Sixth Annual Meeting of the Internet Governance Forum
27 -30 September 2011
United Nations Office in Naiorbi, Nairobi, Kenya
September 29, 2011 - 16:30PM
***
The following is the output of the real-time captioning taken during the Sixth Meeting of the IGF, in Nairobi, Kenya. Although it is largely accurate, in some cases it may be incomplete or inaccurate due to inaudible passages or transcription errors. It is posted as an aid to understanding the proceedings at the session, but should not be treated as an authoritative record.
****
>> Hello, this is as you see, this is A Possible Framework for Global Net Neutrality, and it's being hosted by IGC, Internet Governance Caucus. We have the co‑coordinator, although we have a designated moderator, Parminder, waiting for him to come. In the meantime, I am so sorry so ask, but are there panel members here already? One, two?
Take the front seat, if you don't mind and ‑‑ animator to ‑‑ can you send email? Let's wait for another two or three minutes and if nothing, then I may ask with terrible apologies to start with our panelists. Is that okay? Thank you.
>> Willy, Mr. Jensen not here? Carlos Afonso. Carlos?
Am I reading the right thing? Yes. A Possible Framework for Global Net Neutrality.
And the original names are of the panelists include, Willy, Carlos, Jovan from Diplo.
And Nii Quaynor, and NUPEF. And Venkatesh Hariharan from India. That's the order list ‑‑ okay and Parminder who is supposed to be the moderator. Because this information is fairly old one. I am reading on the website of the workshop of the official website.
Nevertheless, perhaps, for the sake of not wasting your precious time, if you don't mind, we can start now.
And I even ‑‑ an idea he planned to coordinate, but you are given ten or 15 minutes each other?
Let's say ten and see how it goes.
The idea is that Net Neutrality has been one of the hottest Internet policies over the last few years, at least from U.S. to Europe to countries like Brazil, Japan.
But considering that in the context of national framework has been mostly European or regional. In the case, but it's very difficult to assess how do you really think and make it more practical policies across borders global.
And as I really don't know what are the ideas behind. But this will be one of the at least key questions to this workshop.
Of course, the Net Neutrality kind of have many different interpretations of and definitions and. When I usually deal with this I don't want to go into the definition game, rather, more of the practical things.
And we don't have to have the exactly same arrangement. If you have a very strong players where cable TV and those on the content providers in the marketplace that's one story. Another one could be the portal players, versus the ‑‑ first, I would like to share from all the panels. First, I would like to ‑‑ hello?
Without further ado, don't know how to go ahead with ‑‑ any volunteer panel member?
Sorry, could you identify yourself?
>> Sure, thank you. My name is ‑‑ from Diplo Foundation.
I don't like ‑‑ in the program. There's an updated version so it's over there. I have been working a lot in a couple past years in within the context together with the many other organizations institutions, organizing the panels in previous IGFs about Net Neutrality. Maybe I volunteered to start is try to sum up what let's say open questions. Pending issues, there should be no single management or prioritization of the packages or discrimination in any way. Other part ‑‑ the business let us do whatever we want to encourage better services and so on. After some time and I say IGF contributed to that much these two poles have come a little bit closer. Last year, Civil Society users have accepted that management as such of the traffic might be necessary technical reasons, or audio realtime have to go faster than ‑‑ on the other hand the business has accepted there should be no discrimination based on content, applications and services.
And you can see that in the Google Verizon proposal of last year. And they almost followed the Net Neutrality principles of Norway. Which is to some extent quite positive. However a couple other questions have remained opened. One‑by‑one. First one is whether the economic‑based or economically‑driven reasons for ‑‑ management are something we can accept. What is only about the technical quality of the net.
The business ‑‑ the corporations telecoms, that there should be given an opportunity to manage the traffic even for the economic reasons, because then they might initiate some new economic models we still don't know about. That's one question. The Civil Society is commonly questioning managing the content, the traffic, et al. The second question is this out delineate between the two? How to be sure that something the management of certain traffic has not been because of the economic interest but the technical reasons really. Somebody needs to oversee and say stop, and this was not a technical reason for the management. It becomes even worse if we agree that even for the economically‑driven reasons, there's management. Then how to delineate what's appropriate management and what is not?
Even Google‑Verizon proposal had a couple of lines on that they suggested and later on. One question. Second question is what happens with the new services?
Now the businesses is commonly ‑‑ new services.
They are mentioning ‑‑ services and the services that even we don't know what they are.
Examples: Health, like telemedicine and other. Education. High‑definition video and various applications and God knows what's coming. Research last year, at the Net Neutrality Panel in Lithuania and he said we don't know what's coming with regard to services. They are making a difference between the Internet as we know it now and Internet as might come tomorrow.
And, for instance, again in the Google‑Verizon proposal, you have that the Internet as we know should be free of discrimination. But these new types of services might allow management of traffic if it is necessary and so on. So the question is: Do we see the new services also to be a part of the Internet as we know or at least an Internet that we are going to know tomorrow? Or is it really something totally different and managers might be necessary?
The third and last question I will address here is moving on how to.
I am sure we will talk much more later on.
How to cope with this and the midway solution. Again to more or less polarize options ‑‑ I would say let the competition do it itself. Let the competition kick out the users they do not like and do not respect what users want. Let us do it only come up to the policy only when there's a problem.
The single side from the users mostly are concerned about their rights, of course. And they say, no, no let's have some principles. Maybe stronger policies and we see in some countries, we even have it in the legislation, like in Netherlands recently. To protect Net Neutrality.
There are, of course, middle ways and probably the Norwegian principle was one of the middle ways, which is putting all the sides together, sit down, write the agreements, sign the agreements, and then we play the name blame shame game, if anyone fails to obey to that, they will be shamed and blamed and probably the operators, the regulators can always come up to a policy solution in necessary. That's something no one wants. These are the ‑‑ questions to repeat ‑‑ should we allow management of the content of the traffic based on also economically driven reasons.
If we allow one or another how to delineate between what's appropriate and what's not.
And the second question is what is happening with the new services, how do we treat them what are the new services and do we need to consider what we have and the ‑‑ I will stop here and then we can discuss later.
>> Thank you very much.
And if you can speak your name again for the scribers. He couldn't catch it when you started.
>> Vladimir [ Inaudible last name ]
Now, the original moderators are here. Make some apology later.
Now?
>> Next taker?
[ No audio ]
>> This is used about should we allow under what circumstances and how and so on. Important. On the other hand, let's be mindful that the entire world is not at the same stage with respect to Internet. So you really have to talk to an oracle to know what's coming in the future so that you don't end up affecting the new economies emerging would be my concern. Having said that, I can understand the need to separate to some extent the infrastructure from the services. I also have a difficulty going to the business of the providers. Did not share the business plan with me, I have a difficulty diving into what it is they committed themselves to and then beginning to make statements about that.
And that makes me, of course, a lot more, you know, responsive to the approach that others have followed, such as why don't we ‑‑ insist on the openness of the network and insist on what the operators are doing and educate the users where to appreciate it and make choices based on that.
Now, my position is not really to increase competition or not. It's just I feel that it could be going too far and if we miss the mark it could disaster for my region, which is the youngest economy on the provider side. On the consumer side we are okay. But that's not what we are interested in. We want to be providers as well.
And so we would like to have equally the same freedoms other providers have had to develop their networks. And we also are developing our emerging economy.
So I have some challenges with respect to that. But other than that, I think it's a good ‑‑ we should do it from a distance. We should be trying to be less intrusive and rather encourage people opening up and educating ourselves and advising when there are problems and using the same style of processes that the Internet Committee has used to resolve those problems, as opposed to not asking for regulation to the level of what content, a person can see or not.
Of course, if offering different shades of services and the consumers are willing to follow that. Thank you.
>> Thank you, Nii. Let's hear from the Mr.‑‑ from Google India. From the ‑‑
>> Thank you so much.
As I mentioned, I am replacing Venkatesh Hariharan, who originally had been ready to speak in the original updated version of the IGF website. As the Chair kindly mentioned, I work for Google in the public possible and speaking, again, as a person very keen on the open Internet working for a company keen on the open Internet.
What I do here is give you sense of what we believe ‑‑ open Internet and how protect it. That's build on what other previous speakers mentioned. So we mentioned in the past open Internet is the most important thing possible. We believe the ‑‑ open Internet Google come ‑‑ all the other services used, Facebook, academic sites, social science research network. Depends on open Internet where you have had innovation. What on open Internet is. We believe ultimately in competition. The first element ‑‑ in terms of open Internet framework is open competition and competition in the network provider space increases consumer choice and the fact that bad actors will be penalized if they perform badly and discriminate unfairly and cause harm to ‑‑ public interest.
For example, in the United States, we have sometimes intervened sometimes in the market to provide models ‑‑ find ‑‑ in the United States. We work in other markets sometimes in partnerships, and other providers or with other companies in terms of how we can further improve competition. Perspective is from the developing world in the telecom space. Many telecom ‑‑
[ No audio ]
>> In the United States for several years. They brought to Europe and Australia and bringing to many other countries as well. Not just a Google product. It's single we depend upon local participates in to our cities and technical centers to be able to do. The regulators also developed their own stacks.
Or their own solutions. They don't really know what's happening in the network. And they need to know more about that if the bad actors are hitting the system on work they are doing. Transparency is a important element of the framework. Second important principle. Third one is industry norms. Ethical standards. And many people mentioned that and this is the ‑‑ whether; for example, prioritization for technical means of prioritization for economic means, what's the fine line? More importantly even technical prioritization, how do you do it? In the most effective way? If you notice, people talked about this very often but very few brass tacks, clear details. If that's something in the United States, been able to work with and create the broadband, and give me a second I will give you the exact ‑‑ the Broadband Technical Advisory Group. Working on the standards. So we have clearly established academically‑approved discussions and standards on the point of how the management works: The next ‑‑ facilitator of competition.
And facilitator of openness. And of the free market. In various markets in the United States; for example, Federal Communications Commission, opening up ‑‑ in many other markets you see regulators opening up a new ‑‑
>> Strongly ‑‑ ( Inaudible ).
>> For example in the perspective of markets in Egypt.
In India or in I didn't see such as even Indonesia. The examination environment telecom circle in one city or region differs from another state. And telecom regulators already involved in the discussions in. So important point here ‑‑ really depends on the jurisdiction. Global Framework and role we play in this. Before I go not next speaker I will introduce ‑‑
[ No audio ]
>> To take had the challenge of looking at Net Neutrality as a rights issue and then from there, possibly looking at a global framing of what kind of principles constitute the right to a certain kind of network. So the next speaker I invite is, is Megan Richards from the European Commission, who accepted on very short notice.
[ No audio ]
[ Please stand by ]
[ No audio ]
>> Including barriers ‑‑ changing operators fundamental requirement. If any barriers to that such as ‑‑ blocking or blocking internet traffic or Voice‑over‑Internet Protocol services or any limitations on transparency ‑‑ or service ‑‑ ( Inaudible ) we want to know ‑‑ ( Inaudible ).
Which is representing a ‑‑ regulators to look at details. They are looking at think in much more detail. And the results of their work. To have some further information by the end of this year to see whether there's ‑‑
[ Audio breaking up ]
[ No audio ]
>> The spectrum under way now. And the other element too is the part of the digital agenda for your ‑‑
And the other.
>> For ultrafast broadband access and penetration. I will go into the details of the requirements. But I think the high‑speed broadband, remember, Europe is a relatively small geographic area doesn't mean the problem is solved. But perhaps the provision of broadband over these periods will help also to limit any Net Neutrality issues. And other aspect. Then, of course, in the area that I am particularly concerned about, we are particularly interested in new generations of web based applications and services. We want to make sure this is a really growth area has sufficient room to expand and progress.
So we have many reasons why we want to make sure that the good competitive market is available there within Europe to make sure that things work well.
Thanks.
>> So Carlos Afonso? I was trying to locate him or he slipped out or not able to find this room.
Huh?
Yeah, sure. That's the question. Go ahead. You want to speak about the human rights of Net Neutrality?
Please.
[ No audio ]
>> We will do things in terms of guiding operators as to what information they should make public or giving them advice on anti‑competitive things and so on. But don't touch it. If you touch it, you change the rules for me just when I am about to come in you are going to change the rules. It's a right for me to have equal access in a global community.
>> I understand your right. You are saying that government should leave the Internet alone or the telecom providers should leave alone. Whom should leave whom alone?
>> I am saying leave the operators, leave the content providers alone so that nobody changes the rules as we know it. Rules as we know it and we are practicing it, is that infrastructure is open. Providers are able to put whatever their consumers want on it. It's good to have at least variant, while new entrants are coming in. Not just when I am being to kick the ball, you change the goalpost. That would be difficult for me.
So it's not about saying, this particular group should not do this; I am just saying just leave it. Rules is it's open; we all like it; and we can ‑‑ and we are beginning to do that and we are the last to come in. Don't change the rules for me. Leave it the same as it is. If you want give me more openness and make it easier. And remove all the barriers. Don't add anything else is where I am coming from.
>> On the basis of a round of comment?
[ No audio ]
>> Saying transparency is enough. The telecoms package that says, operators inform the users of ‑‑
[ No audio ]
>> So I think it is really urgent to do something about it. I don't there seems to be more participants ‑‑ ( Inaudible ).
>> This is from the ‑‑ ( Inaudible ) Telecommunications Union.
In addition, the operators will not be able to use it as a mechanism.
[ No audio ]
>> ( Inaudible ).
>> Is it enough in the users had the information, would they will be able to make the choices? Some people's reaction to the problem. Everyone got ‑‑ ( Inaudible ) convinced that's enough.
>> I like the idea of creating tools. Google ‑‑ anti‑net Neutrality tool.
With the University of ‑‑ ( Inaudible ) detects if someone is interfering with packets. I think that's a ‑‑ approach. Consumers need choices and they need to know if packets are interfered with. ( Inaudible ).
Thank you.
>> Interject one more thing. Carlos is not coming, his apologies.
>> We know definitely from our own experience ‑‑ operator prescribed is not possible.
So it's quite far still away ‑‑
[ No audio ]
Can be switched within a day. It's a question that really is the solution. There's some data from the Netherlands people ‑‑ ten people choose ‑‑ ( Inaudible ) provide one of the mobile operators even though the Operator ‑‑ Skype.
The choice ‑‑ ( Inaudible ).
Back to the approach how to. When it comes to European Commission, I guess for you it's more or less easy because you have understanding of what Net Neutrality is about.
To say okay this is the limit. The Norway also has a capacity of, of course, to sit down with the operators and say this is the red line. There's another thing the telecom providers ‑‑
That's technical issue as well. Finally, I don't ‑‑ top‑down or bottom‑up, I also don't know.
What will be the best solution, but I think ‑‑
[ No audio ]
>> So would you repeat something about a possible process one could move to it. Any ideas on that?
>> You posed a very good question at the beginning: Do we need to treat Net Neutrality as human rights in the sense ‑‑ of course, it is a human rights of choice ‑‑ but on a ‑‑ and have some kind of global guidelines or whatever, saying this is a human right and that's probably the question also for the commission.
>> This is society uses ‑‑ and this is the ‑‑ ( Inaudible ).
If it's not telecom ‑‑ ( Inaudible ).
Net Neutrality let's take a closer look at how operating. And let's trying to go through that.
But doesn't help we can always make legislation, if willing to do that or not it's up to us to see. Before ‑‑ ( Inaudible ) failing it has a right issue, Internet rights ‑‑ use the term network equality. The network ‑‑ create ‑‑ but it should create ‑‑ ( Inaudible ).
Equally.
Use the word social equal instead of the technical word neutral, you are ‑‑ thinking of it.
And that's ‑‑ ( Inaudible ) which ‑‑ should ‑‑ the issue into a human rights level and have a broad set of principles. ( Inaudible ).
Economic human rights ‑‑ ( Inaudible ) you don't get everybody education. Education is a human right.
What's important to us and the policies get influenced.
( Inaudible ).
[ Off microphone ]
>> Competition, which is exactly ‑‑
On the issue of competition.
The first thing is ‑‑ ( Inaudible ).
In most of the Member States ‑‑ ( Inaudible ).
We want to make sure this is working.
We have a series of national regulators who are required to make sure that ‑‑ ( Inaudible ) transparency, ( Inaudible ).
They ensure competition and transparency.
Competition ‑‑ telecoms ‑‑ ( Inaudible ).
>> So we have to wait and see what the new legislation is where we need to go and we have a whole series of things that under way now no check where it is. The case for Europe. Whether this needs to go beyond European borders, into a global issue, I think that's perhaps something a bit further down the road.
>> Okay. And the next Meghan, the Commission looks at mobile space in a different manner than the wired space for Net Neutrality, as the U.S. started to look at. But I will come back to you later.
>> My name is Dominic with the International Chamber of Commerce in London Stakeholder on the open Internet process in the United Kingdom. So to speak to your point, Meghan and just in general. What we have been working towards, which has been absolutely a really grueling process, but a really good process is towards an agreement on transparency. For a content providers, for fixed and mobile Broadband providers. The outcome although it's not finished, we haven't received our guidance yet. Is all the mobile and fixed providers have actually put their the rules around how they manage their, networks. Now, there's a piece still to be done around customer education on this. And had I am particularly pleased to hear Google and the work they are doing as well.
But we are working towards a process where it's actually working and we are looking to see where it's not working. And we are ICANN can step in. To everyone's point, the other thing still keeps come up within the U.K. and again, with network providers, people like Google and BT major players there's still been no massive event horizon to freak out about this basically. Yeah, a lot of instances in Canada and various places around Europe which I looked into it, most cases, 99.9% of the time come a down to the fact frankly there's been a service interruption offer bad service or other issues with various other things going on. Really what I am saying is Net Neutrality means so many different things. Think carefully about how you are using it and defining it and also take a look at what's actually happening and what's the problem that's actually occurring? Because in the U.K. we are working towards a very good solution to provide customer education.
>> Okay. I will keep speaker to people ‑‑ on the hold.
But the question about trying to figure out what the problem is, which we are trying to provide the solution. And given the stance from India. And also in ‑‑ ( Inaudible ).
In India, there are many mobile operators who advertise packages. Like, you can have Google plus Twitter, plus Facebook, plus local Indian email provider for a dollar a month.
Just a package. And the public Internet is different.
I expect a time to come when this premium content providers are subsidizing the telecom so that the premium channel is actually cheaper than the public Internet. And people fall in the use of those high‑service channels and they stay there. And only people who have special attraction to hear alternative views or subscribe to a particular newspaper they are politically conscious do extra thing. Go on public Internet, but most people are happy with the premium channel is and how we know everything about the Internet. This is happening in India today and happening in one the most competitive markets in the developing world, but perhaps all over the worlds. People are not aware. The problem is people think ‑‑ they are providing cheap so what's your problem? It's difficult to articulate not as a ‑‑ social ‑‑ problem a very bad impact on individuals finally. This is the kind of statement of problem we are dealing with. People can come with responses, but before that please and then ‑‑
>> I am ‑‑ [ Inaudible name ] with AT&T.
My comment was referring more to the conversation where having before and I wanted to pick up from what Meghan was saying. Referring to the telecom package. Maybe I was wondering we should give the time for this rule to work and see whether they work or not. Because when Member states are sitting in the state of implementing it and it is probably also going to be done next year.
>> Thank you.
Address a couple issues which have been mentioned.
Megan mentioned doubt or uncertainty about exactly how deep a principle network ‑‑ but not intentionally.
Net Neutrality, you question how deep a principle it is. Net Neutrality is not postulated as principle in the initial buildup of the design of the Internet. If you review the video or transcript of the session we had yesterday, in the dynamic ‑‑ or ‑‑ explained carefully and clearly it's a textbook class really of what are the principles? But you will see that the end principle and principle that the network doesn't make choices and doesn't optimize for specific applications. Users, ports or anything. That's the basic principle. This principle has come under the name of Net Neutrality recently.
In fact, in the Internet Society, there has been some discussion about this. It's public and published papers about this. And where the name Net Neutrality is not being used anymore as the keyword. Because the wording, "Net Neutrality" as has been mentioned has too many meanings and the implications.
And you have to be much more specific in the technical sense before going to the upper layers.
So it's useful to go back and check exactly what you need to technically. What connects this to what Dr. Nii Quaynor was saying, the basic principle you have here together with the ones you are preserving the Net Neutrality, which is the ‑‑ principle is the openness. That's a key guidance. Interoperability and openness.
Are the key guidance ‑‑
[ Audio breaking up ]
When network is a way to serve the openness principle.
And I would like, therefore, also to ask Parminder if possible to explain ‑‑ you mentioned network treats everyone equally. The network doesn't know what one is. The not the Internet you may have VPN or a LAN or many other things where you can superpose authentication and treating who equally. The network knows packets and treats packets equally.
>> Interesting intervention, gives me some food for thought. I think you are framing it as a technical issue from principle to commenting the Net doesn't treat people, but bits makes me feel nervous, because I have a relationship with the net. First of all, we have to transcend the ‑‑ principle. Even the Norwegian principles I think ‑‑
>> If I may be allowed to pick a red herring out of rare just so it doesn't go too far. The network treats packets. Usually the applications using information, using users. And you see them through the go through the applications that use the protocols that use the network. So we have an emotional relationship with a lot of this. But what's going on is packets.
>> I understood your point, but I think it's a very human centered discussion around the Internet today. Small instruments determined by human beings and set by human beings and certain values which those human beings had. And it's a discussion is a human ‑‑ discussion for me. And, I think, Norwegian principles did allow the similar categories of traffic and be treated in the same manner. For example, if all video given the same protocol it can be ‑‑ other kind of data services. So the technical principle, I think, is not most important. What is most important is the principle of fairness. Fairness of justice, and that kind of equality for all people. And you do not ever have very precise definitions where equality and social justice, but there have been very meaningful words throughout. They are not technical words so can't be defined on that basis and that still works. And Alex if you want to comments I will let you comment later.
>> Thank you Parminder.
>> In terms of the technical stuff, and in terms of the principle, and as a network engineer, I would say that the principle is I am allowed to do my own traffic engineering.
You are not to allowed to tell me, the ITU, does not tell me, how to run packets if I want to do hot potato, routing on my network I can do that. Or cold potato routing, I can do that.
So I think I agree with Nii is that lets not change the rules in the middle of the game. We thought we had these Net Neutrality rules in place, but really, they were just guidelines. And people getting away from that and it's not the end of the world.
Your packages you are talking about reminds me of how we buy cable TV in Africa.
Do I want Disney for my kid? I had to the package and pay a certain price.
My point about that ‑‑
>> I am getting into ‑‑
>> Here in Africa; for instance, we have zero.Facebook.com in Kenya and the deal Safari made with Facebook and it costs nothing to access Facebook via Safari com on your Mobile phone that's a good thing for many, many people here in Kenya. And I don't think we should preclude consumers and network operators and content providers from making those sorts of arrangements.
>> So I will leave that as challenge. He postulated it's fine if you have the differentiated services, some are free and cheaper. Of the content provider is.obviously paying the telecom provider for the services and for him, it is okay. People can respond to that ‑‑ wanted to make a comment.
>> Two comments. Both are linked.
[ Off microphone ]
>> My first comments is on the ‑‑ frameworks. Norway follows the principle that similar classes of services can be treated in the same manner, but different classes can be treated unequally.
So that's the same thing there in our policy framework. We also mentioned in many places we believe if people were to somehow ‑‑ services, to generally be proposed ‑‑ ( Inaudible ).
Shouldn't be discriminated ‑‑ you mentioned several cases of these sorts of ‑‑ business models. Emerge markets. For example ‑‑ clarification. Many of them ‑‑ a customer can choose one service.
I would say, if consumer wants that, silly or outright stupid but what the person wants ‑‑ ( Inaudible ) more importantly ‑‑ if the entire general of buckets ‑‑ you could do it if you want to. Many ‑‑ countries ‑‑ promote communication services. You wouldn't want people to not to be able to communicate via email services. Email clients. Because the video is hogging up all the bandwidth. Treat the entire class as one distinct. In cases where people use Facebook only, Google Docs. That's okay. We never endorse a particular provider who will say only provide one product free of cost. Make everything ‑‑ Google free, they are free to do it. We don't endorse it that's not our position. Very often emerging markets the entire package is too expensive. Because of telecom ‑‑ in India I put this out ‑‑ the cost of ‑‑ is ‑‑ ( Inaudible ) varieties of reasons. Partly because of telecom decisions made by the government.
Unfortunately very high. Business model, but the point it's too high. When consumer lock themselves into a bucket of services. We point out there's a problem if happening because players are filtering ‑‑ saying ‑‑ definitely have to pay a premium. That's a problem. In the case you are talking about where people pay to allow people to ‑‑ services.
Bad economic model for the company concerned. Telecom regulators can interfere and they have a right to in the framework. But the ‑‑ economics will kill that before a regulator would.
>> The invisible hand has many critics and I am not sure it would work in a media‑related space. I think in this matter you had some comments to make?
>> What I want to comments is about the free Facebook issue. And all of that free everything is better than nothing. It's not better than nothing. We have to write to get the service. Because when and Peru, for example, and almost all Latin American countries we only have two operators. Where is in India has competition. We only have two operators, in all the Latin America. So the trend is to concentrate the market. If we give the power to those operators to continue increasing their market power, we are not going to have the chance in the future to ‑‑ if they choose to be more restrictive in filtering limitation of the Internet services, we are not going to be able to get back.
So I am sure that if you are hungry, a piece of bread is better than nothing, but it's not your right. Your right is to have enough to live.
>> I would go back to the issue we were talking about human rights here. And not about technical issues. And I agree with Alexander that the network does not discriminate.
But the people do. And we are not talking about the network, but talking about people. Now, I can route my packages as you said ‑‑ they supply millions of people with Internet. I don't. They earn money from that. If totally liberal, of course, one would say they can put the prices as they want even if they are dominant. But that's not the case. The Commission and the regulators do regulate the dominant providers and the prices. It's not that easy. It's a matter for me at least the human behavior rather than a network. Not going into details. Now the term Net Neutrality whether it's the right term or not for me that's watering down the conversation. We know we are talking about discrimination of traffic based on content services, receiver and so on. Of and there are two sides I will repeat what I said at the beginning. One is doing that for technical reasons talking about the network. That's one thing.
I think even the Civil Society understood and agreed at some point a couple years ago even, that this is not an issue anymore. Yes, the traffic needs to be managed in order to be delivered with the high quality.
9 second question is it should be allowed to be managed for business interests. For economic interests'. And that's a human issue not a technological issue.
>> Anybody from the audience? Before I ‑‑ Nii and then ‑‑
>> I wanted to point out that ‑‑ ( Inaudible ).
In the case of the example from ‑‑
>> I thought you asked for the floor?
>> Yeah, and I am taking it.
>> I think we should not try to use the Internet to fix a regulator failure. If you are policies is resulting only having two operators, fix that. Don't ask us to use the net to do that. I think it's also unfair to articulate that developer countries, like the regulators lack capacity. For education not consumers so one side will open up the details of their network, then on the ‑‑ ( Inaudible ).
Now, maybe if you will look closely, with IPv6, you might be able to migrate more towards ‑‑ I am talking about a how‑to‑now.
Because I may have my number and I don't like your service I go there for the same number and keep on going.
So the mechanisms is emerging. That will suggest that we don't need to legislate this.
>> I think the distinction creating this Junction between human issues and technical issues in Net Neutrality, is a false dichotomy. You cannot say avoiding the human interest is because what it's built for and you cannot avoid the technical issue is because what ‑‑ management is makes sure the packets are delivered. When you are speaking about under the general ‑‑ of Net Neutrality.
[ Audio breaking up ]
>> All technical ‑‑ all ports, all content, all origins and dissensions of traffic are treated in a non‑discriminatory way. That's the way to embody the end‑to‑end principle and to have the opening Internet available.
The markets solutions are one possible way. Competition will tell you that if users wanted to pay less for less service, they will get it. There's one risk in that argument there could be collusion between the providers and no one will provide you full Internet service and that's a very major decision for a government or for the community or for the multi‑stakeholder approach to accept. And the other point about the quality of treatment, Parminder to your specific point: The only way you can make sure that individual users are treated equally is that you identify them.
So if you make sure ‑‑ the network doesn't know ‑‑ no one in the network knows who you are. Unless you identify yourself. Your network operator knows the route packets to your terminal equipment. To your IP address. If you want to be treated equally as a person you have to be identified as a person. And you are opening up a whole new universe there. I would call it a huge can of worms, but you can call it whatever else you like. But if you want a network that treats you equally, based on your identity, then you first have to have your identity there. And had I am not sure that I am going to go for that kind of Internet.
>> I really don't see any relationship with identity and treating the Internet treating everybody equally. It's about as a content uploader and content receiver and the kind of applications you access. It's equality just in that sense.
But unless you were still saying we should try to preserve the technical ‑‑ principle but what I heard from many participants since that's not something observed and nobody is seriously pursuing that. Because even if other kind of Net Neutrality are maintained, there's always some kind of discrimination between that data packets.
Probably spend ‑‑
>> Comment from remote hub. Telecommunications Union. We have to guard against the Internet becoming a Big Boys Club. Collusion between network providers and content providers ‑‑ the Internet is not cable TV. And thank you.
>> Yes, are there any other input?
>> My name is [ Inaudible name ] working for the Belgian Ministry of Economy. When we are talking about Net Neutrality in general, we are referring to the provider of the discretion is also in relation to in Belgium we had the experience of this. Last year there was a judgment between Google and the Belgian newspapers about copyright. It was a bad judgment for Google. And afterwards they decided to ‑‑ all the Belgian newspapers during one week, it was not possible to do reach the website of the Belgian newspapers.
So eventually, they found an agreement and found a solution. But to my opinion, this issue should raise the question regarding the freedom of the press.
And ‑‑
>> Excuse me I didn't understand. Was it not possible to reach the Belgian newspapers through the search engine?
>> One week, for instance, one the most popular Belgian newspaper, Le Soir, on Google you didn't find the page. You put the address on the main place, but not with Google. So I think as long as Google is a big ‑‑ important company on the Web, it was ‑‑ it consequences on those newspapers. Mostly because those are now most dependent of the ‑‑ can get from the Internet and also for the population. They could not get some information from those newspapers. So this is for me a big issue regarding Net Neutrality. Thank you.
>> They should be authoritatively ‑‑ from the Google representative here. I did somewhere want to connect the network Net Neutrality issue to other kinds of openness on the Internet. Such neutrality ‑‑ going around. So what other kind of openness and neutralities are involved? And as the gentleman just spoke now said that it is about all the intermediaries, not just the telecom providers, but all intermediaries and whether they have open architecture. So anything ‑‑
>> It applies everywhere, universally to everyone. This is a case you are absolutely right. It's not about what you might be talking about in terms of openness and platforms, but had the process of ‑‑ law. I believe the case and Belgium ‑‑ was the Copy press case another entity filed a claim that said all the posted up online in snippets on Google search. Violates their copyright and ‑‑ the court agreed with them and also in the United States, Copyright Act. The court of law believed the Internet's fundamental openness should not be protected ‑‑ in this instance. Not a problem ‑‑ with problem with sometimes regulators and ‑‑
>> Responding to a court order and injunction.
We spent money fighting the case.
>> Also taken to court by the ‑‑ ( Inaudible ).
>> I agree that's a different issue altogether.
>> Comment from the UAMs?
>> If you want to be treated as a equally as a person ‑‑ we want of our packet to be treated equally. Discrimination comes from identifying people. Thank you.
>> Was there input from that side? Anybody wanted to speak? I remember seeing a hand somewhere.
>> No.
>> So that's. So we will just give an opportunity to all the panelists who make a short comment. And if they could address the issue both of whether there are larger principles, which required some kind of identification by us, as a global community, and if there are such and such principles, what kind of process can be used to identify these principles and frame them, I would be obliged. But they can also come up with reflections on today's discussion.
So Vladimir first.
>> Thank you. I didn't have time to think about the principles: To sum up, I think I agree, we should not divide the technical and the human perspective. Of course, I just wanted to say that majorly the discussion at least from my point of view, the problem, is about the human behavior not about the network, but, of course, we can't distinguish it. That's probably one of the problems and one challenges to do is how to distinguish between what's appropriate and what's not appropriate behavior of the people on the Net, and to my opinion, managing the traffic when it comes to the technical reasons, is absolutely fine.
The question is whether it is also fine when it comes to the economical reasons, or the competition base.
How to approach? I think we have heard one options of the European Commission. It may make sense basically the regulators should be the ones on the national level to decide what to do, because they know what is the characteristics of their market.
I think the European Commission is a targeting that as well. They have general over the top guidelines, but leaving it up the regulators and back to developer countries, the truth is that there should be done capacity building of the regulators and institutions to understand this and to deal with it, but to understand from the very moment when the ‑‑ bit comes. What's the issue and what are the possible obstacles and immediately to discuss what they should do?
Now, that's at a national level. On the global level, I can't say I even have the clearest viewpoint whether that should be in the realm ‑‑ Net Neutrality or not. Discrimination based on or driven by the economic interests should not be allowed.
>> Do you think IGF would be a good place to try to consolidate those principles and the process where we could have some kind of set of frameworks coming out?
>> Definitely, I see no better place, but the to see IGF is one the best places and we have been doing that in previous years at discussions in the IGF. If you read the reports from the Net Neutrality panels, since Hyderabad meeting. Coming closer to all the stakeholders to what are the issues. Some are being opened recently like wireless spectrum and the new services.
But there is approaching of different stakeholders I think yes, we should try to do on the IGF, yes.
>> Yeah, I think clarifying the Internet principles and increasing an understanding of it is a good thing and this is a good environment to maybe iron that out. I think the issue is my issue is we are not change the situation suddenly. Educate the three main parties here. Users need to know what goes on with packets and how to see it and giving tools and so forth that's healthy. I believe operators themselves need to be brought together in terms of mind regarding of what information they need to bring out in the public for their consumers to ‑‑ and the regulators equally, need to be much better informed about those things. That's much more gradual approach to making the choices for the humans.
>> Please?
>> In fact I found this panel to be very useful because we have already as Vladimir is pointing out we have had already the last year ‑‑ IGF and other places come to a gradual clear understanding that we want to protect an open Internet. The point, of course, is how you do it. The most of the panel, I think, and members of the audience pointed out that it's first identify what is taking place to talk to stakeholders and get information out to consumers and citizens more importantly. Let them know ‑‑ and you can ‑‑ consumer right. I don't care how it's articulated, but how it's actually implemented. Is it a technical problem? Does that need to be improved by the technical standard setting. If it's a regulatory failure or one that could be solved by very specific interventions? It's a global value. Global discussion. But the implementation is going to be national and sometimes local within different jurisdictions.
>> Meghan since I didn't give you time to reply to the question I asked you can briefly comment whether the mobile environment is considered differently and go to your concluding comments, please.
>> My understanding is the mobile ‑‑ fixed are not treated differently I am not an expert in the area, but I am sure that's the case.
And to come back to perhaps I can say one more thing Justin the rule of the regulators.
It's true that for the moment under the telecom framework, we need the regulators to make sure the market is work, but doesn't mean it's entirely within ‑‑ there's a framework to apply it correctly. And we have the ‑‑ which I said is the Bureau of European Regulators and it makes sure everyone is applying the rules in a similar way. Commission has a important role in making sure it's working. Another aside. With respect to the principles, I think to those of you they opening reception heard Ms. Cruz speak about Internet principles and she has spoken as many others in many fora, to establish a compact for the Internet. It's not hotel room. A number principles are common to everywhere and there are international fora. I think it's clear from the Commissions point of view there are certain basic principles that should apply and that they should be coordinated and similar across the board. Doesn't mean every single detail has to be looked at and for the moment as well, with respect to specifically to Net Neutrality, we want to examine the market and make sure that we don't introduce any new regulator or legislative requirements, unless absolutely necessary.
>> Commissioner's speech was very inspiring. I would have shared it earlier if on my laptop. I will give colleague an opportunity to speak after this. But I would just end by ‑‑ I sense a feeling that people do agree that in IGF‑type environment, getting to a high level of principles, not to the details. Would be useful thing, especially as ‑‑ for developing countries where the capacity is less and there is probably ‑‑ control the big players in their area, but if they have high‑level principles, the benefit from it.
Now, it is likely in the process of IGF improvements that next year, there could be certain processes within the IGF which are more kind of, you know, oriented to developing of certain principles kind of thing. More focused processes. If that kind of process was to come, I would think that trying to double up principles for the openness of the Internet is a process we should suggest be taken up by any new format ‑‑ more purposive work within the Internet. I thank you for coming today. A round of applause for the panelists would be in order.
[ Applause ]
>> Let me thank the moderators. Thank you very much.
[ Applause ]
>> To the credit, this was proposed by the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus, together with the Instituto NUPEF. Diplo Foundation and IT for Change with Parminder. Although you came late, you did well. Thank you very much again for all.
>> And thank you for all.
[ End of File ]
10:08 AM CT.