>> Hello.  Good morning, we're waiting for a couple of panelists and we're going to start shortly.  Thank you.

>> Thank you.  Thank you very much for joining us today.  Do you hear fine?

Well, the purpose of this panel is to address issues from a different angle.  It's usually international negotiations.  So the title is missed link on trade negotiations.  We'll provide an introduction to this issue.  To my right, I have Marília Maciel.  She serves as supporting an organization and representing multi‑stakeholder group.  Thank you, Marília for joining us.  We also have Juan Carlos Larra.  It is an independent Latin America non‑profit organization founded in 2005 and whose main objective is development and defense and promotion of human rights.  Juan Carlos currently coordinates the research and public policy team of the organization.  Previously he worked as a (?) with intellectual property rights and access to knowledge and academic work in the environment.  Thank you, Juan Carlos.  And my left Carolina holds a Ph.D. at the University of Buenos Aires.  In addition, she's the academic coordinator of the center of technology and society an intuition that studies in management, regulation and impact analysis for communications technologies.  She also is an affiliator researcher of the social science department and under the colony society center in Argentina.  Thank you very much, Caro, for joining us today.

Online services and products are shaking at a wide range of traditional areas and sectors.  It seems to also be questionable that increasing connection that seems to be between this phenomena and international trait.  We have seen a lot or many negotiations going on in this subject.  All the results of that meeting were outcomes we have seen.  It isn't questionable that trade and e‑Commerce issues are one of the most fundamental limbs in the multi‑lateral area, but it is not enough.  We have seen also perhaps the pace that the negotiations and how international organizations are addressing for issues related to international trade commerce.  It's not enough.  Those negotiations are going to be translated and transported to regional and bilateral agreements.  Examples of that coming from Latin America, for example, is the Pacific alliance in four countries of that region are having an active agenda on the ETL trade and related issues.  Also, probably the most active country in Latin America in terms of international trade negotiations sign two agreements this year.  One with Uruguay and a second with Argentina.  Expected to have the same kind of negotiations or same kind of (?) in treaties like the negotiation of NAFTA among the interstates, Canada and Mexico.  Finally but not last, we have probably we're going to face a negotiation between the (?) block and European union.  You can see the issues are going to be quite active in agenda for the next month to come and we need to address it from a different perspective.  As we have seen the evolution of international trade, there are common grounds of understanding on some elements of this discipline.  For example, we find electronic chapters, many of the disagreements we have provisions on IP rights related with billing on some of them, telecommunications chapters most of them.  But it seems quite clear there's different cultures and different perspective that you will include those.  For example, if we take, for example, what happened during the negotiations of this agreement, (?) it's a clear example where there are different jurisdictional cultures might be found.  It's impossible or difficult to cut and paste disciplines like notice to take down or secondary liability.  For many Latin American countries and elsewhere because those countries don't have those provisions in the old tradition.  So the necessity to adapt international rules to local rules is important.  And we are going to organize this panel in one hour and we are going to have two rounds of questions for the panelists and at the end of each round, we will open the question from the audience and my FIRST question for you is:  Considering the experience that we have seen in current and fast trade negotiations like TPP, NAFTA, WTO, what are the main areas of negotiation that you have seen controversy between domestic and trade and foreign rules?  Marília, I would like to start with you.  Thank you.

>> MARILIA MACIEL:  I like your dynamics for this session because what I have seen is the trade sessions we have managed together very experienced crowd people.  So it's a pleasure to hear the comments coming from the floor.  I would like to come to the point of how the trade and additional policy issues are sort of the two worlds that are coming together and then talk about a little bit about the controversies that you mentioned.  So we do have a few topics that are additional agenda for a long time that have traditionally been part of the trade agenda.  You would think about privacy, consumer protection and authentication.  This is part of the trade agenda ins world trade organization as well.  However, what changes right now and I think we can realize that we are undergoing a moment of change if you look at the agenda of IGF and the number of sessions related to trade.  They have just proliferated in the lost two years is that now a days, the trade and issues that are being discussed on the trade have a much more clear connection with topics of a much more technical nature than before.  So in the (?), this year has been a very prolific year in terms of producing papers.  They have started putting their fuse of what e‑Commerce negotiations can pass.  And this was all in the view of the negotiations in the (?) that happened this month.  So this was very useful.  We do not have a mandate to negotiate commerce, this would not prove.  We do understand a lot more the positions of the member countries and what they understand and could be part of a trade agenda in the future.  So there are several topics that are very known to this community here, but they were never tailored so clearly such as that as localization and access to the source school.  So we are seeing that the two worlds of digital and the treaty are more and more converging.  To get to the second part of your question when it comes to controversies that can be created there, DIPLO together with other organizations and e‑Commerce this year, most in reaction to the demans from some of the trade negotiators that came to us and said we do understand a lot about trade, but we don't understand necessarily about (?).  So when you offer a course to get us up to speed in the view of the men stereo, we did prepare a course and it involved a lot of research on what are the issues being included not only from the W2, but also in trade agreements.  They necessarily take time.  We are trying to align the views of member and countries all over the world.  So this negotiations take time.  What is happening naturally is that a lot of the trade provisions that are not moving forward in the WTO are percolating and reaching out trade agreements.  So even though the WTO does not have a mandate to discuss e‑Commerce is not like we don't have provisions being adopted because they start to be part of a regional trade agreement.  So we went through many of the regional trade agreements on the turn of the table when they try to understand what the policy issues are.  They are tackling.  One of them is intermediary liability.  Many developing countries have started to regulate Internet with lots of liabilities.  I think this is one of the points you brought this very early coming from a tradition.  Neigh asked to make decision with regard to the responsibility of intermediaries.  In the old days of the Internet, this is one of the topics that we have started directly very early.  We have somehow at least, but in other countries in Latin America departed a hit from the model they took down.  They have adopted in the United States and we gave this the oversight to make a decision when both should be removed or not.  So this is one of the issue that I think it has conflict with the national laws because there are many different ways of tackling intermediary liability.  We have no discount and take down.  We have countries that come to the judiciary and perhaps included the trade agreements makes ‑‑ tries to make the countries align them when actually there is no assignment from the way we are tackling.  I think this is very positive because resonates with a legal culture of each country.  Another topic that is being (?) is the publication of the source code or provisions that say they should (?) to publish the source.  In Brazil, our government does have a history of supporting open source software.  They adopted open source software as it should be used in all the administration.  So for us to have access to the source code has always been very (?) as a way of transparency and accountability.  We do see with good eyes that companies provide access to their (?) especially when they're providing access to the government.  This could create problems that relates to trade secrets and competition.  So this is another issue that could create conflict style with the national law.  Of course, the way that countries are tackling, they should suggest localization is very buried.  They have adopted laws and others have presented themselves very much against that.  So that could create conflict.  And the last one is that many ‑‑ not many agreements, but there are specific agreements tackling domain names and resolutions and we know that this sees an area we have a whole Legacy that deals with the domain name policy which is the ICANN.  We have a whole other system of providers of domain names and resolution.  So when you insert that into trade agreements, that can create confusion if that system already exists.  There are other topics, but these are the key ones that created conflicts on the FIRST approach.

>> Thank you.  And that's super interesting because some of the agreements that I was ‑‑ that Marília was mentioning and I mentioned in the beginning include these kind of topics.  Chile and Uruguay are the four counties of the paving alliance signing back in 2015.  It is not effective.  I was offered as a text for the countries that are coming into the Pacific Alliance like Australia, Singapore, Canada and include these kinds of provisions.  NAFTA now a days is including two different chapters related with intermediary liability.  One is electronic commerce.  One is particular rules for IP copyright content.  So it is quite interesting to observe the areas that you mentioned are already included in agreements that are under execution, which is fine.  Probably we will see that.  Usually always lead in the multi‑lateral areas like you mentioned WTO and the results from last week were quite (inaudible) pointed out in the beginning.  So let me follow with you, Juan Pablo.  What do you think?  What is your approach on this?

>> Juan Pablo:  Good morning.  I want to go back to the idea of multiculturalism.  A few steps back from what we discussed from the issues that are being discussed or have been discussed in negotiating processees or the results of processees that have already finished.  And to go to the question about the areas of negotiation where domestic law and international law of the trade agreements might be in conflict.  The truth is we need to see a bit back with regards to the countries that because of their developing stage, it might not necessarily have the rules in the FIRST place.  And the truth is when we speak about the trade agreements between developed nations and under developed nations, what we have is the absence of those internal rules and the trade agenda as the venue where those rules will be shaped that is to say that the rules for data protection, for intellectual property and this for the relation between a country and countries outside in the world will not necessarily be shaped by as we are used to say about the democratic process.  The product of democratic discussion or democratic debate, but instead the results of trade agreements.  A few things come out of this.  The FIRST one is that trade agreements are mostly proposed to advance certain commerce agendas that are not necessarily the same as human rights agendas and there are mostly pushed forward by industries or those that want to get that conditions for trade.  They are widely known something that is highly valued by certain corporations.  So trade agreements in a sense is basically the result of global capitalist.  In that sense, when we see that developing nations have no rules on data protection, but now they have to shape them to be consistent with the trait agreements, that generates some results.  I want to start a bit on the controversial subjects because those reflect that kind of difference before we move maybe a bit later into the panel into other issues about multiple (?) in a deeper sense.  When we discuss issues of the IP and result in many trade agreements and the region that I come from, those IP ideas were not necessarily roots with the needs of each country.  In many cases, they were mostly part of the negotiation and it's not about intermediary liability, but it is relevant for certain countries they have certain rules in a certain sense for the takedown and the conditions.  It also goes to issues like the length of a terms of protection for copyright.  How long does the copyright promote a statutory monopoly for the exploitation even after the death or how long does it keep to be ‑‑ does it get to stay in the hands of a certain company or certain stakeholder, which is most low relevant‑for‑those companies that exploit those rights rather than the creation for the new.  And for the ‑‑ for how they promote cultural growth.  In the areas of source code publication or the advanced source code publication, this is relevant for the creation of local industries and how they might impact to be part of the global trade especially when we consider that developing countries are constantly in need of software and technological tools, but not necessarily are capable in an economic sense to finance their own need for those tools.  So to summarize a bit my point.  Trade agreements are the way the rules are set.  The key concept here is Harmonization to achieve the norms of practices and to iron out differences.  The problem with this is that the agreements are not necessarily agreements between equal parties.  It's still trade agreements is still very much a colonized space where the overpowering is able to set its own rules and the advancements of trade agendas that are more convenient to those existing powers rather than the advancement of the rights of minorities or the rights of certain developing groups.  And top down uniformity that is not required in participation of the communities or the people affected by these.  So it's basically the application of the same routine to a majority without taking into account the minorities and their needs and only to create an apparent leveling field for global commerce.  That's a problem that can be addressed, but it is a problem that only has these issues of e‑Commerce of intellectual property of source code.  It is only manifestations of a much larger problem of setting the rules for global commerce.

>> Thank you.  One of the beauties is that we can disagree on issues and obviously we would have a discussion on that.  But what you were pointing out is that it is going to be eye part of the second part of this panel, which is how we make sure that we all are engaged in this kind of negotiations and what's going on in international trade.  So having said that, I would like to pass the mic to Caro.

>> CAROLINA AGUERRE:  Thank you all for being here.  My colleagues have mentioned many issues I wanted to raise.  So I had to redo my notes.  But that's great.  I would like to sharing their concerns to think about some of the issues that particularly are developing in countries that are facing in this current scenario.  And this idea that trade agreements are being ‑‑ who are the movers, who are the countries or who the stakeholders or actors being able to promoter work with impact in this international trade scenarios and those are mainly the FIRST movers that can be with countries, but also as companies who have the ability and the capacity to follow these processes.  So this is related with the question about controversies because this necessarily has a variation consequences on the kind of venues that many developing countries and developing regions are questioning in terms of who should have the mandate or who should have the right to be imposing in which current institutional scenario the discussions to go forward.  So I think this issue of the controversy and the fact that last week at the WTO, the mandate about e‑Commerce was not finally addressed and resolved.  Just showing how there are different coalitions and different scenarios and perceptions of who is the right venue at the moment and whether the different countries are aligned in terms of going forward and selecting the right institutional venue and the right process there.  I compliment what my colleagues have already mentioned.  I wanted to address this.  And finally, the issue of controversies around ‑‑ it has been already very well addressed, which are the main controversial issues and they would also like to raise.  There is a controversy about the implementation of these.  So trips has been already imposed and agreed by in countries, but it is a problem about how to implement trips.  It is how to implement GDPR in Europe and other countries who implement GDPR later on.  It actually is and will have an impact on whet it is included finally in the text.  Thank you.

>> Thank you, Caro.  That's interesting because obviously part of the controversy in terms of data protection, for example, if we need to have disciplines or classes on data protection on trade agreements or we shall take that discussion in a separate one, for example.  That's one controversy.  The other one is like from the point of view of platforms or the companies that are involved in the development of internet, only to have clear rules and to have a set of clear rules and trade agreements is useful.  It provides a predictable framework.  It is how to address some of the most relevant issues.  One example is it sets a clear rules and mandates about what's understanding of that.  And in the case of Latin America, many countries negotiated rules that are not equal of the EMCA or some of the elements that you mind find elsewhere.  By the country, there was a creation that took very important local jurisdiction on how to implement it.  That's why.  We don't have any take down in Latin America.  Some of the take downs that they were mentioning in the beginning.  U.S. negotiated with Colombia, Costa Rica, and other countries in the region.  So that's one element I would like to keep you to consider.  So having said that, we have finalized the FIRST round of interventions and I would like to open the mic for questions if you have them.  Thank you.

>> Thank you.  I actually work with Gonzalo.  So Caro, I find very interesting what you were saying.  Mostly, I would like to know your opinion about course flow data flows and how you see this combining with GDPR.  And going on to the issue that (inaudible) and your European union negotiations going on right now.

>> Thank you.  So this ‑‑ the issue of cross boarded data flows in light of the GDPR and striking a balance and it is an orientation for the Latin American region where it is looking and trying to defined rules that will shake the issue data protection in the region is very much related to a cultural issue.  On the one hand, it touches upon how we consensually privacy in Latin America, which is definitely not the same virtualization that Europeans have.  I would say that Europeans and we're using a big label to describe many different scenarios, but okay.  Europeans have this tradition and this idea of working together in a sense.  That localization across the board in data flows touches upon measures of data localization and how privacy is also perceived and how are we going to again going back toes issue of implementation, the implementation of a GDPR in Europe, and it becomes the standard in Latin America or certain regions of Latin America, it won't be able to be implemented because culturally, we are very different.  We have a different constitutional and legal background.  This is something to take into account even if we decide on the rule, then it's how we implemented rule.  The big issue that particularly in Latin America, but also for the regions that might import other regional rules.  You might have to face a severe challenge.

>> Thank you:  You why.

>> I think our discussion on data flows is very interesting.  On the one hand, it is true that in today race economy, the rule of data flows you will see it in the future not only because of things that were commercialized and boots had bench dematerialize, but also because the ‑‑ it would be easy if we could find a way.  In alignment with standards such as privacy protection, but I think that the way that the discussion on data flows and data localization has been great and is particularly unfair.  We had made this discussion, a discussion about copping out countries.  Meet of all people say corporate protection is the reasons.  But when we look at the world, data localization is a phenomena happens all over the place not only in developing countries.  So European Commission has created policies and guidelines to sort of try to curve that the flow.  There are several countries that localization data.  One of the reason is privacy and one of the justifications to have been is that so countries could implement that in different ways and they keep implementing from plenty of ways.  Creating a batch of work of limitation that created an option that was very difficult from business to operation.  So that is from the protension of policy that the GDPR is trying to (inaudible) here.  I had that localization from visions for tax purposes.  For law enforcement purposes.  So it's not a developed there are other localization we should not approach and have a more balanced understanding that some localization in some places can mean a good thing.  You need to narrow down the cases so we don't understand businesses and innovation.  But what is ‑‑ so although that localization raises a lot of attention in forms such as this one, there's a large portion of regional trade agreements that are not about issues such as this one.  So of course this is a topic we need to discuss in order to move forward in a constructed mooner, but I think if he's stealing the debates, wait a little bit.

>> Yeah.  Of course, Caro.

>> This is a great point, Marília.  Internet blocking we tend to think in an IGF environment about freedom of expression, censorship, et cetera.  Internet blocking is also a way of controlling or disturbing data flows that are not unified internet.  So this is again a provision that is contained in many principles and recommendations to go forward and trade agreements that we might sort of think that Oveda has something ‑‑ that doesn't go to commercial practices and it's big economies, it's large countries with important markets that are following some of these digital protectionism practices.

>> Thank you.  Juan Carlos?

>> Juan Carlos:  With regards to the implementation, I wanted to keep that idea highlighted by Carolina.  We trade agreements with known their limitations.  Two and also one which certain partners in a negotiation or sister partner might want to do it further in the trait agreements themselves.  One example is key in that.  My country Chile has a free trade agreement with the United States since ‑‑ well 13 years now.  In that agreement, there were intermediary liability provisions and they were implemented in a way that was later all followed by other forms like Michael Seville in terms of injecting concept.  It is posted online by a third paste.  Intermediary is not liable for that consent in that consensus infringing position.  If it sits down under a court order.  It's forced to take it down when the authority says so.  That's not the team they have in the United States, but it's compliance with the free‑stayed agreement.  But as the USDR, the United States trade representative has sign up till at least 27 clean in their special.  Chile and not quite well implement the free‑trade something.  And the certification process of Tit allowed itself to not put free trade agreements into compliance if they do not certify the other are FIRST by implementation is also a way of trying to influence those internal processees.  It is very difficult, very Ray you highlighted that.  The processees might be quicker from one country to another.  GTPR is a standard that many counties will handle to want you to acquire to.  There are limitations in the sense that adhering.  Do not necessarily entice the implementation or the enactment of a protection framework but rather the idea that those protections exist formally the fact that a country signs into those protection agreement might mean that the protection exists.  The truth is that the implementation stage is much more different than for developing countries to have the infrastructure or cultural norms that serve into a material protension run sides that becomes fact or a structure of judicial enforcement or (?) enforcement to be as value as we think they are by the fact that countries sign into law or signing into agreements at the international level.

>> Thank you.  A couple of quick reactions of what your panel is saying.  In terms of how you can implement provisions coming from the d DPR and different regions, for example, Mexico you see that great job in taking perhaps the most relevant part of the GDPR and other areas like the United States and other countries or Singapore and treated there own framework in order to be okay with the local regulation and standards that authorities are thinking are.  It is also to protect it them.  So that's one inform highway key can simulate a different kind of rules and standards that are involving as we speak.  On data flow, it is important super while you is ad, but let me add that perhaps we neat here ‑‑ when we regulate or try some at the moment of regulation, that did apply is very example.  We have Cloud services being provided in certain regions that are lowering the entries to create business online.  So that's one element I would like to express here.  We have limited times, but I have ‑‑ I saw two questions coming from the folks.  Three.  Let me start with the lady over there.

>> Thank you.  I'm sorry I came late because I was speaking at another IGF panel.  The issue that Juan Carlos raised about certification and flexibility and implementation is exactly true because the United States does this with all their free‑contribute trade agreements and forced them to pass it through with no changes.  Otherwise, they would not say they have complete with it and came into force.  The you did not release their proposals, but they did release the proposal to mixy to and but also the e‑signatures one because in the EU proposal to Mexico, it requires governments to clear it entirely to governments.  So all your credit card details are stolen, that's fine.  You cannot require online shamming like amazon.com.  And this is obviously against the laws and counties and asked iffy understand pass it for them.  We don't know because they haven't chosen to release that text.  We don't know what's happening unless they choose to release the tapes.  You get one category of transactions for an exception.  So you pick online banking to be secure or shopping to be secure?  Everything else they can steal your credit card details and then similarly in the cross data flow, the WTO Japan is proposing absolutely cross data flows with no exception including for privacy and are bad on data localization and we heard that there are names to be stored local.  And even if the W2 privacy exception does apply to any W2 rules, it is part of the general exceptions that are so difficult to use.  They try to use them 45 times in the history and exceeded once because you have to pass by five different tests and they're using to use.  You can only use it for laws with the rules.  So the European advisory tweeted two days of the data protection should not be subject to trade agreements because the kinds of exceptions you need with trade agreements is not enough.  And it will open them to challenge.  Competition, health, environment and so on.  It's not just about e‑Commerce.  It has collateral damage into many other areas of regulation.

>> Thank you.  Any reaction from the panel?

>> Thank you for the very concrete examples.  This is useful in the sense that this is noting in that we can just agree in terms of very broad exceptions and terms.  The thing is on the case of data flow and protection and debate flow of information is they can be cognizant and to recognize what lies underneath the circulations and try understand the consequences much better.  It is not about the barrier to commerce.  When we speak of about personal rights or multi‑culturalism.  We nook about the protection of certain rights and how it might impact tried.  It's not forced data stabilization if we want to have reasonable standards.  Before that data is exported because we understand that the protection might not be the same, but in a different country.  If we think about that.  But instead the framing is different.  If we frame all issues within the idea of trade or what it means for global trade, we are definitely biking behind several other considerations that might impact negatively not only on certain real lits, but fundamental rights.

>> It is important to bring balance, but we need to see all the aspects related to this and the cross board data flow and the level of protection that some countries are lowering and other countries are not.  I think it is a matter of balance and one would think and address this issue.  Do you have a ‑‑

>> Yes, you have very much.  I would like to ask another question that might be from this discussion hour.  You are discussing the issue, but any of the speakers would like to reflect on the trade companies in the next technical area like block chain.  When you are talking about data flows and copyright issues in the current situation and belong betweens, it comes to created goods and are there any move mets on discussing the challenges and benefits.  Is there anything happening in this area?

>> A heard a lot with regards to block chain and payments.  We just finished a course of e‑Commerce for developing country and the issue of E‑payment is very relevant to them.  A have noble money that is extremely important in countries.  I was starting to see the level of generation because they did not have the financial and banking it is much more open to adopt now technologies.  Than say the United States and they are open to speak about block chain.  So they used centralized currencies have been used in the environment.  So there is a current that has been introduced a pilot testing I need to confirm this information, but is already on the round.  So there are persons and use block chain back.  But another thing that I think is more important in the trade discussions is 3D printing.  When we talk about crossed border trade and the materialization of we move this organization to the income level because you can scan an object and trade not the only, but the design of the project.  Think back this could have been when it comes only just have on what pauses the board, but also on the room for taxation.  This is a thing I wouldn't say has been hot topic so far.  I understand there are several countries that started to do in this local with about what is going to happen and where is the discussion on taxation and cost and revenue going.

>> Also to add that one of the biggest selling points of block chain is this kind of copy right because on the ‑‑ it cuts out the middle man of the register and the panels copywrite.  You're absolutely right in French printed.  It only exists on the Internet and this is also verified now in discussion.  It is related to how and especially all the different traits and replication of this.  So I would like to (sound dropped)

>> In the sense of its governance and people what are participating in the dissemination.  I tined that in the case of trade agreements and relation to them, in many cases we might find the trait agreements report those renovations is stronger and faster.  It does mean certain levels of entrepreneurship might be limited to what might be understood as the limiting factors of the implementing law that impacts the international trade agreements.  That is a problem of the high level of detail that the trade jump has involved when in made of certification.  But as we see it, trade agreements is an area where it should necessarily be the case.  What we're trying to do is promote trade.  But one of the problems is that another not necessarily about the liberational of the trait, but further establishment of already existing accessing.  I would say it's a problem, but it's a deep problem to attack within the next several.

>> This is an issue about the timing and the space.  So you have the entrepreneurs working with 3D and then you have bureaucrats we need to go to the level of literacy of people who are then going to shake those straight forwards.

>> Let me frame it in another different.  They're frameworks to facilitate commerce.  And sometimes they include some technological issues.  I think it will be risky at the same time to be so specific and address one specific technology within move as we speak.  We have to raise luck on that kind of discussion.  But again, I would like to keep the idea.  Those are frameworks then.  Is there any other question coming from the floor against?

>> Center for socioeconomic development.  I wanted to ask the panelists whether you know the trade facility trade agreement and what does it imply.  It gets you's side of it.  The country who signed up for it also agreed to make the whole processing of importing goods and services more expedient and there are requirements.  A lot of that implies digitalization.  Most of the developing countries and in particular, we don't on just don't have the software or the know how to do this.  So it will be in that seed they will have to buy software ware and maybe that tense it can be dependent do you know any experience about what developing countries have been able to do in order to get some hepatization.  It can be more in toll or other kind of answers that I need to put in place in order to fulfill. 

>> Thank you.  I think your question is very good because it touches a point that I mentioned before.  Trade elements ‑‑ so there's a lot of provisions related to trade facilitation as well that is very positive in school when we think about the complexities that are faced when he wants to understand.  It is not only understanding the official rules of the country, but also all the complications and it would create a single point of entry and now companies usually needs to go and clear the procedures with different authorities in the countries they want to explore to which makes the process extremely complicated.  As you mentioned, trade provisions are something that has been pretty much discussed in the WTO and is also present in a large number of agreements.  It has interesting provisions, but has side effects to the ones you have pointed out.  Sometimes you are going to countries that don't have any industry from the fact that paperless trade is put in place to sell international industry.  We are again talking about benefiting companies that sometimes are located in.  This is a decision that is many times subject to the political wings.  So Brazil is a much stronger advocate for open source in code and the Tuma government and not so much.  I think there are good experiences out there and this is something that happens developing countries, help each other.  They have the advantage that it can be utilized many times.  There are back doors.  However, it is also important to include trait discussions firmly.  The greed to cover one, there is a barrier and they do not want to see this technology over.  These we cannot talk about digitalization and paper his trade if we don't want about health when it comes to technology.  I would point the need of developing countries helping each other on that one because they have an industry of software and perhaps it is coming from different countries, but non‑developing countries as well.

I think that this is super rich and that is what is more important about the idea coming up.  It is quite positive.  So having said that the last question or comment that I have for you and perhaps to the rest of the audience is like last week in Buenos Aires, obviously governance dealing with noticed and they break the agreements, but I see it and I'm old enough to remember that more or less was the same that the thing we saw 20 years ago at the beginning of the process where they're negotiating trades ‑‑ sorry.  Rules and internet but role was starting to be there.  Stage hold were not having a show.

So what do you think is the role of the multi‑stakeholder approach?  Especially on a system.  So ‑‑ yep.  Okay.

>> Thank you.  I think in terms of the framing of the Spano and around the ideas of multi‑culturalism, the least we could ask is a level of participation.  WTO negotiation that you were alluding to was controversial because of its exclusion and it's not just about the participation of private actors and Civil Society along with governments, along with trade groups, et cetera.  What all of this shows in the trade negotiations space is that we often leave aside many interests and that exclusion then translate into the digital space.  One of the meetings for the TPP meetings, one person there a community came in to say just as she speaks out about how she did not understand the content because it was in English and she did not speak English.  Most people that are in developing countries do not speak English.  Heir hardly aware of the consequences and it's not that they should necessarily be up to date with its controversy, but there should be some level of consideration for their participation.  This involves in many cases involvement of communities and gender communities and aboriginal people.  People that live in different areas and have different areas within their boarders because it's common that those do not have an influence evil internal policy.  When that internal follows is shaped differently or with other considerations, they're ten on taken out.  It's one thing to have the multi‑stakeholder process and I do believe that's next.  However, submission is very limited.  We still need to question how valuable it is to represent all the involved views and all the consequences that this may video.  And the trade space is probably where we might have that comfortable with the most possible effect.  Trade negotiations can be positive in that sense in providing culture and different cultures within each nation and country, but that requires also to look very much step into that.  We have people participate in debates and the own processees for taking certain positions when they go to negotiate trade agreements.

>> Thank you.  We have five minutes, but I don't know if you want to ‑‑

>> Just very briefly.

>> I think one of the very concerning things that is happening not only with trade, but in other (inaudible) is cyber security.  Governments talk about private involvement.  Usually you're talking about TPPs.  You're talking about reaching out to the Private Sector.  When you talk about security, there's no way to do it without reaching out to the seats are made of.  And I think that in great is about the same.  We're not so much.  We're closing out to the private factors.  So there's a huge gap between the communication that is taking place.  Where is Civil Society and that is advocating because straight with the (?) if you try to get an environment we should say with so even if we find our way through the get to get involved in the discussions, let me require part of our trout in a completely different manner.  So that would be a challenge looking for us.  In spite of the fact I find extremely difficult to real back the inclusion of some of this stuff.  I do trade then there's the huge discussion.  What is worse and is it the W2 international older and although there's not transparency, there's a multi‑setting and I kept secret of sometimes till the end of negotiations.  It is a very open environment, once we cannot taint in because of what it is taking place.  Considering and that would require us to track him and facilitate it ourselves.  We each persons feel very comfortable with.  So that it would RBI specialization of some of us.  We cannot do everything and I see with very good questions is included trade issues and the agenda and bringing some people that are originally coming from the IGF association.  There are different knowledges that it is the only way forward for us to have some negotiation.  

>> Just adding to that which I totally agree, the approaches in this process can really improve the data gathering and the production of data that we need.  Coming from academia, then we are very concerned and kind of the evidence based on some of the clings that are made.  In terms of the impact for sets, et cetera.  I'm not just saying that Civil Society lacks data or (inaudible) lacks data, but sometimes companies do.  A multi‑stakeholder approach to work along the lines.  What we want to measure as part of data flows.  So there is ‑‑ there is differences, but they're also looking at the side of the picture they can see and they need a more global engagement.  And then avenue of opportunity for multi‑stakeholder is to develop principles on digital trade.  It could electric a platform for the governments were late going into specific multi‑cultural specific settings.  We are running out of time to take more questions, but let me thank you, the panelists, and thank you for this.  It is not the new flavor of the month and something happening now affects many ways and positive and some negatives, but many ways the internet ‑‑ so we look forward to receiving your comments about this panel.  Thank you.

[APPLAUSE]