The following are the outputs of the real-time captioning taken during the Twelfth Annual Meeting of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in Geneva, Switzerland, from 17 to 21 December 2017. Although it is largely accurate, in some cases it may be incomplete or inaccurate due to inaudible passages or transcription errors. It is posted as an aid to understanding the proceedings at the event, but should not be treated as an authoritative record.
***
(Captioner standing by for audio feed)
>> LUCA BELLI: . . . what are the key priorities of government, what is the state of place, what is happening and what we may expect will happen in the next five, six years; what is coming to the countries, expected to be connecting, so this will dramatically change the landscape. New innovation, new regulations, new priorities. Hopefully, diversification of the Internet. This first discussion is to have a good understanding of what goes on then perhaps try to have a more coordinated synergy in the next year.
Some of the panelists here are trying to put together a Cyber Week project which will be a multistakeholder network dedicated to Internet policy in the BRICS. You are all very welcome to join us. If you want more information, we can speak about this afterwards. We are now in the phase of definition of the project. But also not only awareness but fundraising, but everyone is welcome to join us. So, without losing any further precious moments, I will now give the floor to the ambassador (?) to give an overview of what is happening.
>> PANELIST: Thank you. Good afternoon (?) Internet we feel this provides for materials. But participation in regard to how we want to look ahead (?) policies of course we have now legislation (?) with regard to data protection (?) other aspects.
We want to (?) possibilities for joint initiatives in regard to capacity‑building, to research and development. And the other exploration for B2B corporation (?) I think one and a half years ago (?) framework agreement on ICT's, so establishing the goals for corporation, expanding capacity building, B2B. So this needs to be fleshed out. In a way. But I think it's important to say that within this context we want to make sure to explore the possibilities of international cooperation and others (?) we are in the region also engaged in regional (?) also working towards having a regional strategy.
Reflects the growing importance of those issues and our effort to be prepared and to make the best we can of all those strategies. Thank you.
>> LUCA BELLI: Thank you very much. I would like now to follow the BRICS order and give the floor to Mr. Rashid Ismailov.
>> RASHID ISMAILOV: Thank you. We believe that BRICS countries (?) (audio from Webex too low for captioning purposes). 20, 25%, 30% (?) when it comes to Russia last year the President's message to the nation talked about the digital question that we have this kind of challenges in our country (?) at Ministry that had to . . .
That is comprehensive digital technologies in different fields and especially in the fields where the government plays a critical role.
Because the rest could be done (?) in the first place (?) yesterday we had ‑‑ from yesterday, we had the meeting with the Prime Minister where our minister actually said this program is now divided and is (?) four projects. The first project is dedicated to (?) issues and legislation. Obviously, there are so many things that now have to consider from a legislation point of view to in many cases all legislation and rules they are like great for (?) and this has to be realized.
The second issue is about building the technological and research and development capacity. We believe that Russia has enough resources when it comes to research and development. We are one of the leading countries in the fundamental sense. The problem with our countries was always to transfer the achievements and discoveries we had in our fundamental science into real economic applications and projects.
These are the issues that we are going to handle as well.
The third is about infrastructure. For our country, one of the biggest challenges ‑‑ the biggest country in the world, however, with quite low density, especially in the Eastern part. In order to involve the whole society, the whole nation to the digital economy, you have to bring access, broadband Internet to each and every citizen. This is a challenge.
I must say that we have already started four years ago on the project, fiber cable. Up to now we have laid 250,000 kilometers of fiber altogether. Even in the remote areas. It is 12 hours. Can you imagine the territory and the challenges that we have. So, we laid the cable underneath an island, actually. And the sea. The previous success was made through the satellite. It was very expensive.
Now, in order to make it more accessible, actually, that is also about the price. We are looking very much about the price of the roadmap. We are, I think, one of the cheapest countries in terms of price for Internet.
The fourth one is about ‑‑ let's see ‑‑ information security. (?) law enforcement but this is about education (?) this is also about coordination of different law enforcement business, banks and so forth. That is what we are paying a lot of attention to.
The government thinks we will be coordinating body between business, science and the government. And authorities. Since no one is going to take this role.
This is what I would like to say. To be brief, apart from the business and the science the (?) world can deliver the message. I just wanted to tell you about what the government is doing.
>> LUCA BELLI: Thank you very much for highlighting that priority of the Russian government. Now I will give the floor to Tatiana to give an overview, talk about what the business community and the (?) community is developing and needs in Russia.
>> TATIANA INDINA: Thank you. Is the audio working? I will try to adjust myself. Actually, our center, what it has been doing, (?) of Internet regulation has on societies. To follow up, the government is going in a positive direction. I would like to mention another thing that is important today is, as we speak about digital future, it is often important to highlight the role of innovation technology in the future. At forum to the 8.5% (?) the development of Russian (?) and the number of (?) and foundations (?) was no doubt positive successful step nevertheless more work needs to be done developing infrastructure but also taking a more systematic approach that (?)economic incentives to support Russian businesses quarter providing education and develop innovative culture and (?). Now a little about the problem. (?) 71% of the overall population.
The audience keeps growing, the (?) keeps growing. 2016/2017 where counterterrorism (?) protect infrastructure (?) the application of (?) and many other things in the pipelines. So all of these regulations definitely had an impact on the society and the private sector in Russia. For example, with respect to the (?) law 2016 over 45,000 companies in Russia have complied with the law (?) personal data (?) afforded also some companies (?) Uber (?) have transferred (?) to Russia. Luba [phonetic] (?) and now (?) a law on (?).
Speaking about the impact on Russian companies, according to our study, the regulations started in 2012, many companies were reporting that their work at some point was almost paralyzed by the overwhelming number of those regulations. As a compliance measure required, significant financial legal and technological efforts (?) creating hardships. Everybody agrees that control slows down (?) industry. So government regulations have been to mindful of the impacts they have as the goal (?) development (?) the regulations also impacted (?) the issue is that although there are still active groups of NGOs that are often challenging the regulations the majority quarter according to independent public opinion polls actually support them. (?) because of negative (?) about the Internet medium that is often portrayed (?) and newspapers. Often portrays the Internet as a dangerous place for threat (?) in society and in media (?) still lack of multistakeholder dialogues as reported by many agencies. So, a lot of work Russia can do in that sphere.
I also would like to address, with all BRICS countries, as we all know, there will be many problems that will motivate government every country regulators to control the Internet whether (?) or cyber threats but we should take the responsibility of not hurting the interests of (?) and overregulation. (?) mission to secure the Internet the government (?) as no country is interested to have vulnerable and unsecure (?) for future.
So that is the principles in international laws that can help regulation be moral based n(?) those are to be proportionate and necessary. According to (?) must be (?) for the shortest period. So, the regulators did not harm the interests of other stakeholder whether (?) or (?) society.
I would like to conclude: Bigger issues would be important to discuss in this group. One is a growing Internet organization in particular there was suggestions about separating a segment of BRICS Internet as a unified part of the Internet. And (?) can take for all of the countries and stakeholder, the second is what the United Nations can and should do as evidencing not Russian ‑‑ I am not speaking about Russia now ‑‑ many other countries on a high international level such as IGF and (?). Of protecting online freedoms and human rights.
Then, on local levels often entails (?) and implemented such regulations. In the (?) France, Germany, China and even Mexico have (?) measure opposite the internet directly affecting the users.
What the United States did with the net neutrality principle was a shock I believe for Internet users. My concluding message is maybe (?) and have common forums for Internet For All. In order to keep the Internet free and open and so that we all can declare if we wanted to make sure the shape of the digital future in the right way. Thank you.
>> LUCA BELLI: Thank you very much, Tatiana, for this overview and this final injection of freedom which we all need. I would also like to comment saying that it is important to have sound policies and efficient regulation but it is also very important to elaborate and (?) in partnership with other stakeholders.
In the framework it was announced that the recommendation from BRICS leaders highlighted (?) academia and ‑‑ () going on with the BRICS order, India Ellonnai will explain.
>> ELONNAI HICKOK: Thank you, Luca. India has pursued an agenda through its flagship program Digital India. This includes putting in place a number of forms of digital infrastructure. The key one has been the digital identity program (?) identification based on (?) and unique number which individuals can use to authenticate with different services.
And around the ‑‑ India has been creating different types of infrastructure. They have India stack, a set of open APIs consisting of four layers, including a (?) paperless, cacheless and (?) layer. MeghRaj, a national cloud. A digital locker which allows for storage of documents. Along with a digital agenda it has been trying to grow a startup community such as AI.
There is a committee exploring the (?) government level and (?) from an (audio distorted) and just released a white paper for public (?) on the (?) of that and the shape that legislation should take. The government has promised a digital policy in March 2018; and along with the digital agenda, of course, cybersecurity has become a focussed area in India.
I think as the government pursues the legislation, it will be interesting how they address questions of international (?) as well as impact of emerging technologies. And it will also be interesting to see as they developing legislation if they are going to advance the (?) regime in India. Currently, the regime does not allow for it. It will be interesting to see if they (?) it will be interesting to harmonize those.
On a slightly different note, 2015, (?) strengthened the IO regime to require a court order for request to take down comment. It will also be (?) to see if they consider strengthening their blocking (?) I think I will stop there.
>> LUCA BELLI: Exhaustive points. Thank you very much. Now, China, please go ahead.
>> FANG XINGDONG: Same to you. Very happy to meet you. My English is not very good. I would like to introduce you to China's digital economy interpretation on the world in one side. We have a lot of (?). Among the top five companies, China got two. On the other side, Chinese government is very strong. Digital (?) one is bottom‑up and the other is top‑down.
Bottom‑up means the market dominates and the other is government‑dominated. China's is a mixed model, not one or the other. With the mixed model not (?) can be compensated here. So they are very active and very afraid.
Talking about cybersecurity and Internet governance, that is dominated by the government; and they try to cope with challenges. It looks quite effective so far.
The success of China digital economy relies on, one, governance; and the other is a (?) governance of the new economy. The most difficult part of China's digital economy is which sectors should be more maintained by government and which sectors should more let the markets decide and where we like to go next the most successful experience we gained in the past two decades in terms of China's digital economy (?). The business and industries to go ahead and develop first and then we mapped out policies to be a good model.
So we will have three challenges in the next decade. Number one is we are worried about the government's excessive control of the future of the industry. For example, who is in charge of the 5G development?
Number two is a concern about monitoring. The past two decades have been pretty good, let the markets decide. But we are beginning to see some warning signs and some big Internet joined companies, starting monopoly trends.
The third is how to globalize China's Internet initiative. Within China and successful, in a market sense. Not (?) international standards and really just embrace the development and the new development around the world.
Currently we are involved in a huge project, The Oral History of the Internet. Trying to document the first 50 years of Internet development. Let's learn lessons from the past and that will give us power to embrace the next 50‑100 years.
I really believe the BRICS nations' cooperation is essential in the next decade. 30% of the users ‑‑ 40% come from BRICS countries. In the next decade we can have 60% of Internet users will come from BRICS nations. That is all.
>> LUCA BELLI: Excellent. Thank you very much for this very good overview of your priorities and challenges. Now last but not least I would like to ask over there Alison.
>> ALISON GILLWALD: I will find my way to the table somehow. Here I am. Thank you very much for the opportunity to join this panel. I suppose in some sense from a multistakeholder perspective we sort of (?) across all of them.
Research ITP Africa is a public interest policy think tank. African policy regulation. In this capacity, we work with government across the board: finance, net neutrality and on matters of IT policy and regulation. In the area of governance. That work tended to happen more with our academic and (?) as will become apparent as I speak. We also will be conducting the only national representative youth survey which has moved in the last round, beyond the access and connectivity issues to look at the other challenges. The development challenges to accessing the Internet and particularly the component of the digital rights challenges.
What this research shows is that digital inequality is likely to remain a major factor. Those are the most vulnerable, barely connected, suffering from issues of portability, suffering from education and skills, are also least able to exert their rights if they were to exist. That is the latest round of research but it also intersects ‑‑ there is there are sections of this work on micro work and also part of cyber innovation that would be of interest to this group.
Let me move particularly now to the issues of the BRICS agenda in terms of innovation and those of you who know South Africa will know that the system of innovation and the national communications strategies and frameworks have been sadly separated. There has not been adequate integration of the innovation framework consistent with the communication policies and strategies. Science and technology always has been way ahead and it seemed important to communications infrastructure and affordable infrastructure and development in order to achieve the innovations system. It from to time has pulled the Department of Communications, previously took months ‑‑ now telecommunications again, kicking and screaming along (?)
I think the scientific knowledge obviously has made enormous gains. Especially with the SQA, the bigger satellite and the bigger bandwidth. Obviously has implications for the reason. (?) countries that are very significant. As I say in the last round (?) elected six (?) in bringing the Department of Communications previously (?) telecoms along and the policy has been interregnum since the broadband policy in 2013, mainly because of the specific department; but it has introduced some legislation during period and although that in itself was actually sponsored and comes out of the Department of Justice.
So, just broadly speaking there is a lack of integration and coordination across government and around innovation and meeting the pre‑conditions for digital quality and innovation and popularism (?) provide an evidence‑based for informed and policymaking. In that regard we have worked very closely with the previous Department of Communications and made inputs on the cybercrime law first introduced in 2015, under the new administration. And really, you know, was perceived as a bit of a claw back of the very strong democratic and human rights framework that we have.
Fortunately, the institutionalization of those frameworks over the last 20 plus years since liberation means that we have been able to take those matters either to the courts or with the (?) Constitutional challenge, those have been adjusted. 1515 legislation has been (?) considerable amendments to that and there is still a view that if it is passed now, it would not (?) Constitutional ‑‑ (?) taken to the Constitutional (?) particularly around freedom of expression, whistleblowers, and (?) and hate speech. That is a very controversial one. You could look at more on that.
But I think in terms of BRICS and in terms of the progress made across different BRICS countries and the potential regression in terms of rights and at the political level that we see is really an area in which academia and civil society should be collaborating in order to support government to return ourselves to the heyday of (?) and Brazil and to the very progressive rights regime we have in South Africa, which is an example ‑‑ many African countries do aspire to.
That said, I should say that the new bill neither ratifies the Budapest convention nor does it rectify the African Union Convention; and in some ways it kind of carved a third way, which some people have seen in terms of Global South as an effort to assert a different sort of G20, more Global South perspective, but in other ways it is also seen as possibly engineering a more conservative position politically that would enable what is seen as sort of increased surveillance and increased monitoring of citizens and limitations on certain freedoms.
Just in terms of the cooperation in the BRICS area (?) that we look ahead a bit we maybe will come with those. But, dealing with the issues of the Balkanization that was mentioned and the establishment of BRICS Internet or a portion of the Internet that would be dedicated in that way we as part of civil society movement in Africa and South Africa really see a role amongst academia and civil society to work with governments for greater national representation in multistakeholder/government forums rather than the separation out of the open Internet as we know it. And really providing an evidence‑based and a support‑base for more support representation of Global South citizens in the existing fora of Internet governance.
>> LUCA BELLI: Thanks. I think it is very clear that multistakeholder cooperation is essential if we want to stimulate innovation, protect your rights and if you have and open Internet (?) Internet. I would like to open the floor for comments and questions. We have still a good 20 minutes for debate. So, please go ahead if you have comments or questions, just raise your hand. Don't be shy.
>> AUDIENCE MEMBER: We should look ahead. Sometimes I will say that you cannot change the past from the present but we can change our future. And I think ‑‑ encourage very much BRICS countries to work together for the future I think the Internet future will depend on 5G.
It is important for the big countries to lead 5G technology. Thanks to 5G, it will change completely the way we collect information, data, cloud, what we call the Internet of Things. China is the biggest (?) manufacturer in the world for the industrial Internet.
And it is important, maybe your project could include this idea: How could BRICS make that policy to push 5G. Also because here we have a big problem with the digital divide in which 5G will become more important. Brazil is a country I like very much and I go there quite often. What happened that operators invest not enough and they invest all in the same area. But there are many parts of the country which they don't have any coverage and now, with 5G, even already the Internet should be built for the whole country, make sure there is not a digital divide.
The whole population has to access the Internet in the future. This is important to prepare for the Internet of the future.
And also if I may to be more (?). Because sometimes the discussion on the future policy is only left to Europe and the US. Where are the other countries? Why don't they participate more actively in the debate and put in their views? I think this will be something very important.
>> LUCA BELLI: If I can also have a comment on this, I think the latest regulatory development in the US demonstrates there is a huge possibility for BRICS countries to take the lead in what is called the post Western World by a colleague of mine.
Those leading policies and development, some of them, are withdrawing, particularly one. And it is quite clear from latest development. This is a great opportunity for BRICS countries exactly as it (?) and opportunity for their environmental policies and the development of (?) friendly policy. After the US (?).
It is a great opportunity that will not repeat itself in the next decades for BRICS countries to take the lead innovation, in policy development and, again for what is essential is also that it continues the dialogue for government to receive feedback on how to properly implement, execute policies and regularring racial; and how to craft a regulation that is not simply a regulation. It is a regulation that ‑‑ it is an effective regulation that can work properly and (?) environment for business to thrive while empowering users. I very much like the idea of government leading 5G projects. They also should develop maybe joint policies in BRICS, on that openness, on data portability, interoperability. The BRICS ares ask the for a large portion of the population.
If they share legally interoperable policies and build a common market with common standards and interoperable policies with compatible provisions, the rest of the world will follow. It is a matter simple math.
>> (?)
>> LUCA BELLI: Exactly. I would like some reactions on this. First the gentleman there (?)
>> Charity Foundation and we have written for the European Commission their plans for the next generation Internet initiative.
The positioning of BRICS countries in this is that we want to do ‑‑ from my perspective is that we want to kill the Trojan horse. That is the original Internet in a sense. But we have to do it together. Collectively I think we have a far stronger research in actually reaching the next generation than does a Potemkin Village (?) of all these people.
And I think it will go hand in hand with these policies. We fully have to create something that we have to trust, because it is trustworthy. It is mathematically proven: We will tolerate no more jumps or leaps of faith. We will try to establish real technology that you can measure. As far as the 5G stuff, there are comments about allowing public innovation and have free public spectrums still available which there are some of issues with 5G.
And the spectrum policy it will be debated this afternoon the meeting of the (?)We will present a clinic on networks. You might find ideas there as well.
Maria, please go ahead.
>> MARIA: Thank you. I would not like to respond to your point but add another point on the table. BRICS collaboration and cooperation would be key ‑‑ I wasn't here at the beginning the discussions. I apologize. I was a discussant on the Geneva Encryption (?) session.
We need progress and we need to recognize we produced an important report coming from UNGGE in 2015. In 2017, we didn't manage to produce a report and many say that the cause for this failure was breaking in communication and dialogue; that is due to the fact that different countries and the UNGGE had different perspectives on what cybersecurity is and these perspectives are very aligned with a western perception of what it should encompass and (?) security. And I think that everyone recognizes as well that there is no way to keep cyberspace secure and a space for economic growth and innovation as you have been talking about if there is no security. This is a topic that is (?).
The BRICS could be an excellent space to try to bring more clarity and to bring together different views on the side of security. I think the countries that are members of the BRICS could play an important role on that. And I think that if we don't do that, what we risk that not only the UN entity, but also looking beyond, what I see is an increasing polarization between different stakeholders, between us and them, the good and the evil.
Not necessarily to discuss a treaty as Microsoft proposed. A treaty could be proposed. Reflection needs to be done. There are discussions about norms of cyberspace, globalization of cyberspace has produced (?) to keep the core infrastructures of the Internet as the backbone to the (?) as away from attacks coming from government or the private sector. I think that cybersecurity is an area of collaboration and a very important.
>> LUCA BELLI: Cybersecurity is one of the main areas we will develop in the CyberBRICS projects. We are open to partners but also to funders. If you have any interest, we are happy to discuss this after the workshop. But now we have other various comments one here, here and someone there.
>> AUDIENCE MEMBER: Thank you very much. Very interesting panel. Mark from Tokyo. How many people here are from outside BRICS? Can you raise your hand? Besides me? About half or 40%.
I would like to offer my comments or reactions to the very interesting presentations of all five BRICS. Being a (?) society member a long time, this is my twelfth IGF. We really liked the one in Brazil and would like to have one in Russia (?). I have been there twice.
Anyway, are we going back, my original question is: Are we going back to the national government sovereignty regime, that sort of Internet made with the globalization eroding the national borders, do we know really ‑‑ of course, IP address is not actually the national border but many activities over that, crossing the borders.
We so far have enjoyed that very much. To add that is multistakeholder where the very weak civil society voices are being taken into account in the very early stage. WSIS (?) and what I heard from the presentations which was interesting is, from China ‑‑ the second sector is the government would dominate and economic activities, you don't (?). Citizen activities, I am not too sure where you put them.
While I don't want to go into too much detail on free speech in China and stuff, but we are really aware of that. And we are worried a little that accessible regulation will stifle innovation.
You cannot easily demarcate what (?) and what are the regulatory government activities. It is all intersecting, crossing over. So, do we have the capacity to enforce what your government is thinking to exercise, there are always bypasses, other means and ways technical or business: Usually governments are are late to catch behind. Because unless the problem arises en masse, you cannot react too well. No matter how smart governments are, I believe if it's the people's will, will go ahead.
Finally, I would like to suggest not just one but more of the dialogues, not only amongst the BRICS countries, but BRICS and other neighboring countries such as Korea, Japan and China perhaps Korea. But many others. We are facing a global program. It is not a BRICS program. In that, I really appreciate this opportunity but also appreciate that you listen to the few society voices outside of BRICS. Thank you very much.
>> LUCA BELLI: Thank you for this comment. I will take another two comments before opening for remarks here.
>> Thank you very much. I have a question for the panel as a whole. It's about opportunities (?) question after the previous person ‑‑ still, I will try to ask it. Do you see in the reasonably foreseeable future (?) BRICS aimed at the reliability or online concentration (?) as a general. And what do you see with any kind of joint BRICS actions in this field? Any positions on the use of algorithms, computer programs to filter or detect undesirable or illegal content? This is a question for the whole panel.
>> LUCA BELLI: Very specific, direct question. We will have answers right after the next comment.
>> AUDIENCE MEMBER: I wanted to react to the comment. I wasn't planning to say anything but I found it hard to resist. I would like you to protest the demonization of China for the last 12 meetings. It constantly happens. The most evil actor is not China; it is the United States. The Snowden regulations demonstrate very clearly that the United States has influenced human rights across the world and the type of speech that United States and other developing countries, especially those active in the World Intellectual Property Organization censor the speech most important to citizens: Music, books, movies.
So, those are the most evil actors when it comes to member states. I would like to protest the validization of the (?) model ‑‑ it produced very little in terms of output. It is actually an excuse, a farce, which is basically used to explain a laissez‑faire model where corporations are able to get away with all sorts of things and civil society is used as pawns.
Somehow the seat at table seems to justify whatever the corporations do. So, the BRICS breakaway from this tradition of 20 years is a welcome thing. Perhaps we have fresh ideas from other corners of the world; and therefore I strongly support what you are doing, Luca, and what your colleagues up there are advocating.
>> LUCA BELLI: I totally agree with your comments. I will take some reactions from the floor then some more comments.
>> PANELIST: Thank you. So many points were made. I made a few notes. I will do the best I can.
>> LUCA BELLI: Take your time.
>> PANELIST: In the course of the discussion there was information that last year actions were taken in Brazil and other places with regard to access. I think we should differentiate or it is very important to differentiate because government is not monolithic. We have the Executive, you have the Congress, you have Justice.
There is not much we can do with respect to Executive. They are independent branches. In the case of Brazil, there were a few occasions in which individual justice divided to block (?) but there was a ruling by the Justice itself in higher points. It is not for government to do this or that. It is just the recommendation of the separation of powers (?) to do ‑‑ to apply, interpret the law and sometimes to supplement, sometimes go against the origin step of the proponent. That is democracy. That, I think, happens everywhere. And on all occasions.
The second point I would like to raise is that any kind of international corporation we en gauge, we have ‑‑ the obvious thing, should be respected for our international laws (?) the (?) so either when we engage at the UN or by laterally or in the context of BRICS, we are not (?) from what is (?) not deflected by anything that is there. We will cooperate to the sense that the cooperation will be compatible with the views and the law that is (?) enshrined in our internal systems. I heard at some point there is a new BRICS . . . there is no such thing. The BRICS (?) would be against our vision of how we should function.
Another point that I think was important was are we going back to national sovereignty? Well, I think the reality and the practicality that the two things live together and live together forever (?) the fact that the Internet is borderless, is a unified source, does not change the at of national (?) ‑‑ there is an important project developed by (?) exploring that contradiction between how we are a unified global resource ‑‑ having to ex parte the national (?).
So I think everything we do in the international cooperation is trying to make sure that at the global level some concepts are shared by everyone that can demonstrate to the government that has sovereignty, it is in their best interests to act.
Otherwise it is a sovereignty that will be (?) and this has not changed (?) or multistakeholder approach. But it is something that (?) upholds and we surely would defend it.
Also a point towards should the BRICS be discussing these things amongst themselves? Again, the discussion among BRICS is taking shape. We are exploring what possibilities of cooperation are there. We want to explore them to the fullest extent possible. In a way, that is compatible with each member state's internal vision, policy and regulations. So, I would like for the moment now to expand these because (?) taken place.
On the other hand, we have a strong dialogue with many other partners around the world. We have (?) dialogue with the US, the European Union, in the context of (?) is also taking shape. It is not asking (?) we are discussing within BRICS.
I think the same thing happened with China, with Russia. It's part of working in the international environment. The next question was would it be feasible for BRICS to develop a (?) or to lead some . . . I don't think it is something it could envision for the moment. Again, the discussions taking shape there, even among BRICS sometimes different approach to (?).
Part of the framework is really to explore the possibility to have joint conversations (?) to international fora. But for the moment (?) we cannot envision something in that regard. Particularly (?) that are being discussed on the Internet informally (?) each (?) is a different approach. It is not that we are discussing that BRICS wants to solve everything and bring a solution for every problem. That is not the case. But again it is a context we value and want to explore to the fullest extent possible.
>> LUCA BELLI: I am sure that research on (?) would be beneficial to follow up on the initiatives. I have a comment for the gentleman who has been so kind to wait. Then Tatiana. I made a mistake. We are finished 20 past one. We have 15 minutes for debate. Please, go ahead.
>> AUDIENCE MEMBER: Thank you. You have the initiative of BRICS is a challenging journey (?) I am confident you will continue to success. What I will say is we are not here to admire or criticize multistakeholders. I wrote in Mundial about the multistakeholder approach. There are many models in that. No one is against the multistakeholder approach. It is not perfect. It is shaky. Because (?) but for the time being we do not (?) of goods. (?) BRICS could be BRICS Plus. That Plus could be many.
You talked about Japan and Korea. There might be other people who are interested, active in the area. What I could say that the majority of the community, they are now faced with some sort of frustrations for something because nothing applies. Perhaps BRICS or BRICS Plus would be in a position to reply to some of those frustrations, including cybersecurity which, as far as I know, working in this area many years, is very little progress (?) expanded everywhere but never (?).
I am sorry, going all the way around. I think that would reply to that. There are other points in the existing situations which I think as our distinguished colleague mentioned: No one is going to kill any other system (?) but this is something, competition. Innovations are always good, always healthy. Who understood 20 years ago that the assembled would have competition (?) China would be so fast developing, Russia? India? Others, South Africa? So I think you have a good power together.
The only thing that is very, very important is a very well structured collaboration and cooperation. That is important. (?) I think this is as I mentioned a journey with challenges ‑‑ a challenging journey but, continue that. Thank you.
>> TATIANA INDINA: I wanted to add one more time add (?) your previous (?). Of course Internet and technology are important parts of innovative future but so are people. What I observed is a huge brain drain of tech talent from BRICS countries to United States. Engineers, entrepreneurs, talented tech specialists from Russia, China, India, Brazil, those are in Silicon Valley in the United States instead of doing that in their own countries. That is a big problem that will impact the innovative future of those countries at some point.
I think what we should think about is joined initiative of BRICS countries to develop innovative systems locally or internationally in this region to keep those talents, those entrepreneurs, provide them about opportunities to start their innovative businesses, perhaps for private venture and private capital.
Also, build accelerators, incubators, provide education to the entrepreneurs, the community of experts. Just to build our own BRICS Silicon Valley as an alternative for those young talents to build the innovative future in their countries. Thank you.
>> LUCA BELLI: I would also raise awareness of the fact that the BRICS country has some of the youngest populations in the world. With all due respect for people who already have white hair on their head, the youngest are usually the more innovative and more inclined to restating. That is an incredible aspect for BRICS to exploit.
>> PARTICIPANT: I second Tatiana, building offer that a little, a strong context in the Indian (?) has been the concept of data democracy. Not only that the individual owned data but as a country, you have control over your data. Avoid situations like where Google and Facebook have access to all of your national data.
A couple of the questions that came up, intermedia liability and filtering of context. From the Indian context we haven't seen something like that. A couple of years ago, we saw a proposal for a social media monitoring lab that would look at content on social media from a national security perspective, not from a ‑‑ regulating that content. What we have seen in Europe we haven't necessarily seen in India.
I agree with the emphasis on cybersecurity as an area of collaboration within the BRICS countries. I think a forum for this could be the governmental group of experts. I know some BRICS countries collaborate, all of the BRICS countries contributing to this.
Language is an important place to start at, as is the focussed area of cooperation and the form of coordination between the country.
>> PARTICIPANT: (?) the future? If BRICS focussed too much attention on the past and present problems, which we have to deal with, I think this is not enough. BRICS has to focus on how to prepare the ground for the future. 5G is a revolution that is coming. Very fast. I don't see BRICS being ready for this. And the challenge of 5G cybersecurity is completely different from what we are discussing today.
So, be ready for the future, think about it, let's prepare the ground for the future. Also, I don't know how much better but I think BRICS, those who think of how they can support and whether to support the Silk Road because it is a very important project and the digital (?) like smart CD's, like (?) health services, which are very important to our people, our citizens.
At end of the story, digital is something that helps the people to live better. So we should never forget that. Otherwise, the debate is too graphic and ‑‑ so we are here to ‑‑ government is here to help the people. To increase their quality of life. Think what we can do (?) quality of technology in Brazil (?).
>> VERONICA ARROYO: And I think Luca ‑‑ I hope Luca will continue to work on this, because it is very good work. Let's focus on the future. Let's prepare for the future. Otherwise BRICS will not be in the game.
>> LUCA BELLI: Alison, please go ahead.
>> ALISON GILLWALD: I was responding to your call earlier for closing remarks. If these are follow on questions maybe we can go ahead.
>> LUCA BELLI: Couple of comments or questions. The lady there ‑‑ yes, please go ahead.
>> AUDIENCE MEMBER: (?) I would like to comment on (?) my question is how to connect the citizens of the countries part of BRICS as students and worker (?) related to this group, including from cyber bridge projects (?) not only between our governments but between our people. So it's really important that I come to discuss these issues. How can we get this as a subject which the people in this country, are connected and we are going in some way guarantee they are going to continue this partnership. So, thank you.
>> LUCA BELLI: It's a very important remark. Today this discussion should be the start of a long journey, as the gentleman was suggesting here. So, that is a very important element that we should consider and that we will consider. So thank you very much for raising this.
>> PANELIST: (?) also a member of Internet Without Borders NGO (?) infrastructure of the Internet and in the past 2014 and development (?) project BRICS like linking the bricks together. Seems like since then there are diverging views. Projects like the Silk Road for China we have a project between the US and Brazil currently. But not anymore a question of kind of a common project offering (?) works through communications. Then the existing ones. (?) going between the US and China. And the (?) ones, which is the most use today. My question is: Is there any kind of perspective for not only investments in (?) but also of new governments (?) net neutrality (?) under the current (?).
>> LUCA BELLI: That is a very good comment to start the final round of comments. I would ask Rashid to comment on this.
>> RASHID ISMAILOV: Whether a BRICS table connecting is still something in the list of priorities of the government or it is something that has been put on hold waiting for different times.
I think unfortunately I may not be a position to respond accurately. It is my understanding, for the discussants who followed me, there are a number of projects being explored at this moment. On top of that (?) between Brazil and Europe (?) I think there is also (?) might yet be another opportunity for (.) Thank you.
>> PARTICIPANT: from a technical point of view 5G not an innovation. If 2G (?) analog. 3G was (?) 4G and 5G ‑‑ the problem is about the frequencies. More frequencies have to be allocated. It hasn't been decided (?) many countries that still have (?) their whatever needs in this particular spectrum (?) without 5G it is impossible (?) there are expectations about 2019 WRC (?) next thing where all countries will be able to reach consensus (?) now when it comes to the vendors, the producers of the 5G equipment, they are struggling along.
Ericsson is reporting for years a negative market. One company was ahead of it in technology. Huawei is not because it is not on the stock exchange, the stock market it is the situation (?) having this kind of projects, we at the same time have ambitious projects, we have just a handful of producers of this equipment. They are struggling very much. The prices are low, they are competing with China.
Previously, the operators were harvesting ‑‑ enjoying this kind of competition between ‑‑ the producers that eventually let to the fact that many producers are gone. Nortel (?) Motorola, all those companies. Now they are starting to suffer (?) and the course of this operator's kind of problems with Internet and Internet services. Messengers, whatever.
There is no unique policy in regard to this one. I mean, we know about Net Neutrality Act that has been adopted recently in the USA. Of courts, countries like ours, producers, we are looking at, following everything around the globe. Before we agree on all of these issue that is we need to support operators, support producers, we need somehow to control Internet giants that are getting their money from ‑‑ ex‑territorial, so to say. They are not paying ‑‑ that mean that is we had recently with GSME [phonetic] workshop, most said that the GSM was the last Golden Age for the operators because they haven't returned their investments from 3G, not 4G.
We are still forcing them to deploy this network. They are afraid to miss frequencies. That is why they are fighting for the frequencies. However they are not investing as much as is required to shift the economy to its vision. This is the problem.
Now, with the tables I don't think there is a need, actually, to have a special cable with all BRICS. Everything depends on the economic relationship and integration between countries. Russia and China were much closer partners when it comes to the economy than (?) and South Africa.
So, going from the business needs but for the cable . . . and there are no ‑‑ the global issues are changing, the climate is changing. Now we are talking about northern Europe, to lay cable from Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, through the North Pole (?) ocean, to China. That will give a lot of opportunities, actually cable itself and besides skill there is a rule to transport from China to Europe (?) these are the issues I think all countries, all governments ‑‑ we are the starting point for consideration of any project is the business needs.
>> LUCA BELLI: Thank you. Alison, concluding remark?
>> ALISON GILLWALD: I wanted to pick up on some of the points made about the fragmentation on the collaboration of BRICS countries and where that can happen. And perhaps not polarize our participation into governance, is it governance, one or the other?
I think the vilification of one of the parties does resolve the issues of the citizens within the countries. I think within BRICS there are extremely different political systems and economic systems and population sizes as just has been mentioned. I think the existence of BRICS, the viability of it, the potential of it to take it forward for innovation, et cetera, depending on a certain pragmatism that we have to accept.
However, I think there is a point of expediency where I raise again the issues of human rights and various things that both ‑‑ at some point are going to have to ‑‑ are likely to come up as issues. Just referring to some of the projects, I think there is enormous opportunity from research, to collaborate across different regions with very different economic models, governance models and their rights molds. Socioeconomic parity, second‑generation rights, first‑generation rights. I think it is critical to engage if we are going to engage effectively as BRICS or BRICS plus within the existing government infrastructures. Much as we might not like or think the multistakeholder approach (?) these are going to exist. Basically excluding ourselves will probably exclude us and make us less able to (?) local governance anyway.
I would argue for a very pragmatic but not expedient engagement of BRICS around common issues and of course alliances with other countries along where the alliances exist. The various activities within BRICS is critical. Globally we are in a politically conservative global environment. I think the aspect ‑‑ the nature of global politics and global political economy make the establishment of BRICS at this time a particular thing that I would caution expediency around (?)
I think cybersecurity is a critical issue and an issue where we have seen very repressive governments being the first movers on cybersecurity without concern for citizenry because it is being offered at the international level and with your cybersecurity package goes your surveillance package and no framework for human (?) cybersecurity framework we need and the norms and all of the really important points you made, were from a Global South or an (?) aligned movement whatever you want to call it.
The other thing I wanted to flag that I think is really a valuable research area for us but also an issue of international engagement is around data governance. That cuts across our national sovereignty issues and compelled engagement. In a globally (?). Whether about algorithm management or Big Data analytics, whatever it is, I think that is an important program for us. Both (?) innovations system.
>> LUCA BELLI: Unless someone has some very urgent ‑‑
>> AUDIENCE MEMBER: I want to add that we have a wonderful program on The Oral History of the Internet and each country has a wonderful story about how the Internet started in their country. We would love to listen and document that.
Our documentary staff will be open to the public and we will share that with the Internet archives, based on a history of the United States, and we will build an online home for this. I would love if you can share your Internet stories, not just BRICS countries. Also around the world. Thank you very much.
>> LUCA BELLI: Very last comment from Tatiana.
>> TATIANA INDINA: Very short. I want to thank you so much everybody who stayed here through the BRICS. And I feel challenges for BRICS countries. It is really important to have more open discussions on emerging issues. My personal hope from this forum perhaps sometime
in the near future you will consider coming up with a declaration (?).
>> LUCA BELLI: As everyone is wanting to go to lunch, we will not keep you further. Thank you very much for your participation. Let's have a good lunch.
(Applause)