>> MODERATOR:  Good morning, all.  We are not starting the meeting.  A brave thank you to the brave souls.  We will wait three, four minutes more to allow people who were in the other building who might find their way.  I am thinking a good use of the time to have an introduction of those who are here because not nobody knows absolutely everyone.  I think a lot.  Can we start from the end?  That would be good.  The usual procedure is you push the button and it gets red and normally you speak. 

>> PARTICIPANT:  Good morning.  My name is Anna Christina Carvello.  I am a professor in Sao Paulo, Brazil.  Until last June I was a post doc fellow in Fiji where I worked with the international Livestream. 

>> PARTICIPANT:  Hi.  I am Maria.  I am a student at UFP in Brazil.  I am a researcher in my accession group in University.  And my specialization is electro property and new technologies. 

>> PARTICIPANT:  Hello.  My name is Adrian.  I am a policy and legal advisor for the Swiss Governmental cert.

>> JIM PRENDERGAST:  Good morning.  Jim Prendergast.  And I am a recovering Internet Governance addict. 
(Laughter).

>> PARTICIPANT:  Okay.  Now it is working.  Good morning.  I work for ICANN here in Geneva.  I'm heading Government and IGO engagement. 

>> PARTICIPANT:  Good morning.  My name is Peter.  I work for Denig.  And I do a bit of policy advice and in this context external relations.  Thank you. 

>> PARTICIPANT:  Good morning.  From the German Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy.

>> PETER MAJOR:  Good morning.  I'm Peter Major. 

>> PARTICIPANT:  Roberto, Chairman of the board of public interest registry and A member of the board of the European RLO.

>> PARTICIPANT:  Is this working?  Carla Lefever with Google.  I am Vint Cerf's chief of staff.

>> PARTICIPANT:  I am a student of the University of Uganda and also an intern in the DiploFoundation and online Moderator.

>> VINT CERF:  Good morning.  My name is Vint Cerf and I do what Carla tells me to do.

>> PAUL MITCHELL:  I am Paul Mitchell.  I am from Microsoft.

>> PARTICIPANT:  Hello.  I am Paul Feninger.

>> PAMELA MILLER:  Good morning.  I am Pamela Miller, Director General of Telecom and Internet policy for the Department of Innovation and Economic Development, Canada.

>> PARTICIPANT:  I am Daniel.  I am the undersecretary of digital Government for Argentina.

>> PARTICIPANT:  I am Byron Holland.  President and CEO of Canadian ccTLD operator, CIRA. 

>> PARTICIPANT:  I am a UNESCO advisor for the Latin America and Caribbean.

>> PARTICIPANT:  Is it working?  Lynne, Council of Europe Information Society Department.

>> PARTICIPANT:  Good morning.  I am Benedict from Software Foreign Affairs Brazil.

>> PARTICIPANT:  Jonah Hill with the U.S. Department of Commerce.  She is U.S., also Department of Commerce.

>> PARTICIPANT:  Good morning.  I am ‑‑ I work in the Secretariat.

>> PARTICIPANT:  I am Jack.  I am a professor for Intellectual Property Law and Internet Law at the University of Geneva where I am also Vice Director.

>> PARTICIPANT:  Good morning.  My name is Milt.  I work for the Dutch police national intelligence division.

>> PARTICIPANT:  Good morning.  My name is ‑‑ I am a colleague from the Dutch national police.

>> PARTICIPANT:  Richard Wingfield from Global Partners Digital.

>> PARTICIPANT:  Good morning.  Ian Brown from the UK department and previously professor of security at Oxford University.

>> PARTICIPANT:  My name is Raul and I am from the Government of India in the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology.  And I deal with Internet Governance issues.  Thank you.

>> PATRICK RYAN:  I am Patrick Ryan.  I am an engineering program manager in the Google cloud platform.

>> PARTICIPANT:  Hi.  I am Flatogo.  I'm affiliated with the President net stream Committee.

>> PARTICIPANT:  I am Diego and I work as an advisor to the Board of Brazilian Internet Steering Committee.

>> PARTICIPANT:  Steve with NetChoice, a Trade Association of e‑commerce companies based in the U.S.

>> ANDREW BRIDGES:  My name is Andrew Bridges.  I am a partner at Fenwick & West in San Francisco.  And I am a litigator and I defend new technologies and business models.

>> PARTICIPANT:  Hi.  I am Bohan.  From China and Ph.D. student.

>> (Off microphone). 

>> MODERATOR:  Vint, is right, you are allowed to use this a little bit strange structure of a room.  So if you want to come to the central part you are highly welcome. 

>> VINT CERF:  Perhaps even more important not only would you be welcome but you will be on the script so that other people who are remote would see you what you want to say.  I strongly invite you to move to where the microphones are.

>> MODERATOR:  Thank you very much, Vint.  It is a right thing to also remind us that there are people who are participating remotely.  And I strongly encourage them to ask questions if they have any in the course of this session.  There are a certain number of familiar faces around the table here and also new people that I'm very pleased to welcome. 

So I'm the executive director of the Secretariat at the Internet and Jurisdiction Policy Network.  And the purpose of this session is to bring people up to date on what is the process and where we are.  The title of this slide deck is as you see Paris, Ottawa, Berlin.  That's where the conference took place in Paris end of 2016. 

Then the next one will take place in cooperation with the Government of Canada.  And Pralmer is here in February, at the end of February 2018.  And the third one will take place in Germany in Berlin in June 2019 in partnership with the Government of Germany and in particular the ‑‑ at the Ministry for Economy and Energy. 

But what we are talking about is not only a series of conferences.  The issues that we are addressing and the problems that we try to tackle together are not going to be solved with successions of one and a half hour panels however interesting they might be and they sometimes are.  The goal is to have an ongoing process.  And the Internet and jurisdiction policy network has actually started in 2012.  So this is an ongoing discussion that is now structured in the way that I will present. 

But maybe before getting in to the way it works in the policy network itself it is probably interesting to have a look at ‑‑ I hope it is visible.  I want to reiterate the challenges that we are all confronted with.  It is a context that we have to take in to account because we are basically in an environment that is driven by higher uncertainty.  And I don't have to belabor and to illustrate in too much detail what I am talking about, but there is uncertainty about how the national laws apply to cross‑border applications or cross‑border cyberspace in general.  An element of uncertainty is perfectly illustrated by very concrete facts like the fact that the world is hanging on the results of a few court cases.  The right to be deemed X case in Europe completely created a new environment, a new type of right and a new type of practice. 

The Shrams case obliterated in full swoop of the personal data exchange and privacy on both sides.  We are all hanging and waiting for the resolution of the famous Microsoft case in the Supreme Court in the U.S. probably mid next year.  And cases after cases are coming in.  You may have seen that no later than yesterday or the day before yesterday the European court of justice has decided that Uber is a transportation service which is completely changing the regulatory environment. 

So without getting in to more detail the problem is that this uncertainty and the absence of frameworks that allow for setting the norms and setting the rules so that people can adapt to those is encouraging and even forcing a certain number of actors to take unilateral actions that are not necessarily coordinated and can produce a legal arms race, it can be Governments.  Everyone is reacting to the need to do something.  And the effect of all these individual decisions make it particularly difficult to have a comprehensive environment. 

The end result is high costs because if you have to plan, for instance, the development or the creation of data centers around the world.  If you don't know what the legal environment will be, it is extremely difficult.  If you have to as a company prepare for legal costs of different procedures, it is also a big question mark.  But it goes for Governments as well.  It goes for Governments that are hesitating on whether they should adapt a particular national law, push their existing law in territorial application.  So this environment is what is labelled as a dangerous path and clearly calls for elements of cooperation on a certain number of cross‑border challenges. 

When we say Internet and jurisdiction the fundamental problem is the tension between the cross‑border nature one and the territoriality of the international system.  This is not a criticism on each part.  It is a fact.  Those two things have to adapt or adjust in a certain way to one another.  And, of course, it is an enormous range of issues.  In order to be able to tackle them is to identify a different number of things actionable.  In the course of the work that we facilitated as a Secretariat the partners and actors have identified three main tracks and three main problems. 

One is the question that can be labeled in different ways but one way is to say access to e‑evidence in the cloud.  You have an investigation, a criminal investigation in one country and a data that is necessary for this investigation is actually held by a private company that is either located in another country or has its storage facilities in the other country than the one doing the investigation. 

Here again without getting in to more detail the key problem is that the international mechanism for legal assistance is a pretty cumbersome one and probably adapted to a period where the number of cases was much less than it is today.  Transnational is the new norm.  And the mutual legal assistance treaty system is definitely slow and not easily scaleable. 

The second type of problem that we have seen in the press a lot is everything that is related to objectionable content, illegal content, objectionable content.  And the conditions under which this content should be removed, filtered, restricted, partially or totally by the main operators and the main platforms particularly when we are talking about User‑Generated Content.  And without getting in to details the key question is what are ‑‑ what is the applicability of national laws.  Are there cases where you need or it is better meant to take a global takedown because of the importance of the harm, and what is the responsibility respectively of the private and public actors of the third element is something that in this community is in the minds of people, and particularly in the ICANN community, but that in the rest of the world is not probably paid sufficient attention to.  Is the fundamental question of the Domain Name System and the registers and registrars are a neutral technical layer that is essential for the functioning of the Internet.  And there is a question which is when is it legitimately appropriately efficient to take down or suspend a domain name because of the activity that is on the site underneath.  It is a tricky issue. 

I don't get in to the details.  But it is something where you have to distinguish probably between what is labeled as infrastructure abuse, like phishing, malware and Botnets and things like that that are more related to the stability of the system.  And what is labeled by lack of a better word as abusive content which can go from child abuse images to copyright and in between and unsafe pharmaceuticals, counterfeiting and other things. 

So defining when and how it is appropriate or not to use the domain name layer for content purpose and what is the role in notifiers is a key question.  This led to three tracks, access to user data, content restrictions and domain suspensions with the formulation of the general questions that are underneath.  How do you reconcile objectives that are both positive?  It is not about balancing or zero some games type of thing.  In many cases the purpose is to at the same time catch the bad guys and protect privacy making it more efficient, but at the same time with more guarantees. 

One nice thing is to frame the problem.  But then there is a big challenge which is how do you enter policy coherence.  There are many actors who are dealing with the same issues.  In the case of access to user data you have excellent work that is being done in the Council of Europe in the cybercrime convention framework and the TCY.  You have excellent work that is done as well in the European Commission as a follow‑up to the mission.  And the mandate that was given by the Council of Justice and Home Affairs in June 2016.  But you also have work that is underway between the United States and the UK or the joint U.S. UK bilateral agreement.  And there is work that is done in Civil Society and companies in the U.S. regarding the reform of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. 

And overall you have on each of the three tracks a combination of actions by Government, public authorities, international organizations, but also Civil Society developing principles such as the Manela principles on freedom of expression or companies developing codes of conduct or their terms of service which have a capacity to establish norms for their own digital territories. 

So ensuring digital policy coherence and making sure that there is no contradiction and that the whole system is legally interoperable is one of the big challenges.  So in that landscape our role for those who are not as familiar and I will go quickly is to basically have bridged the silos and engage more than 200 entities today from the six stakeholder groups that are described above, the state, major Internet platforms and technical operators, Civil Society, academia and international organizations.  And I must add that in each of those groups you have different types of actors even in Governments have the different ministries that are relevant.  You have the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, a variety of levels of law enforcement agencies and so on for an issue.  For instance, like user data.  And likewise for the domain space is a whole range of actors.  So the goal is to bring them together, provide a neutral space for discussion on an ongoing basis around precise and concrete issues. 

The three programs that are mentioning and since last year the principle allowing global Internet and jurisdiction conferences, this was a change and a major evolution in 2016.  We did the first one as I said with France, the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs as a partner in Paris last year and the next one with Canada and the next one with Germany and the Federal Ministry of Economy as I said.  But importantly not only is it the first time probably that about 200 participants at a senior level from 40 countries really addressed specifically those jurisdictional questions.  It is important to note that there is also a context where the major international organizations also provide institutional support including the OCD, Council of Europe, the European Commission and UNESCO and ICANN.  And we are engaging other international organizations.  It is an originality.  Normally international organizations are considered as observers or they are around.  We consider that particularly their Secretariat have a contribution to make on their own.  And that is very important to also articulate existing structures with this ‑‑ one of the participants in Paris has called connective tissue of Internet and jurisdiction. 

Very quickly, I was talking about policy coherence.  It requires coordination.  You know that the saying, everybody wants coordination, nobody wants to be coordinated.  We are there as a neutral facilitator to bring actors together and this is not enough.  If you look at the quotes here from Karl Blight and the former Deputy Secretary‑General of the OCD in Paris last year, the emphasis and insensitivity it is on cooperation.  It is developing actual frameworks.  And as the economy said if those issues are not addressed properly then there is a real danger for the Internet itself and the Digital Economy, Human Rights and cybersecurity at the same time. 

Very quickly, the methodology is, it may sound obvious, but I want to insist on one thing.  It is a natural funnel.  Every single methodology is starting from a large aspect and then narrowing down toward operational solution.  What is very important in the method that we are implementing is to spend a lot of time in the early stages to find common formulations for problems, for goals, for methods, because if you don't even agree on the meaning of the words there is no reason that you would be able to agree on the solutions to the problem. 

So vernacular, common formulation of objectives is a very important element and the goal is to move towards operational solutions.  It always takes time but the important name of the game here is persistence. 

So this leads to the final element which is the general roadmap.  You see the three milestones of Paris, Ottawa and Berlin and you have on your table the written form.  What we did in Paris was to build on the work, the preparatory work in the three programs.  And in the input documents allow the discussion at the conference in Paris to be focused on identifying what was labeled as areas of cooperation.  One important element for those who were not at the Paris conference who don't know about it, the format was a little bit special because there was no panels at all.  It was two days, over three days and one afternoon in Plenary.  One full day and one morning in Plenary.  And the full day was divided in parallel in the three ‑‑ in the three tracks.  So imagine that there is a wall in there and there is the three groups in parallel devoting a whole full day to the documents that were the input documents.  And the outcome was as synthetic as possible.  It was four, maximum five areas of cooperation that were to be explored further.  That's the outcome of Paris.  That led to the formation of three contact groups that we purposefully didn't call Working Groups.  They are not representative.  They are not decision making.  But the intention was to have and some in this room were part of those working contact groups, the goal was to make sure that the perspective of the different options for solutions were all taken in to account.  There were six ‑‑ sorry, seven virtual meetings by teleconference.  We prepared as Secretariat the input document and the questions for those calls and prepared the minutes afterwards.  And the result of this is what is called policy options documents that I will mention briefly afterwards.  Fundamentally will serve as input in to the second conference in Ottawa at the end of February that will have exactly the same format.  And this format will be building on the structure of the three documents. 

So I want to speed up a little bit because of the time.  The purpose in Ottawa, and we can elaborate afterwards, is to align people on common objectives on the basis of these input documents.  The dream and the objective is that people say we know there is still a distance to travel to get to the results, but at least we are trying to go in the same direction.  We want to formulate the goals in a common manner and structure the different elements that have to be explored further in the period.  And on that basis the same methodology will be applied but probably a little bit more structured not only virtual meetings but also physical ones.  And part of the challenge is to define the best methodology to be manageable and as inclusive as possible. 

The final element to encourage you the goal is to develop cooperation frameworks or to ‑‑ sorry, facilitate discussion for the different participants to develop cooperation frameworks.  The form of which will be determined in the end, nobody knows how formal or informal the result will be.  The focus of the work is on the substantive content of the agreements.  For those of you who are in the ICANN, familiar with the ICANN environment there is a nice panel on mutual affirmation of commitments instead of just bilateral information of commitments.  But the general idea is to explore any kind of mechanism whether the different actors public, private and Civil Society can say if you commit to do this then I commit to do that.  And there will be monitoring of what we do together in substance. 

So after Paris we produced these documents that you can find online that are called framing papers with the areas for cooperation.  That was the product in the beginning of 2017.  And as a result of the contact groups in 2017 we produced and released very recently in November the so‑called policy options documents that I encourage you to download on the Internet site.  Jurisdiction.net/policyoptions I think.  And for those of you who will be coming to Ottawa it will be very important to have read them before so that we can discuss them with detail.  And also for those of you who might be interested in knowing more about the Ottawa conference we can have the discussion afterwards. 

So the final line is it is always difficult to define a mission in great detail, but what I want to share is that all of us are in a situation where we are under extreme pressure to deal with very day‑to‑day urgencies.  And we are all dealing with them in silos, which means that we are in a situation, you have to do quickly a decision without knowing what the others are going to do.  This is usually not going in game theory in to good results. 

So the purpose of our work as a Secretariat is to help actors in a structured process not to get in to purely academic thinking, although academic thinking is important but not thinking long term 20 years.  But having the capacity to step back a little and get in to the structural solution rather than treating the same terms.  And so that's the general mission.  The goal is that the Internet is to continue to flourish.  And the digital society needs cooperation framework that as transnational as the Internet itself.  And this is a process that attempts modestly and ambitiously to have the actors participate.  So I have been long.  But if you want more information you can go to the site and then I will pass the button to Paul for the rest of the session. 

>> MODERATOR:  Yes.  Thank you very much.  We are very happy that today here just in the room are several members of the advisory group for the second Global Internet and Jurisdiction Conference that is going to take place in February 26‑28 next year.  And we would like to invite the members and representatives of members who could not be with us today in the room to basically tell the participants at the IGF why Ottawa matters and why this is such an important opportunity for the community to proceed towards the path of developing policy standards and operational solutions.  Maybe I would like to start with Pam Miller who is the Director General of ICD Canada.  We are very delighted that Canada is the second partner for the Global Internet and Jurisdiction Conference. 

>> PAMELA MILLER:  First Canada looks forward to hosting the second Internet and Jurisdiction Conference in Ottawa, which is fast approaching at the end of February.  The key partners are the Government of Canada and the Canadian Internet Registry.  Why did Canada agree to host and what do we hope to achieve?  Canada is a strong supporter of open and interoperable Internet, but we know the challenges.  I&J stands out in bringing research to bear and looking for coordinated solutions.  The focus in Ottawa will be on defining specific problems as identified by the I&J community related to content, data and domains.  Already in preparation for the conference there are tangible impacts in the contact groups and I would have to say also domestically.  We have a partnership across Governments with numerous departments.  CIRA.  We are consulting with privacy, law enforcement, private sector, academia.  This is a really important impact of I&J to mobilize these types of conversations.  Preparations are well under way and I think the time is right.  I think Ottawa is an opportunity to define specific problems and blockage areas.  And I really sense momentum and purpose.  I would note that in addition to being a supporter of I&J Canada will be hosting the G7.  It will be an important opportunity for Canada to engage G7 counterparts on pressing global challenges and pursue further collaboration on innovation and clean growth. 

The impacts of digital technologies on inclusive innovation will need to be factored in to the discussions.  And Internet and jurisdiction matters are in an integral part of this.  So again we are very much looking forward to the conference and again the focus on solutions and the path forward to Germany.  Thank you. 

>> MODERATOR:  Thank you very much.  And maybe I will start at the right‑hand side with the senior vice‑president at ICANN.  In one minute, please we have to look at the time, why does Ottawa matter? 

>> PARTICIPANT:  Thank you very much, Paul.  ICANN as well is very keen to participate and support the Internet and jurisdiction initiative.  We will have participation on management level, as on a board level in the conference similar to what we did in Paris.  We think that the debate of jurisdiction and DNS outside ICANN as well gives more flexibility for brainstorming.  ICANN is focused on policy making very specifically, but we have challenges definitely that are related to the area of jurisdiction, GDPR is not the first and not the least e‑privacy is coming.  So exchanging data across borders related to DNS management is going to be a challenge and needs collective wisdom of the community to provide input to the ICANN decision‑making process and policy development process.  So we look forward to participate in Ottawa.  And we will continue to support the initiative.  Thank you. 

>> Paul:  Thank you very much.  Next will be Mr. Ben Noya who is here for advisory group member Stefan, the Director General of Ministry of Economics. 

>> Ben:  Thank you.  First best regards from my Director General.  And he asked me to say that.  And maybe most of you have heard about, that the German Federal Government decided in the summer this year that Germany should apply for the IGF 2019.  We have proposed to host the IGF at the end of November.  And we think or we hope that a new Federal Government will also support and continue this project, this application from Germany from our ministry.  And we think the Internet and jurisdiction conference can be an important milestone on the way towards the IGF 2019.  And first of all, to help us generate input.  Therefore Germany proposed to hold a third and new conference of the Internet and Jurisdiction Conference in June 2019.  We are convinced that the Internet and Jurisdiction Conference and project as we all ‑‑ it is a long‑term issue, a long‑term value.  And it can only be successful with concrete outcomes that can be followed up even after Ottawa.  And finally I would like to say Germany is ready to pick up the momentum set by France and Canada, especially against the background of the IGF 2019 plan hopefully.  Thank you. 

>> Paul:  Thank you very much.  And we are extremely happy that Germany already announced before the second Global Internet and Jurisdiction conference to be the partner for the first one.  Next is Vint Cerf who doesn't need an introduction.

>> VINT CERF:  Thank you.  I think we have a very powerful and enabling technology in the Internet.  And much has happened over the last 40 years since its invention and 30 plus years since its operation.  We have also invited in to this environment activity which is, in fact, harmful.  And we need to find ways of protecting our interests in this environment.  So the reason that it is important for these meetings to take place is that we have to find a way to protect that which needs protection without destroying the enabling capacity of the Internet.  And to do that in an international setting where cross‑border jurisdictional questions arise is a nontrivial problem.  But it is worthy of our attention.  And that's why I will be in Ottawa.  And I certainly will be in Berlin as these events unfold. 

>> Paul:  Thank you very much, Vint.  To my right is Paul Mitchell and senior director at Microsoft. 

>> PAUL MITCHELL:  I will agree with everything that's just been said.  And just note that we try and mention the Seminole cases that are at play including Uber and everyone is waiting on the Microsoft warrant case.  Nothing that the I&J project is doing is likely to stop the efforts by international administrations to create law, case law on Internet related topics.  But what the I&J project can do is create lots and lots of input.  When we come together in a multi‑stakeholder fashion to agree on cooperation mechanisms and on ways that we can share information to agree on what common values that can provide great input in to the laws that we have globally.  Without that speaking from a perspective of a global cloud provider we have chaos in terms of how we operate our services.  I will note just for interest that there are a number of Amicus briefs that have been filed already on the Microsoft warrant case.  And they make fascinating reading for everyone in this room. 

Most of them are in favor of either side which is an interesting way to write these briefs, but I think this is a really important area.  And at the conference in Paris last year I noted that we sort of have to move from cataloging activities to some way to create action and create common frameworks and common understanding.  And I think the three papers that have come out over the past year actually go some distance down that path in terms of creating some commonality, at least a framework that we can leverage.  So we are completely supportive, like look forward to being in Ottawa which, in fact, is a beautiful city even when it is freezing cold. 

>> Paul:  Thank you very much.  Please, Undersecretary, Daniel Abate.  You are here for Secretary Wiji and you have the floor. 

>> Daniel:  Thank you.  First of all, and congratulations to the team for setting this momentum.  Ottawa gives us the opportunity as a community to discuss and build a framework if it is necessary.  I guess it is time to get together to work and, you know, get the international base that is a community and discuss multi‑stakeholder work and be the framework.  As Canada will be hosting the G7, Argentina will be hosting the G20.  And also an opportunity for Developed and Developing Countries to include this thing in this new economic model.  And we are globalizing and exchanging ideas.  And Ottawa will be a great platform to discuss things.  Thank you. 

>> Paul:  Thank you very much, Daniel.  And the next one in line is Byron Holland.  And together with the Government of Canada is helping us to prepare the logistical aspects of the conference.  Baron is the CEO and President of CIRA. 

>> BYRON HOLLAND:  Thank you very much to the I&J team for putting this event together.  As an operator often, as a ccTLD operator we spend most of our time on operational functions and in the day‑to‑day weeds.  And it is often difficult to deal with the higher level conceptual and policy issues that confront us all.  As a day‑to‑day operator we are confronted with those issues, in particular in the Canadian context every day.  Given where we live the majority of our data even in a Canadian point to point exchange flows through your foreign jurisdiction through the U.S.  So we confront the kinds of issues that are being discussed on a daily basis.  And yet we do it in the context where there aren't solutions.  And I certainly believe that the I&J project is really the next Internet Governance front here that we need to address with this global resource.  I want to thank the team for bringing together the appropriate parties and the ‑‑ and the appropriate expertise to discuss these issues.  And I look forward to being the sponsor and cohost of the event with the Canadian Government. 

Yes, Canada can be cold in February but it can also be beautiful.  You will be at a UNESCO world heritage site literally on the banks of the longest skating rink in the world.  Please also bring your skates.  At the very least bring your gloves and your hat.  I do want to assure you that the conference center is linked to the hotel and many entertainment facilities.  So you don't actually have to go outside, but I would strongly encourage you to take advantage of the environment when you are there. 

>> Paul:  Just a note for participating Delegates skating is recommended after the conference and not before. 
(Laughter).

>> Paul:  I would like to give the floor to Girhem who is here for Assistant Director General Frank LaRue. 

>> PARTICIPANT:  Thanks.  Frank had to be in Washington today and he asked me to join.  And I can add another element for this discussion of why Ottawa is so important.  I am coordinating for the UNESCO global initiative on training judges on these issues freedom of expression, Internet and in Latin America we have trained more than 6,000 judges in 23 countries.  And I think the most common question from all of those judges and prosecutors it is about Internet jurisdiction.  The very three issues.  You mentioned are the questions those judges that are not asking this for intellectual curiosity because they have actual cases on their desks.  So we think this is super important and I ‑‑ we would as UNESCO strongly encourages you to invite actual judges to be in your conference because these people they are actually discussing real cases.  They are receiving not only supreme and higher court but in very initial jurisdictions and their national account and our Member States. 

And finally UNESCO general conference is constantly asking the Secretariat to provide our Member States with this very same kind of discussions you are raising here and in those different conferences.  For us as a Secretariat this is highly important to be fitting with these kinds of discussions to then return to our Member States upon their requests.  So thank you very much.  And UNESCO will be, of course, represented there.  And then feedback in these discussions to these judges' initiative and to our Member States in our general conference.  Thanks. 

>> Paul:  Thank you very much.  And we are honored as the secretary to have UNESCO's institutional support for the conference and the institutional support of the Council of Europe.  And Anna is here for advisory group Patrick Penninckx. 

>> PARTICIPANT:  On behalf of Patrick, head of Information Society Council of Europe and member of the advisory group this year, here is our vision on this initiative.  So the Council of Europe sees the upcoming conference as a very important event and as a real opportunity for all stakeholders to work out policies and solutions through joint coordinated action.  And the multi‑stakeholder model which is one of the key features of the conference is absolutely capable of providing a very enabling environment for that. 

The Council of Europe itself engages in promoting the multi‑stakeholder model, with working with NGOs and with businesses as well.  And our vision is that to face the challenges or the digital transformation it is important that all stakeholders recognize their respective duties, responsibilities, obligations and work together their guided and by principles of Human Rights, democracy and rule of law for which the Council of Europe stands.  And having said this, I'm pleased to recall that the Council of Europe supports the conference including through participating in the thematic Working Groups, and we do that actually because we believe that all stakeholders including international organizations should and shall engage in that concerted action towards our shared digital future.  Thank you. 

>> Paul:  Thank you very much.  Benedito is the director of Scientific and Technological Affairs at Brazil.

>> PARTICIPANT:  Thank you.  Brazil was an early supporter of this project and actually we are, of course, very proud to having, hosting NETmundial and that jurisdiction in the context of Internet Governance should be further developed as a priority head of working in the future.  We are very glad to see that it is developing through Internet and jurisdiction projects.  Jurisdiction is a very I would say urgent and increasingly important issue.  I would say besides these three focus areas that were chosen by the project there are a number of international discussions involving jurisdictional aspects.  Just to name one that is particularly dear to my country is discussion going on in ICANN regarding how we can make sure that one organization that deals with global resources, what kind of jurisdiction rules should govern this organization.  Presently we have unilaterally forced jurisdiction which is not the appropriate way.  We are looking at ways to deal with that.  But there are many other aspects regarding jurisdiction.  And I think this adds a complexity to the discussion.  From the respect of Governments there is ‑‑ it is not monolithic thing.  Different branches within the executive may have different views and indicated that judges, other branches of government is also there.  If we add Congress to that, the three branches of Government and all those interacting and stated decisions that can impact on the jurisdiction is ‑‑ the landscape would be very complex. 

So the added value that Internet and jurisdiction brings to this as indicated by the previous intervener is that it can certainly not provide the direct answer but it can provide very important inputs, valuable information to guide us through all these dismays. 

And I would just finalize by saying that the Internet and jurisdiction project is unique in itself because many efforts have been going on in regard to jurisdiction.  But when we think of international efforts of multi‑stakeholder nature I would say Internet and jurisdiction projects is really something very unique.  And we see a very great value in pursuing.  We are looking forward to Ottawa and Berlin as milestones in further developing our common shared understanding in ways that can be used to address and tools to address those issues.  Thank you. 

>> Paul:  Thank you very much.  And if I may add what makes this effort I believe unique is precisely the engagement of the stakeholders.  We as the Secretariat are there to enable the cooperation and to help.  And we are delighted to see this momentum building up ahead of Ottawa and the engagement of the stakeholders.  Fiona Alexander of NTIA is a member of the high level advisory group but I think that Jonah will take the floor.

>> Jonah:  No, I will speak for myself.  So thank you, Paul and Bertrand.  The U.S. Department of Commerce has been a long supporter of the jurisdiction and first project and policy network.  I will echo what others have said.  2018 is going to be a busy year for these issues.  We are going to have the GDPR come in to effect in May.  And there is the Shrams 2 case that's coming and the Microsoft Ireland case.  And the cybersecurity law in China has already come in to effect but is really going to start being enforced and implemented.  So I think, you know, the time is really ripe for these kind of discussions to really, you know, come to a ‑‑ come to a place where we can start to make progress and really start to move forward on these issues.  And the Internet and jurisdiction policy network I think is the only place that I'm aware of that all of these interconnected issues are brought together in one place.  So, you know, it is a unique venue.  It is a unique group of individuals who really have expertise in all of these various topics from ICANN issues to privacy to law enforcement.  So we are very much excited about Ottawa and then Germany and look forward to participating and keeping the conversation going with the group. 

>> Paul:  Thank you very much.  We have four minutes left.  And I think we can take one or two questions either to the Secretariat of the policy network or the members of the advisory group in the room, yes, please. 

>> PARTICIPANT:  If you allow me, it is more than a question.  It is a comment.  Among all the voices that I have heard there are two voices that are missing and I happen to have two hats, one as a global registry and another one as a user representative in ALAC.  And I think that it is essential that those two parts will be also part of the ‑‑ of this effort.  Because registries at the network of registrars are severely affected by the difference in jurisdiction, even more than the ccTLDs.  And the users, that classical case of a user in Africa that has a registrar in Europe and the registry in the U.S. which jurisdiction applies.  And ‑‑ so I think that it is important that we bring to this process also the voices and the problems that those two categories of stakeholders have and also in order to maintain this global effort in the framework of a real multi‑stakeholder environment.  Thank you. 

>> Paul:  Thank you very much.  I think that Vint would like to comment. 

>> VINT CERF:  Thank you.  I wanted to make two observations.  First of all, there is no doubt in my mind that to solve the problems that we all have in thinking about we are going to need cooperation across national boundaries.  There is simply no other way.  The second point is we are going to have to answer the question who has what authority to do what.  And we are also going to have to answer how will we maintain due process in the course of solving these problems. 

And finally what role does informality play in solving some of these problems.  And I put that on the table very deliberately.  When we become overly formal as the law demands, we sometimes interfere with our own ability to solve problems.  And so I think there is an amalgam of challenge that we will not totally overcome in Ottawa but I hope we will make some progress. 

>> Paul:  I do, too. 

>> MODERATOR:  Unless we are kicked out we can grab another five minutes. 

>> Paul:  Jim over there. 

>> JIM PRENDERGAST:  I would say first off the selection of Ottawa in February is brilliant because nobody will ever be accused of going on a junk it. 
(Laughter).

>> JIM PRENDERGAST:  The other thing, I remember back to the Paris event and looking at the program and saying my gosh, we are going to be in a discussion track for an entire day.  And that was kind of daunting.  And it turned out to be excellent.  The issues are very complex.  You can't get through it, Bertrand, as you said in a 90‑minute session.  It takes time.  A day is not intimidating.  You could probably go two or three.  But I like ‑‑ I like that length so you can get in to the issues and sort of wrestle them to the ground. 

>> MODERATOR:  Any other comment? 

>> PARTICIPANT:  Just very briefly, I had a brilliant time skating in Ottawa a few winters again.  I highly recommend it as a junk it.  Vint, I thought your point is very interesting and it needs a lot of development.  I am glad the Council of Europe is involved.  And traditionally I am not saying it will always be like this, but legality, very precise specification of powers and test of proportionality and so on are a cool part of the international Human Rights law.  I think that would be part of the discussion. 

>> MODERATOR:  Any other comment, question?  Yes. 

>> PARTICIPANT:  Just a quick comment and building on what Vint said.  Of course, it is informality is very important but how do you formalize informality is the bigger question.  That's what we are grappling with.  Will there be remote participation?  Just a note.  Because the Apri Gard is happening right at the same time.

>> MODERATOR:  The quick answer is the structure of the conference as I said is in Plenaries and there is workstreams on the second day.  The Plenaries will be Webcast.  It is not remote participation but they will be Webcasted.  People will be able to follow it and it will be posted afterwards online.  You can see, for instance, the sessions of last year online.  But the second day is working day on rules.  So we make it follow people who are there.  I take the opportunity because there is a natural lingering question and it is always a challenge.  Just as Vint was mentioning the informality and formality.  How do you manage the maximum inclusion and still be manageable.  It is a very important commitment.  What we are doing first is that it is really an effort to be as neutral as possible and have all the different perspectives represented. 

And so to reassure, Roberto, be it the community of registries and registrars and the community of Civil Society groups and maybe including for the question of domains even now the ALAC is clearly the structure of that's the case.  But the point that I want ‑‑ that I want to make is that as I explained this is not just a conference.  It is a little bit like the IGF.  In the IGF you do not adopt something at physical meetings ever.  You validate them through online Consensus building and so on.  Yes.  There is the reputation of harming and so on.  But the principle is only a certain number of people have the possibility to come or are selected to be part of an event.  So what we do in Ottawa is to really catalyze the maximum critical mass of actors that are sufficiently representative of the diversity of viewpoints and I insist on the distinction.  It is not about having Delegates that are representing ‑‑ we do not pretend that the whole community is representative of the whole world.  What we think is we are trying the best we can to have the diversity of viewpoints taken in to account so that it frames the discussion for afterwards.  And the commitment in particular is because of the limitation and the natural limitation of resources, all regions of the world are not covered exactly in the same way.  We made a strong effort to cover a large number of countries and Actors.  And a huge effort is intended in 2018 going towards Berlin to do an intensive outreach to other regions.  And that covers in particular Africa and Asia which is an enormous piece in the Middle East.  Latin America is relatively engaged.  

So I want to highlight this because the process and the inclusion we are constantly searching and looking for the right people who are not only knowledgeable about the topic, who are in positions where they are capable of influencing it by their ideas about a position.  But also, and it is an important criteria, seriously wanting to help develop solutions.  And it looks completely mundane but it is an important criteria.  And we want that everyone who comes to Ottawa or participates in the physical meetings in spite of their differences and in spite of their different perspectives and even starting point or angles of vision on a particular topic have one thing in common, that they care about finding the solutions for the common problem.  And I think it is important to say it, it looks completely naive.  I know it.  But I want to say it because that's the spirit that we want to do. 

Vint used an expression that is maybe not familiar to a lot of people but when somebody with an engineering background talks about a nontrivial problem it is an understatement.  A nontrivial problem is typically what is called MP complex problems.  And these are the ones that smartest computers have difficulty solving. 

So the kind of problems that we are addressing, and Greg was there earlier, I had a discussion with him yesterday, in engineering there is something that is called multi‑factorial optimization.  Human brains are very apt at maximizing along one axis or two axes.  Combining two parameters is something that we can more or less do.  Making optimization with policy making.  We have to combine Human Rights, long term, short term and is one of the trickiest problems that we can imagine, especially when you are working on one field.  And it has an impact on another field.  You are acting in one country and has a collateral impact on another one.  So nontrivial is the name of the game.  And the final ‑‑ the final element is we ‑‑ when I say we, it is a collective we, it is not only the Secretariat, are confronted with a very delicate issue which is.  When we talk about jurisdiction we do talk about a very important work which is sovereignty.  This is about how you exercise sovereignty.  We collectively understand sovereignty in the Digital Age.  And the problem is that we used to have very direct and simple mapping of sovereignty with a physical territory.  And today there are cases where it is appropriate in certain circumstances that this sovereignty plays beyond a certain territory.  And also other cases where you exercise the sovereignty over your own actors and operators but with restraint.  Because they may have an impact on another country and that goes for registries and registrars, major companies and so on.  So the ‑‑ it is not about shedding sovereignty at all.  It is about understanding how it works and how it is exercised in an environment where most interactions are transborder.  And the respective roles of ‑‑ and responsibilities of the different actors which is a word that is particularly appropriate and an expression that is particularly appropriate in this building because it is the famous, contentious wording of the World Summit on the Information Society is actually the underlying question.  What are the respective roles and responsibilities of public, private and Civil Society actors in those issues. 

With that I think the next panel is coming.  We are extremely happy to have had you here.  Don't hesitate to connect with us if you want to know more about the conference.  And potentially even submit your expression of interest.  It is limited in numbers but we would be happy to extend.  Thank you. 
(Applause.)