inf
ormation, improving human rights.


So we respect the law. Again, with the caveat that I made
before, we have terms of services that are clear and easy to
read and are very straightforward for what concerns speech. At
the same time, our first goal is to
let the content flow.


Going on the privacy discussion, I would really like to again
make clear that we want to provide user choice. And
,

again, do
the user
s

have alternatives? Yes, first of all, they can use,
for example, the search in a way which mea
ns that no data is
collected. They can choose to not have, for example, any kind
of collection of their data in relation to the use of the
Internet, yes, they can.


But, again, going to the
--

what Google wants to do, what
Google wants to provide
is
use
ful services to the users. We
don't want to force the user to use our services. We want to do
something about the users that goes over, providing to them
useful services.


And I think I attached all of the topic
s.


A
nd in case I
didn't, I'm here for fo
ur

days, so grab me and I will do it.


>> MERYEM MARZOUKI: Michael, you're want to say something
quickly.


>> MICHAEL ROTERT: Just to expand on what you from Syria
said, I heard this morning that Azerbaijan is launching the
first satellite
,

and I gue
ss satellites is one remedy against
blocking whole countries. You just then need to access the
satellite, which cannot be controlled because it's broadcasting
waves.


And the
--

you have to look for a way to get connection to
those kinds of satellites,
and then you're off the game.


With

YouTube and the blocking of certain information from
YouTube, we have this in Germany as well
,

a

couple of music
songs are blocked from YouTube. There is a hint on the Internet
on how to overcome this blocking. So be
cause it's IP address
based, it's based on the Internet address you are connected to,
and there are ways to get a different address. So the targets
,

in this case YouTube
,

does not recognize where you are from and
you get all the content which you would li
ke to have. So check
the Internet
,

again.


And the final word before you cut me off, there are a lot of
requests to Internet Service Providers on doing additional
stuff
,

and Google is an
Internet Service Provider

as well
.


Y
ou
should always have in mind

that whatever is developed to protect
users, to help users, whatever is developed might be abused to
block, to filter, or to hinder people in other areas during use
of software which helps on one side and which is evil on the




other side is so close togeth
er you can't see the distance.


>> MERYEM MARZOUKI: Thank you. I hope that we will not
drift to a very religious conversation.


Let me give the floor very quickly to
J
oy.


>>
JOY LIDDICOAT:

Thank you. I wanted to briefly respond to
the questions th
at came up. I think this discussion here really
exemplifies the crisis confidence I referred to earlier around,
you know,
the
multistakeholder discussion of human rights. We
are at an IGF. We are talking about the importance of
multistakeholder

response
s to Internet related Public Policy
issues, and we have really
difficulty

in practice about having
Civil Society voices on the ground in countries to negotiate and
deal with
remedies

for human rights violations. Where is the
opportunity for Civil Society
input into bl
o
cking an entire
country for more than a month? I mean, you know, I understand
the difficulties that International corporations have, but I
think to really respect and live,
multistakeholders

need to do
that.


Another example is that ICANN
,

for example
,

has just
announced that it will put its 14th
route

server in Azerbaijan.
And that's great for Azerbaijan. But we're also very aware that
there are sensitivities in Azerbaijan around the Freedom of
Expression online nd the situation for acti
vists here. So what
we are
stressing

is the importance of having Civil Society
voices as equals in negotiating remedies for human rights
violations.


>> MERYEM MARZOUKI: We have five minutes left. I would like
to give the floor for
the
next
question
,
but please, try to
address the remedies part, how we can imagine new forms of
remedy.


I think I have (inaudible) and Thomas and you. With the mic
the mic? Do I have the mic?


>>
AUDIENCE:
Thank you very much.


I think if I may go back to a remark w
hich has been made at
the beginning by Wolfgang
,

p
robably we are discussing our
different levels. You have the blocking problem, which is of
course a very important problem. But we also do have all the
problems related to the terms of service. And I wou
ld like to
address the second one in particular, connecting it to the
remedies.


In fact, there are remedies. There are civil law remedies.
There are competition law remedies. I agree that so far civil
society's probably not organised in a very well e
stablished way,
but that's a possibility which can be achieved. And insofar
probably the Council of Europe would have to build bridges to
those people who are really discussing the possibilities of
organised Civil Society, and there are many initiatives a
t the




moment taken in Europe.


I agree that most likely the problem
--

we come to an
imbalance between Europe and less developed countries. We can
probably not avoid that. But I do not think that we should stop
improving utilization in Europe just beca
use in other countries
it's more difficult.


I'm linked to east Asia. I know the situation in east Asia,
but I think if Europe has started something it could offer its
influence on Civil Society to other parties.


>> MERYEM MARZOUKI: Thank you. Thom
as, maybe.


>>
THOMAS SCHNEIDER
: Hello. How are we doing? Is this
working?


I don't have a question to Michael for Google
,

for a change.
I'm Thomas
Schneider

from the Council of Europe
,

and we are
supposed to develop a tool that helps citizens to bet
ter enjoy
their rights online. And we have started with some
reflections

on how to do that
,

and it's not easy.


Actually, unfortunately, the time is almost over
.


I would
have been interested to know from you, from the people
,

from the
users and experts
,

what you would expect, what is a useful tool
on how to translate human rights or your rights that you have in
a traditional world, what would you need? What would users need
that would help them to know what their rights are on the
Internet
?

How should

such a tool look like? Thank you.


>> MERYEM MARZOUKI: And the last
question
, please, yes, sir.


>> AUDIENCE: Can I ask

--

hello?

Hello? Can you hear me?
Okay.


There is Amaso on the Committee.
A
nd at the end of the last
session, one of the th
ings that we talked about is that we can
do a lot of intellectual work and think about the remedies and
feedback, but to have value we have to find a way to actually
reach the users with whatever outcomes we have.


And so seeing as we're in this room, I
wanted to ask if
anyone had any ideas or any funding that they would be willing
to put towards trying to find a way of making that tool
something which is user
-
friendly and accessible.


Thank you.


>> MERYEM MARZOUKI: Thank you.


This is
--

please b
e quick. This is our last
question
.


>> AUDIENCE: Thank you very much. I am chief of
the
information Department from the MFA of Azerbaijan
,

Minist
ry
of
Foreign
A
ffairs of Azerbaijan. And I have a practical
question

to Google.


We strongly believe her
e in Azerbaijan in the free flow of
information
,

and we think that it is very important to develop
the society to build a Civil Society.


But in some cases, I think that
es
pecially when you put the




maps on your site, you should be careful about the names
, about
the geographic names. Because in this case it is a matter of
national
sovereigns
. It is a matter of legislation. That's why
I
say

that thing, when the legislation should be respected.


And we have
--

we used to receive a lot of letters from th
e
public in our foreign ministry which complained that on the
Google maps, in Azerbaijan, the geographic names are
--

very
many names are distorted. Even in some names of the Baku city,
somebody, I don't know how they do it, I'm not a specialist on
the In
ternet, they put instead of the name of the streets, they
put the political statement against Azerbaijan
.


A

political
statement against the political integrity of Azerbaijan. Very
humiliating statements. I was trying to send a message to
Google, and let
ters, you know, explaining how the geographical
names come from
,

a
nd that somebody put instead of the street
just a political statement against Azerbaijan. How they do it,
I don't know. I don't think that somebody in Google sits and
puts the statements a
gainst Azerbaijan, but there should be a
way how they will, for example, could send a message to Google
as an official party, I mean, saying that on the name,
geographic name in Azerbaijan was distorted and there was a
statement against the territorial int
egrity of Azerbaijan.


>> MERYEM MARZOUKI: Thank you. I find this a very creative
way of making politics and making an activist. Maybe we will
have an answer from Google
,

and also you can discuss
this
over
the coffee break, because we are beyond the t
ime of the session.


And I would like to give the floor, really, two minutes, to
each one of our panelists, just to wrap up and a bit of summary.
Thank you. Please, Marco.


>> MARCO PANCINI: Yes, I agree it's better to address this
issue during the
coffee break. We know the sensitivities.
We
are respectful

of the sensitivity. We don't want to mix the two
levels of the geographical things
.


A
nd we are aware of this
issue because you communicated to us
,

a
nd the way the user can
interact with the map
s
,

creating their own maps. And it's a
user
-
generated content. If you believe this is not okay, you
just need to refer it to us and then accordingly to the law, to
the terms of services, but again respecting the final expression
and the Freedom of Expres
sion
,

a
nd we will take action.


On the discussion of the role, I found it important and
interesting, we took a lot of feedback. Again we don't believe
that Internet Service Providers should be like
--
do

their policy
in a vacuum. Let's take, for example
, anonymity on the G
blasts. We were saying that we were applying the strict
policies and we

changed our policy because of the feedback that
we received from the Civil Society and because we want to
provide a powerful tool for people to use to communicate
. So we




believe that if it represents a risk for their identity, really,
the identity, we took action and we changed our policies.


This means that a lot of the issues that we discussed today
are open for us. And we are very happy to receive feedback a
nd
to discuss about them.


>> Well, I know that the Internet and its technology is still
too technical for most of the users
,

i
t's too complicated, and
therefore I think it's hard to find remedies because the user
cannot really express
--

the user can sa
y what he or she doesn't
like on the Internet, but giving a real complaint so it can be
solved technically is, in most cases, at this stage not
possible.


So what I think is it also needs a little bit of more time,
more education, and this is something f
or all stakeholders to
put into, to educate people on how to use the Internet, pros and
cons. There are a lot of things still in the Internet which we
haven't even touched today or couldn't touch today, where users
just don't know how dangerous it sometim
es is
,

b
ut still think
on the 99 percent good things which the Internet brings

along
and that you're on a good site.


>> Thank you. I will use my two minutes for an
advertisement, not for the Government, but the organisation that
I'm very much linked to

for many years. It's the Council of
Europe. As you have heard
,

first of all, the Council of Europe,
the special experts group is working on a compendium which is
very much endorsed. It's initiatives by the Committee of
Ministers. But what I want to sa
y is it has happened
.


A
nd to
all of you either you are from Europe or you're outside of
Europe, it's worth looking on the work of the Council of Europe,
especially also on the situation of users in the Internet field.


There are already instruments abou
t filtering, about
blocking, about children on the Internet, what happens to the
data of children and so on. What is the problem with all of
these instruments? These instruments are a kind of soft law,
and please remember that, and that's my advertisemen
t. They
were signed by 47 Member States of the Council of Europe. So if
you are, for example, a citizen of a Member State of the Council
of Europe, and you are a journalist or a critical commentator,
go to your Governments and say your Government or your

Minister
has signed this, for example
,

in the Council of Europe's work.


It will not help, for example, critics will be still driven
down and sometimes journalists will have to go to prison. But
nonetheless, in order to adhere
to
the standards of the C
ouncil
of Europe, the more helpful it will be.


Thank you very much.


>>

Thank you very much
.


I
n the Council of Europe, it's often
said that we have to preserve the public service value of the




Internet, and this is something which goes not only for Euro
pe,
it goes for global,
global

concerns.


And I think that the issue of user rights, of remedies
,

and I
think the remedies are also part of that public service value.
That is what has been mentioned today, contributing to the trust
and to the confidence

into the Internet.


And one way to strengthen that, which we have not mentioned
yet, but it's obvious, is digital education also in this sense,
and I think there is more to be done in that field.


And in that sense, I would also like to end with an
in
vitation for the collaboration that this Committee is still
working another year, and we hope that both from users as well
as from business, as well as from Governments, we will have more
people to contribute to the work of this Committee.


Thank you ver
y much.


>>
JOY LIDDICOAT: T
hanks. A couple of practical
suggestions. One is
--

can someone please establish an
interactive platform for "I've got a remedy" where we can all
share our case stories of when we got a remedy? And that might
help develop
some practical examples that will be useful for the
work that the Council of Europe is doing.


I think case studies are really
--

of actual rights
enforcement are important and will be useful. And if we are
self promot
ing,
then we do have a human rights

round table on
Friday, which is looking at taking forward human rights
discussions within the IGF and what might be useful ways to
connect some of the initiatives.


For example, should there be inputs from IGF discussions into
these processes in some mo
re sort of formalized way
?



And so I think that I was feeling that this panel was getting
a little dry until we started talking about real examples, and
suddenly we got very fired up up. So I encourage people to take
that forward into other sessions.


>> MERYEM MARZOUKI: Thank you very much.


We will surely do
,

and we will organise the other workshops
probably
.


F
or those of you who are in Europe, the next EuroDIG
is
in Lisbon. But also inside of this group we also develop a
set of questions, and we
have circulated, disseminated this set
of questions. But if you are interested to give your input,
please come to us, to Elvana and to me at the end of the session
just so that we can send you this information.


Now I would like to thank
--

please join
me in thanking all
our panelists
.


A
nd special thanks to Elvana Thaci from the
Council of Europe who was the moderator of this workshop and who
is working in this Working Group, representing the Council of
Europe. Thanks also to Dixie, who is here on beha
lf of the
Internet
R
ights and
P
rinciple
C
oalition. Thank you very much.




And let's go on discussing in other settings the same issues.


Thank you.


(Applause)


(End of session)


(
16:10
)



********

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

********