The following are the outputs of the real-time captioning taken during the Thirteenth Annual Meeting of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in Paris, France, from 12 to 14 November 2018. Although it is largely accurate, in some cases it may be incomplete or inaccurate due to inaudible passages or transcription errors. It is posted as an aid to understanding the proceedings at the event, but should not be treated as an authoritative record.
***
>> MODERATOR: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. We are about to start. This is a session organized by some national and regional Internet Governance Forum and Arise, as you might know, and this slot is going to be dedicated to discuss a specific issue related to digital economy.
So, first and foremost, let me just recall the title of the session. The title that was built together by a group of national and regional IGFs, which worked together in the configuration of this proposal, we are going to talk about developing regional, national and local digital economies accessing the roles, perspectives, and responsibilities of different stakeholders in a multistakeholder fashion.
To begin with, I would just like to say that I have here colleagues from the Arab IGF, the French IGF, the Brazilian IGF and the Point IGF.
I myself am Diego. I work for the President Governance Steering Committee who is the multistakeholder entity in charge of developing policies and guidelines for the use and governance of the Internet in Brazil, and I was chosen to be the moderator of this session five minutes ago.
I'm here with colleagues also from the Brazilian IGF, but from the Panamanian IGF, the two ladies by my side, one of them is going to be a panelist, and the other one is helping us with the online moderation. And, we actually regret that the other IGFs, which also joined efforts to help produce this panel, did not actually show up to be here with us. We have the Panamanian IGF and we have the French and Arab IGF, and it is a pity that we have practically two-thirds male panel, which is a bummer for the 2018 IGF in the 21st century, right?
We will divide this session in three different segments. The first segment, each of the panelists will just present themselves and say where they come from, their institutions and the national IGF in which they work for. The second one is going to be structured around three main policy questions, in which each participant will provide some preliminary answers and provide some policy perspectives from the region that they come from, so the middle region, European region, the Latin American region, and then in the third segment we are going to open the microphone for questions and answers from the audience, maybe to try to broaden our perspectives and to bring perspectives from other regions which are not these three regions at the table.
So, let me just start with my extreme left. Could you just present yourself.
>> Thank you, and thank you everyone for staying here late.
I'm Charles Chaban (Sp) the Chair of the Arab MAG this year, so mainly I'm representing the Arab IGF. Like our moderator, I was called on in the last minute to cover this session, and specifically because I was participating in other sessions, but sorry to say one of my colleagues, who is Namir (Sp) and she works with the united nation who oversee the Arab IGF couldn't come at the last minute, so this is it. So, I'll try to do my best to cover for her, because this is mainly her work. She worked hard on more than the group of the MAG. I mean, in this about digital, what are you talking about mainly.
Thank you.
>> Hello. Good evening. My name is Arman K. I'm from France, and from academia sector, so I've worked at the research, actually, at institute Telecom business school, and which is a business school in a larger context of a network of engineer schools in France, and I work on personal data protection and personal data policies, and I will be participating here this evening, so my main -- my few words.
My contribution will be a little bit maybe different, because I don't think it's -- a little bit larger perspective from the social sciences perspective. Thank you.
>> Hello, good afternoon. My name is Nivaldo C (Sp). I'm a businessman in Brazil and a member of the board of the Brazilian Internet Steering Sommittee, CGI.VR. They're presenting Internet users in the country.
>> Good afternoon. My name is Crisya Matthews (Sp), a board member from Civil Society organization called Ebandatech, which is part of the IGF Panama. Ebandatech is a digital rights organization in Panama City working in advocacy and research about public policy, Internet in Central America.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you all. So, to begin our discussions, the objective of this panel is to try to put the human component in discussions related to the development of digital ecosystems in the countries we represent, and as you know the digital economy is one of the Lynch pins of the Sustainable Development Goals, and based on that assumption, the NRIs that put together this proposal, they put together three different questions, three different policy questions are expected to be answered by the panelists.
The first question would be how different communities can develop a people centered digital economy? No. 2 is, what are the main challenges inherent to the consolidation of a local, national, and the regional digital economy ecosystem focused on people, and the third question will be what are the roles and responsibilities envisioned for the stakeholders involved, and how community stakeholder dialogue contribute to the comprehension and consolidation of those digital economy ecosystems?
So, we were expecting in this room the Bangladesh IGF and apparently, they are not present, the democratic Republic of Congo, the Kenyan IGF, West Africa IGF, the Tunisia IGF and the Italian IGF. None of them are here with us but I just had to underscore that they were part of the development of this session and they committed to join us for a broader discussion than the one that we will have today.
At this point we are going to start the second segment of the session. We are going to listen from the panelists what are the policy perspectives that their projects have, and after they finish their brief explanations for four to five minutes, or a bit more, if we have time, then we will sum up and go to a sort of more un moderated debate with all the audience that is interested to engage this dialogue.
So, Alyssa (Sp), would you like to start. Thank you.
>> Well, thank you. As has been discussed in diverse panels, the use of digital technology can contribute for social and economic development increasing efficiency in organization, business, and in the product and services it creates when it's used in a sustainable and inclusive manner.
There are gaps in connectivity and eCommerce readiness which implies that the benefit of the equalization has not equally distributed. Unless adequate steps are taken, the divide will only get wider. This is why a multistakeholder dialogue is essential.
The different communities can participate in the development of the people center approach through public, private people partnerships, which is crucial to make the digital infrastructure easily and equally accessible to all.
This partnership, among others, will enable the decision-making power to deviate from policy makers who are traditionally holding the ultimate decision towards the citizens who are proactive engagement.
In this partnership, each one of them has a role. For example, the government must create Anna peeling environment that promotes private investment. This could be achieved with establishment of an adequate policy framework that encourage competition investments and promote digital economy, which will avoid concentration and monopolies.
This framework should be stable, predictable e technological neutral, dynamic and flexible with an integrate planning approach. Focus of the diverse government institution and regulatory agencies are involved should be clearly established.
There are other areas in which the government should work, such as producing the high cost of doing business, removing the barriers to digital business, warranty and preserve a non-dis scrim ma fore open Internet where anti-transparency and also develop digital agendas, which promote digital inclusion with an emphasis of the vulnerable social groups promote the representation of Civil Society organization. In a digital technology sector, for example, in an expert and advisor a group, in which they are formally underrepresented.
The private sector should take an active role in enhancing technology ensuring efficiency and economic sustainability. The private financing is essential to improve infrastructure, and for the generation of content and local application. Internet connectivity and for increasing capacity and affordability.
A multistakeholder dialogue in which policy makers at national and international level, private sector, academia, Civil Society are involved it's essential to address effectively the different policy issues through their experience and expertise. These exchange of technical expertise from different stakeholders can contribute SMEs the aligning of national strategies, in the creation of regulatory and developing ecosystems that enables the private sector to supply solutions in which are most effective when they are tailored to a particular need, and when they are created or formulate with the expertise of the Civil Society, academia, and the technical community. In the stakeholders specifically, they support the regulators which normally struggle to keep up with the market and tech logical development.
Working with the relevant stakeholders the state can play critical rules in ensuring the (?) among sectors and for community. This will ensure that the new digital ecosystems generate development for all and leaves no one behind.
I hope I addressed the question in my intervention. Thank you.
>> MODERATOR: I think you did. Thank you so much for this first input towards discussion. I took some notes here. I will come back to them after the first round of presentations.
Yvaldo (Sp), can you provide us some insights from the Brazilian IGF perspective.
>> Okay. Okay. The steering committee are simply CBIGI is the mood stakeholder entity in charge of issuing general guidelines and developing, overreaching project development and the use of the Internet in the Country. As such, CGIBR is also the organizer of the Brazilian IGF. Let me first talk a bit about the NRI.
In my Country, the Brazilian IGF is known as the Brazilian Internet forum or the Brazilian IGF in 2018 the forum held its eighth edition.
As a principle, the forum has been hosted by different cities, and in Brazil. In attempting to involve people from different locations both in the organization and the sections of the event.
In 2018, the forum was held in the center west of Brazil for the first time in the City of Goyena. Proof of its eight years, the forum has the Brazilian stakeholders community are all the broader Internet government international agenda in the Country and abroad. Digital economy has been one of the permanent topics in our agenda since 2011 when the forum was held for the first time from the limits of intellect property rights in a digital era to enter innovation mined challenges, such as Internet shutdown, Net Neutrality, violations and the data protection. And, the opportunities for instance, peer to peer, transnational collaboration and the open technologies.
In the eighth edition of Brazilian IGF this topic of permanent activities. Our workshops had the stakeholders approach including a local business sector who had three main sessions. One specifically section address it to digital part of and the data economy.
Secondly, let me approach the topic of our plenum. An ecosystem is an always involving living entity, a complex system, a community comprised of different components. A digital economy ecosystem involves not only technical and economic variables, but social, and political components.
So, from other discussions surrounding these issues, I would like to list a number of those two prompts that are essential to be tackled by any policy initiative surrounding the digital economy.
Technical and economic perspectives of say that the key words for our discussions are Internet of Things, artificial intelligence and the Big Data technologies, coupled with the need for ensuring the security, stability and functionality of the Internet. From a broader social and political perspective, I believe that data protection is p one of the most important issues of our time.
In Brazil, for instance, we have a data protection law, but to still not have a clear perspective on what sort of data protection authority we will have in our country.
Hopefully the Governments will recognize our historical required with multi stakeholders in the institutional development of the authority. Diversity inclusion are also principles that should guide the developers of digital economy ecosystems.
One has to posit there the wording of all the bits of the ecosystem.
Finally, it's important to highlight that none of those two issues can be taken individually by governments. The public sector, scientific communities and the Civil Society.
Full stakeholders’ cooperation is needed. Locally, regionally and globally. As our Brazilian IGF serves as a focal point for the Brazilian community, let me say that we are very glad to see the NRIs community getting together to build this arena for future collaboration.
As I am running out of time, I would like to thank you very much for the opportunity to rise those issues in this session and I look forward to our discussions here or elsewhere.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you for that sort of systemic approach to the matter.
I will move forward right away to our friend from the Arab IGF as we arranged before this session, and then we come to the French IGF and then start discussions. Thank you very much.
>> Thank you. Thanks to our host. That is why you stay (?) (Laughter).
I will try to concentrate first on the digital economy challenges we have in the region. Mainly I will not read the whole document. I will send it to you for full details, will highlight it online.
First of all, to you, the infrastructure is really good in most of the Arab countries, the affordability of it still sometimes a little bit expensive. The main reason for that is insufficient competition. The other issue is that employment on the ICT sector is still, when I say employment, full-time employment of ICT people. It's still below the average range. For example, in Kuwait we have an example here .5% only while the average is 3% usually in the Developed Countries of the total employment. Gender divide. We still have gender digital divide in our region. The gap is 20% in the ICT most of the Arab cup trees are still consumers. So, we have still a weak level of export in the Arab countries.
By the way this, is the average I'm talking about, because the Arab IGF covers more than one country. Some of the countries to be honest, we are advanced in software solutions, export solutions everywhere for the region and Europe and the U.S., too. The numbers I'm mentioning is when you take all the countries that are part of the Arab IGF.22 countries.
When we want any statistical data sometimes it is not available very easily. Based on the above recommendations, again I will just mention part of it, so I don't take a lot of time, we need more digital strategies, and this is part a study of the UN in our region. Develop digital strategies articulated with long-term development it was supported at the highest political level, which is not available in some countries, sorry to say that, identify and leverage public, private partnerships with sustainability. And, Jordan, I'm from Jordan, we have this more now, public-private partnerships, but in most of the countries still not there.
Going to the ICT structure, we need digital structures and advocacy frameworks and issues related to employment structures, skills, enabling economy environment and nurturing of innovation to enhance the ICT sector shared in the economy.
Develop national coordination are the high limit authority. And, I think I will take the main parts, as I told you. I will move to the other recommendation regarding infrastructure.
We need to develop a full unbundling of legacy and innovative but developed services. I think this can be even expanded more. Maybe sometimes we can expand broadband using maybe frequencies in some countries better than Cooper or fiberoptics because they are more expensive.
Develop back bones at the national and regional level to improve the fluidity of traffic generated by access network. Encourage infrastructure sharing schemes to develop entry for equal and often and fair access to common infrastructure.
The issue about digital divide, the recommendations about it, we need to leverage more our fixed infrastructure and improve the Internet access and experience. Thanks to broadband, this is more enhanced simply, but we need, as we said, to drive more -- drive down Internet access by addressing infrastructure bottle necks. Develop public part they are ship again. So, you will find that some recommendations it covers more than one problem we have.
Regarding the eCommerce, or e business or e application as many like to call it, my laptop is not -- okay.
National statistical officers to address lack of business to consumer or business to business, I know I'm using sometimes some acronyms that are not used recently a lot, but remember, when we started the, let's say the online economy we used to use them a lot. Develop the eCommerce platform to allow SMEs to sell their products online. By the way, I didn't mention that we have a problem in the fixed lines, not the mobile telephone. Mobile telephone in the Arab region more than 100 percent. Everybody use mobiles, so the problem now with the fixed lines, less than 7%, which is less than the world of a average, even. For very simple reasons seems many didn't have the fixed but when the mobile was introduced so everybody is using the mobile now. So, this effects as you can expect the broad band connectivity.
eHealth, there was a study about eHealth even how to update and develop a national eHealth strategy by following the suggested three steps approach of the ITU and WHO to get consistent collaboration much of national eHealth.
Develop smart and targeted eHealth applications like tele ideology, or tele diagnosis, considering the sustainability and eventual integration within the framework of the national eHealth strategy, and finding about e applications in general. We need to develop schools, and to the Internet at all stages, in particular for primary and pre-primary levels. Introduce new teaching methods that develop independent and critical thinking leveraging on a mart and efficient use of ICT, primarily targeted to enhance efficiency.
So, to make the main points. I can send you the full document I received from my colleagues.
Thank you.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you very much. I think it's going to be a very nice document to share with the NRIs mailing list, and I took some notes here for eventual discussion afterwards.
So, now at this point let's see what the French IGF has to share with us.
>> Yes. Thank you. Thank you. So, my point is a little bit different in nature, because I will talk a little bit about the trust in digital economy and from a much broader point of view from the point of your social sciences, so in particular, so it's not attached to particular Country context, it is much broader point. I'm sorry to begin a little bit theoretical, but you will see that I hope you will see that it has a very important I think policy implications.
So, this year, you know, it's seems as the Internet of trust or trust in digital economy is becoming more and more important, so we are told, at least, and the question I will raise here is what is this digital trust, what are we talking about? So, comment from social sciences, we do not take the concept at face value, , let's say. We are trying to work with to understand what is at stake when policy makers tell us about the trust and digital trust.
So, you know, we are told that trust is like nowadays that we have to restore trust and that kind of discourse is more and more present nowadays.
So, I'm a little bit skeptical about that, actually. So, what does it mean to restore trust? Trust is not a kind of paradise lost that you can restore, correct. Right. It's not a simple thing that we can measure with appropriating indicators and then we have just a couple policy measures and then we have good level of trust. All this from social science perspective is quite nice, let's say. It's kind of nice approach. So, we work in social science a little bit differently, so we work with concepts and try to understand what is at stake, and we talk about trust and digital economy.
And, here I will follow a prominent social in, let's say, second half of 20 center which was called Nicholas Lumen. He said there are two things to have in mind, that trust, there are some different kinds of trust, okay, including digital, Lumen doesn't talk about digital, economy, obviously, but I develop it in this way. So, there are different kinds of trust, different types of trust. The trust is not just home oh genius thing that we can develop like this. And, then I will explain it.
Then, once we have distinguished different types of trust, which is very important for policy makers, then we have to say that this different types of trust have an historical evolution. It's not once for all the time this position. We have historical revolution of trust forms or types of trust.
So, to put it briefly, and I'm sorry for the very, very quick and not very profound interaction, but let's say that there are at least two types of trust included in digital landscape. The one is what English-speaking scholars call confidence. And, the English-speaking scholars call trust. Trust.
So, what is the difference? And this is very important, because to sell you the final point of my speech.
The point, the final point will be that we have in digital landscape two different kinds of trust and we have to promote one or another. We have to define policies to promote an intelligent, how should I put it, an intelligent coexistence of two types of trust I will be developing.
Okay. So, the first one is confidence, the second is trust. The confidence is the kind of institutional arrangement. It is kind of social glue, Lumen talks about habit. So, it is how the institutions suffered this social equation, the social link between people, okay, and the trust is more of the rational of attitude is kind of risk-taking attitude. For example, if I do some investments in banking industry, I'm in the field of trust. I have a rational science based, calculus-based risk taking attitude. I take some risk and I trust that bank or that digital service or that partnership and so on.
On the contrary, confidence is about social equation, okay. So, it's a long history of social interactions, and these two are very, very different. That's the point. And, today when we talk about digital trust, I think very often people make a confusion between two very different things, actually.
So, why this arrangement, why this arrangement is important? Because to put it briefly, trust is not, how should I put it? Is not sufficient in itself, because you can have trust but lack confidence. What does it mean?
Let's take the example of money. Why do people trust money? In rational risk-taking transaction, obviously you trust money, but why do I trust money? You trust money because you have the confidence, you have a much more fundamental attitude in institution, okay, in the institution because money is in an institution which has a long human history. That's the point. So, money is an example of such difference and comply men Terry between trust and confidence.
So, now the problem is that this respective rights in society between trust and confidence and we need both of them, okay, we need risk taking attitudes in economics, but we also need social, obviously. So, this respective rights between trust and confidence are evolving, and the point is, my point is today that according to some, I think they are right, we witness something like the grow of trust at the expense of confidence. That means we witness something which would be, how should I put it, prevalence of risk-taking economic attitudes at the expense of social equation. And, that is the point.
So, when we talk about trust, we have to be very careful what do we promote in digital environments? Do we promote simply risk-taking attitude, investment, or that kind of stuff, which is obviously very necessary, that's not the point, but it should not be promoted at the expense of much larger, much more profound social process.
So why it is important is you have to understand actual policies on digital trust do promote trust at the expense of confidence, of social occasion.
And I will take an example. I hope I will finish in a few minutes. I will take an example of this in the field of the policy making.
So, today to promote digital trust, one of the, let's say, ways which are more and more used today is what I call the policy of trust of labels or trust seals, okay. You know this. It's like I have this digital cell which has three stars and another one which has five stars and I have to choose between one which is marked as a more trustworthy and the other one which is maybe cheaper but less trustworthy. So, I as a consumer have to make irrational choice. So, I do not rely on the confidence. I do not rely on social processes or on history of interactions. I rely exclusively on the rational calculus. And, this is for people who have studied is very, very problematic. So, one could say this trust policy, trust seal policy is very good thing, because obviously the consumer is much more protected. He can now choose from a good service and less good service, let's say. Well, okay, this is one point. I think there is another one, which is -- but also, we have to say that in this condition, in these new conditions of trust, consumers also their responsibility civilly, because he has only to confirm his behavior to the, let's say, repertoire of choosing whichever, okay. Now, as a consumer I have only to choose between what -- between a couple handful of services which was chosen for me by the institutions on which I have no possible actions. Which function I actually do not understand. How do I mow what is going on in institutions which promote that trust label? That is the question.
So, actually, as a citizen, if not as a consumer, I am quite, (non-English) have factions on this so-called third practice, okay. This is very problematic, because this exactly puts me as a consumer in the attitude of to be limited only in the field of rational one of action of buying something. And, completely cuts all the confidence making all the social equation. So, that is quite problematic.
So, you would say, I will finish, you would say okay, but crowd source or participatory initiatives, they do exist, well, yes and no. Because I would say that obviously they do exist, the tricky situation, the trick of this new trust management, let's say, is that even the participants are now in the field not of the Country there is trust, why? Precisely because of what I explained earlier. Because now the action, the one of action of this participatory crowd source, let's say, they are limited to one of action of consumption, okay. Either it shows us that not all participatory initiatives are equal, because they can be only, let's say, similar of real participatory processes.
So, you see that on one hand we have grass roots of confidence and social equation and on the other hand we have this trust poll will you particulars, digital trust politics, which are basically global mark it regulations, and we have to be very careful not to be in this situation to promote one at the expense of the other, and obviously today what is, less say suffering this evolution is obviously social equation.
So, the final question, and I will stop here, is how to design public policies which do not promote trust at the expense of confidence, which do not promote, let's say, simple rationale consumer calculation at the expense of social processes.
Thank you.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you very much. I'm also social scientist, so you said a lot of good things that seem to make a lot of sense based on what I saw in previous -- in the previous speakers here, and I would just try to put together on a high level what we've heard from Panama from, Brazil, from the Arab folks, and from France.
So, we saw from Panama talking about tools, specific public policy tools, and she mentioned public policy partnerships as a way of making the policy cycle more prone to civic engagement, and then we saw our fellow friends from the Arab IGF talking about specific policy projects. Not specifically tools, but projects which are needed, right, in order to advance digital economy in the region from infrastructure to capacity development of the labor force but also other things related to different sectors in the digital economy.
Then we saw the Brazilian IGF talking about the specific two things, specific technological aspects of the digital economy, and bringing a sort of a systemic approach in terms of cultural, social, and political barriers itself, not only economic variables to those discussions related to instruments and policy projects. And, then we saw this discussion about the detachment of trust, which is a rational activity and confidence. And, one of the sentences that pulled my attention is something like, under the banner of the digital economy, we are focusing on policy instruments, policy projects, technological areas which are being advanced, as far as I understood, for the sake of trustworthiness instead of our having a sort of common social structure in different countries, regions, and even in the global political economy that can accommodate the establishment of a true digital economy from an overarching perspective. I think that might be a long curve just to say that we saw in this panel people talking about instruments of policy making, priorities for public policy making in different areas, both in terms of public policy, but also in technological development, and we ended the panel with a discussion on two sociological variables, societal variables of how we interact with each other within the social context.
I think that provides a great room for discussion, and it's a pity that we have some survivors in the room at this point. We have 15 minutes left from the session, and I would like to open the mic for questions. I see one there, and I would like to say that we can have questions from the audience to the speakers from the audience to the audience, and from the speakers to the speakers, if you guys wish to do so.
So, I say that we should start with the first question. If you could just state your name and your institutional setting, if you are allowed to, in order for us to have it to the transcript, I would thank you very much.
>> Audience. Thank you, my name is Fredita (Spg) Indonesia AGF. I'm not going to give a question, per se, but I would like to comment on the panel that on the digital economy landscape I would like to introduce what Indonesia has been practicing for a few years. When we talk about digital economy landscape it is very competitive right now. We have eCommerce, peer to peer landing, we have crowd funding, we have payment transaction providing, e money, e wallet, all of this. Also sort of like a trend at the eastern part of Asia, because I feel that our follow IGF from Japan, China, they also feel how the digital economy really impacting their life. We have Alibaba, software, all of those big companies are playing into this field of digital economy, and in Indonesia itself, the government has been trying to modify and pursue its citizens to trust the digital economy profile, there by okay, go on, you can join the platform, you can have peer to peer landing and so on. Government also currently not really heavily regulating the issue, instead they only make for eCommerce they have eCommerce guideline broad maps, it requires an institution to create certain policies as the output, and also through its financial surface, the Indonesian government tries to approach relevant stakeholders, such as business as government, such as public to hear what kind of digital economic regulation that is keen to be had by Indonesian public. However, it is very uncertain to know where there is in fact some advancement, also some negative impact. Currently in Indonesia, because this issue has not been heavily regulated, some violation of a person that also been happening. I would like to have some concrete example, like for some peer to peer landing, because peer to peer landing is basically a platform operated through Internet, and people can easily get creative, get some loan for their information given, and this information is actually meant to only ask the debtor to pay for the credit that they have. However, in doing so, the provider of landing even using a debt collector, debt sometimes really, really hard. They try to make the system personally every day. They reach to their boss. They even ask to do something irrational. I mean, this is the excess that I think all of region must also anticipate as well, because this has happened, and we expect to have some inputs, like and inform all of you that this is something that we should anticipate.
I think at the moment government of Indonesia and all of the stakeholders, including the business entities are trying to solve this issue, however, there has not been been sort of near solution currently instead of maybe blocking the peer to peer landing provider or giving or asking comments for what the consumer that has been violated.
Thank you.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you. Before asking if anyone wants to comment, I would say that it is a pity you are not on the panel with us in order to provide that perspective. Especially after President Macron said we are under two models for internet governance and development, he had what he called the Chinese model and then the Californian model. So, it is very curious, because I know some of your countries are struggling in between those two models, not in the French way of doing things, but I mean, that is a third way which has also worth of considering, and it's a pity you are not here. And, probably next year if we come back with this discussion, we should hear.
I saw that someone else, Johannes (Spg), I think from Brazil also has a question or comment to the panel, and right after that if you guys want to talk about the Indonesian situation, let's just get what Johannes (Spg) has to say and then come back to the panel.
>> Good night. I know that we don't have much time, and it's past 6 o'clock, but I think that is something that concerns me is how we're going to introduce in the digital economy discussion the topics around competition and anti-trust, because this is a concern that we cities have in G20's have and I don't see in the Internet Governance forums. So, we're talking about platforms with 2.6 billion users, so we're talking about a scale of economic activities that we didn't have before. How can we deal with that? And, this has issues not only for the markets, it has issues to platform responsibilities, to human rights. So, I think that it is something that we should address when in the last activities about the digital economy.
And, a second topic is that I really liked Crysius (Spg) content, but something that I think we should think about it, because when we talk about release or deploy technologies, we will face, because we're not talking about only information in technology services. We're talking about transport. We're talking about health. We're talking about labor. So, we're not talking about technology regulation, or information regulation. We're talking about labor regulation. So, all the debate about iberization (spg) is a term being used in all the countries, and all the data about blockchain. So, if we just look with the perception that technologies are did, so we have to deploy them, we can lose the other side that is that we have to look at the economic regulation, have to look at social benefits or not. Blockchain, for one side, it can be really good. For the other side, we just had a crash coming from an economic bobo, so how can blockchain un leash or allow another bobo. So, I think that digital economy, it is complex, because we can't -- it tends connecting all of these spheres from society I think that we should put all this topics in the next discussions.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you, Johannes. I think your question deals a lot with this notion of pushing forward trust instead of having the social component of confidence. I think that Crusya (Spg), did you want to reply to Johannes common.
Actually, before I give the floor to Crusya, I would like to say that when our colleague from Indonesia, he mentioned something came to my mind that's not directly related to what he said, but I was like how to trust and how to have confidence in the digital economy in the context of practices, but also abuse in data collection and use for very different economic purposes. I mean, not only that, but also the way that companies and states cannot secure data is one of the discussions that we actually have to face, also, when pulling this human component approach. I wanted to raise that flag because I took that note and I think it dialogues a lot with what you just mentioned.
Would you like to go back to his comment? Thank you.
>> Well, first of all, I wanted to -- I have some comments about the Indonesia experience, because that's why I addressed my intervention in the sense of the importance of the government and importance of the different stakeholders, because what is happening in Panama is like we are -- we have a strong infrastructure in the sense of, like, cables and connectivity, but we are having issues in the lack of regulation.
Also, because we don't have, like, an empty field ministry that is in charge of ICT, we have a lot of multiplicity of entities involved. And, what is happening now, it's like they are -- that's why I said, sorry, that we have to, like, we need a clear separation and depiction of function, because what is happening is like the same people that are formulating is the same people that are implementing the rules, and then you have this conflict of interest. So, that's why we need to have, like, the functions separate clearly, and also we have to have this multistakeholder discussion and dialogue exactly for what Johannes was saying, because this is not only about the technologies of Deutsch, it includes health, transport, the case of logistics. So, we need on have everybody on board.
And, we are also what -- well, Panama's issue is like we are having lack of knowledge. And, our regulators, they are not -- they are not really conscious of what is happening, like in terms of innovation. That is why we were saying that we need the Civil Society and we need the academia involved, because we have, I don't want to say more information than them, but it's clearly that we have a different vision and we are -- we can only -- and we only -- we can see some other aspects that normally the regulators, they are not used to or exposed. And, I really like your information and I think you need to and we are going to work on that, that we also have to, because now we have having this issue with Uber, as well with other countries, and what is happening now is like our regulators, they don't have the knowledge and they don't know how to take to really innovate and, like, transform the laws that we have to make it more closely to, well, to innovation.
So, thank you.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you very much. Does any one of the panelists want to jump in and to comment on what our friend from Indonesia and what Johannes from Brazil just mentioned?
Yes, go ahead.
>> Well, Indonesia, great Indonesia experience. I want to comment about Jonas to be honest, how to push this.
Being on the MAG and Arab MAG now. So, we like to hear from our members who are from different countries what things they want us to discuss at the main session, maybe we can follow the same thing, and maybe reach out to the Global Bank members to tell them what we want in the future. In the future IGFs so they can put it on their agenda when they meet. I expect maybe we can send them some messages through the people we know, because some is something important maybe to be discussed as you mentioned in the IGF and in other places.
Thank you.
>> Well, I'm sorry, but what is a regulation? I mean, in relation to what you said and you said. If I go back to this conceptual distinction, which was made yesterday between, I do not mention countries, but liberal and state model, okay, and something in between. Okay. Well, this is not sufficient. It is just a declaration at first step, because if we have a regulation, which is in between, let's say that is possible, that it doesn't solve all the issues you mentioned, because this still can become the regulation on trust. I mean, it still can be just a regulation, economic risk-taking investment issues. It doesn't -- it says nothing about social processes. That is the point. So, all the work has to still be done. That's my point.
>> MODERATOR: Okay. Thank you. We are actually at the top of the hour, and we have to close this session.
There is a lot that has been discussed, and actually, to be really honest, these NRI sessions tend to be a bit un coordinated and generally they end, and I'm going to put it for the record, they tend to bring a lot of people that present specific ideas and luckily there was something in common between those approaches that was glued together by the idea of trust and confidence in the end, so we had a sort of policy instrument on the one hand and then we had policy project and policy technology areas which should be the focus of digital economy, and we had a very good discussion on social trust and confidence, but I think that as a final word, I have to say that for next year, we will have to give ourselves the national NRI, national and regional IGFs a better thought on how to structure sessions which are not merely panels and which are different projects, they come here and present their different perspectives on a specific topic.
If I'm not mistaken, last year some of us contributed to the MAG retreat and the taking stock process by saying that regional and national IGFs, they should come to these meetings of the IGF, not to run panels and roundtables, but to have happened on activities in order to build things together, and I think that the way that this session presented itself today is one of the proofs that we will have for furthering discussions on how to make these face-to-face meetings something a bit more productive and more effective in order for us to advance the collaboration that we have, the dialogic collaboration that we have.
I thank you very much for being here with us, I thank you very much for the panelists, and I hope that you all, if you have an opportunity to provide input and feedback on this session, it will help us streamline what actually is intended for the cooperation of national and regional IGFs.
Thank you very much.