NINTH ANNUAL MEETING OF THE
INTERNET GOVERNANCE FORUM 2014
"CONNECTING CONTINENTS FOR ENHANCED
MULTI‑STAKEHOLDER INTERNET GOVERNANCE"
03 SEPTEMBER 14
MAIN FOCUS SESSION: TOWARDS A COMMON UNDERSTANDING OF NETWORK NEUTRALITY
The following is the output of the real‑time captioning taken during the IGF 2014 Istanbul, Turkey, meetings. 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.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. We will start shortly, but we do have speakers that speak in other languages than English, and our Chairman will speak in Turkish so make sure you have headphones for interpretation. If you haven't picked them up, you still have time to go and pick up headphones. Thank you.
Good afternoon again.
>> GALIP ZEREY: (No English translation)
They will make sure that we have interactive discussions, and we also want to bring in participants not just prenotified discussions as much as possible. So in order to get through, we obviously have to be very strict with time. I had hoped to have a timer up for everyone visible, but for some reason, that was not possible.
So we have a human timer, Nick Augustino. He works for the Secretariat, and he will put up one arm at 30 seconds left and two arms when there are no seconds left. Then we will ask you to stop and that will be my main task to make sure that we stick to the timeliness where the discussion leaders will lead the substantive parts of the discussions. Before we go into the discussion, it is my privilege and honor to invite Commissioner Mignon Clyburn of the U.S. Federal Communication Commission to give her regulatory perspective.
>> MIGNON CLYBURN: (No English translation). How pleased I am to be in Istanbul. The Chairman will forgive me if I applaud, but he probably did the translation anyway. I am not aware of any other successful product or platform with such a low barrier to entry that can produce such incredible equality than the Internet. That is why we are all here, correct? The United States is firmly committed to a free and open Internet, grounded in three fundamental principles, transparency, no blocking of lawful content, and no unreasonable discrimination.
I am happy to say to you that this is not new to us. Since the Bush administration we have been committed to an open platform. Every citizen should be able to engage in free and open exchange of ideas. For the Internet is the preeminent engine for innovation and the economic and social benefits of our century. It is fundamental to democratic society, free speech, civic engagement, education, healthcare, and more.
Educators now have more leverage to provide the best digital tools and learning for their students. Healthcare providers are better able to treat their patients no matter where they live, no matter how much money they make. None of this will be able to flourish and occur on a widespread manner if services and content are discriminated against or blocked.
The future of the Internet and the promise it holds will be threatened, however, if it does not remain free and open. Without the protections of a free and open Internet, large players will be allowed to stifle innovation. Those with deep pockets will be able to quash new ideas. And free speech and democratic ideals will undoubtedly suffer.
The President highlighted the importance of maintaining this free and open platform at the recent U.S. Africa Summit in Washington, D.C. He pointed out that it's important to avoid differentiation and how accessible the Internet is to various users. Over the past year I have noted that there have been inaccurate reports that the United States Federal Communications Commission has abandoned open Internet and that we will allow big players to quash innovation from large, from new entrants, and we will allow Internet service providers to restrict access to legal content.
This is absolutely not true. Transparency, no blocking of legal content, no unreasonable discrimination. These are principles that we hold fast to and that we will defend vigorously in court. Now, the court did agree that F.C.C. has the authority to preserve a free and open Internet, and agreed on our policy reasons for doing so. Now, we have to determine how best to proceed in light of a court decision that did take issue with some of the platforms or the structure in which we used to do so. This may not be an issue facing other nations, but this is a court decision that is strictly related to the legal framework in the United States of America.
So after that decision was rendered, the F.C.C. moved quickly and adopted a notice of proposed rule making in May of this year that proposes to protect an open Internet. The notice confirmed and reaffirmed our commitment to this open platform, and it embraced these principles so we are not walking away. We are reaffirming.
We made it clear that a free and open Internet is too important to be left to chance. And we moved decisively to propose these rules. The May notice 6 comment on different approaches to insure that the Internet remains open for innovation and expression while protecting certainty and predictability. Let me emphasize that the May notice contained proposals and not rules.
We are securing and getting comments from the public and we will issue hopefully by year's end final rules after considering all of this input. So thank you for the opportunity to be able to speak with you, and I will entertain any questions when the time is allocated. Thank you.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you, Commissioner. And now we will move to our substantive discussion and we thought of putting our discussion leaders more in the middle of the room to make it more interactive and make it easier for them to interact with you all. So please, I ask, Sally Wentworth and Robert Pepper to move to the tables at the end of the U‑shaped head table so you can interact with all participants and we will have discussants. There have been last‑minute changes to the programme as some people who are listed speakers had to cancel their participation at the last moment for various reasons, so we have now Sally is a discussion leader.
She was previously listed as a discussant, and Robert Pepper was always listed as a discussion leader. He is Vice President for Global Technology Policy for Cisco and Sally is Vice President for global policy development with the Internet Society. And then we have discussants, we have ‑‑ may I ask the discussants to lift your arm so the people can see you when I mention your name. Prabir Purkayasthia, Delhi Science Forum, Adam Peake, researcher, GLOCOM and a professor in Tokyo, Alejandro Pisanty professor at National University of Mexico, and we also have Jeremy Malcolm as a respondent from the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
Please, Sally and Robert, and we said that the discussion leaders will be given three minutes for the introductory statements and then discussions will have two minutes. Who will start? Robert, please?
>> ROBERT PEPPER: Thank you very much. You also have Mr. Bram Tullemans who will be a discussant as well from the EBU right here. Thank you very much, and this is a, really it's an honor to be here, to be part of this main session and I thank the host from turkey for a terrific organisation and planning for this IGF.
As Markus pointed out when we were in Sao Paulo for NETmundial, there were a couple of things we agreed on when it came to the open Internet. First, in the principles coming from NETmundial, it said the Internet should be preserved as a fertile and innovative environment based upon an open system architecture with voluntary collaboration, collective stewardship, participation, and upholds the end‑to‑end nature of the open Internet.
And then in the going forward part of the document, the second document, which is the roadmap for issues, points to be discussed beyond NETmundial, the principles while it said that there's not agreement on not necessarily net neutrality, there was approval of open Internet and individual rights to freedom of expression and information, and then it went on to identify five important components of the open Internet.
It's important that we continue the discussion of the open Internet including, number one, how to enable the freedom of expression, two, competition, three, consumer choice, four, meaningful transparency, and, five, appropriate network management. And I think it is a really good way to have a fruitful discussion about net neutrality and the open Internet because it raises the right balance of questions.
The phrase net neutrality has been used in different context in different ways in different countries, and we may end up agreeing on some definition, but people come to the discussion about net neutrality and open Internet from different perspectives, different lenses. So I always try to start with a question what's the problem you are trying to solve for?
Many people in Civil Society focus on the freedom of expression, and it was very purposeful that freedom of expression was the first component piece of the open Internet in the language coming from NETmundial. In the United States we are very lucky. We take freedom of expression for granted because of our First Amendment. Not every country, not every people has that ability to take that for granted. You can't.
So freedom of expression is extremely important. So there is some important questions that we are facing. And as I mentioned, there is network management. So there are some things that we know. So from the, from what we know about network traffic, right, it's becoming much more complicated, the number and diversity of devices being connected are requiring different types of connections that need to be application, device and network aware, and we also know that traffic is not even, that everyday peak traffic exceeds average traffic by 3.5 times.
And until we reach the utopian world of fiber everywhere, networks that are managed today are going to have to be managed in the future. And the question then is how do we make it possible to have an open Internet that is pro consumer, pro competition with network management and how do we avoid the false choices of an either or world? Thank you. Sally.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: Would it be possible for those who organize the Webcasting to have the scribes, the live transcript up on one of the screens that we don't have the picture on both screens, please. We would be grateful if you could change that, Sally.
>> SALLY WENTWORTH: Hello? Good afternoon, everyone. I'm Sally Wentworth for the Internet Society, and I would like to join with Bob in thanking all of you, thanking all of you for joining us today. It's a very big session which I think demonstrates the interest in this very complex but very timely topic.
I would like to thank our hosts from Turkey, and also the Commissioner for her opening remarks. What's great about going after Robert Pepper is he says many of the things that I would have said. I think from the Internet Society's perspective, we begin from where we would like to end up. We believe firmly in a global interoperable network of networks called the Internet.
We believe that users should have the ability to access the lawful content of their choosing, that they should have choice in their providers and in the environment, and that there should be transparency in that relationship between the end user and their provider. Those things are very nice to say, and very complicated to achieve. They are complicated to achieve from a policy perspective, they are complicated to achieve possibly even in a technical and commercial perspective. So I agree very much with what Robert said in terms of NETmundial offered an interesting breakout of the issues without possibly getting as caught up in the labels.
And I think that might be an interesting place, certainly, for this IGF to start, and also for our discussions as we go back into our local environments where this issue is increasingly one of discussion within the Internet community and beyond. So this session here we are supposed to talk about the technical issues. It will be interesting to see if we can do that. We are also dealing with some of these cross‑cutting issues, the development, the regulatory matters, but we also have sessions following us here that will delve more deeply into the economics and the regulatory issues.
But there are tough questions here, and what is the role for organisations that can help us create greater transparency in that relationship? How do we measure the quality that end users are receiving? How do we do that in a way that continues to promote innovation and global interoperability? These are not easy questions, but I think it's really, really important that a Forum like this that brings all of the different perspectives to the table take this on.
So we are going to lead a discussion here now on the technical issues. There has been a number of questions that have been raised, and I think they are in the background document here. So we are going to turn to our discussants and then open the floor for hopefully a very multi‑stakeholder enriched conversation about some of these thornier technical issues that will help illuminate the conversation we will have later about the economic and policy matters.
So thank you, and, Bob, maybe you want to lead the discussion?
>> ROBERT PEPPER: One of the things I was told is that the acoustics are not great, so even when the microphone is turned up you may not be able to hear, so I think using your headphones even if you don't need translation, I think, will help.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: One thing for the speakers, go as close to the microphone as possible. It makes a difference, eat the microphone.
>> ROBERT PEPPER: Our first discussant is Bram Tullemans from the European Broadcasting Union.
>> BRAM TULLEMANS: The EBU is a union of more than 80 members, mainly public service media. So the words freedom of expression and transparency are very important for our members, and what I would like to say is that we see that radio and television is different now. It's not only audio and video anymore. It's also about Internet. Internet is integrated into it.
There are synchronized services that allow you to see on your tablets what is happening on television. You can have parallel discussions on it. You can see on the moment video programs you want to look whenever you want wherever you want on different devices, and this synchronicity is very important for us, and also makes it very difficult.
So if I look at video and technical things we have to do now, it's that we have to deliver over the Internet vast amounts of video, for example, that could create a problem, the Olympic games or the World Soccer Championship, we have to make a good approach with all of the service providers within a certain country, and even then you see that we reach the limits of what is possible.
So coordination is very needed. We have, we have to take into account that we work over the Internet with all different providers in the chain. You don't know them always, so we work with adaptive video codecs that can pick up and switch down connectivity. But the brig problem is all of the synchronicity has to be delivered to the end, and passed through. And that's a main problem here.
>> SALLY WENTWORTH: Thank you. I think that's an important comment in terms of coordination and how we, how we better understand what the needs are of the different parts providing the content. I think I have to understand. Our next speaker is Prabir Purkayasthia.
>> PRABIR PURKAYASTHIA: Okay. I think this mic should do and I will try and eat it. Okay. Now, I think that I would like to put a rider on the issue of free speech what was said earlier and legal speech or legal communication and I must say that the U.S.A. or people from U.S.A., free speech is best in the U.S. and actually free speech as defined in European and Indian law would be a problem for your law. So there is a difference between what you consider good freedom and what others may consider good freedom of speech.
And we must also bring into the issue the fact that there are also copyright laws which are very, very strict in the United States, more restrictive than most other regimes, so there are problems in looking at it in the version of the United States if we will, just as a caution.
But coming to that neutrality debate is not so much about freedom of speech as the right to access, which will preserve the freedom of speech, so add that layer. What we are talking about that we must have access which is not restricted technically because of the way the network has been configured or managed. And I would suggest that, therefore, the net neutrality issue is really connected to how people get access to the network, the preferential or discriminatory access to the network in the long run may freeze out free speech.
So we have to configure that at the architectural level and I would quote Lawrence Lessig on that, architecture is law, that what we are talking about in this context of net neutrality is architecture will be actually the law if we are not careful about it. So we need to focus on having an architecture which will not freeze out access because it's configured in a particular way.
I think that's an important issue for me. And the second point I would really like to make is what was talked about Internet being an end‑to‑end service. Now, unfortunately, when you get Facebook, when you get a whole bunch of other services, which are really in the middle, not at the end‑to‑end level, then we get the second level of problem which we are talking in net neutrality. Thank you.
>> ROBERT PEPPER: Thank you, Prabir, and we will come back to those issues. My only point wasn't to be proscriptive but just to say that one reason why the issue is not always highlighted in the discussions in the U.S. Adam Peake is our next discussant.
>> ADAM PEAKE: My name is Adam Peake. I work for the research institute in Tokyo. So I will begin with an example from Japan and a couple of examples from the telecommunication business law which regulates the market in Japan and noting that the regulator does have authority over the sector, which is interesting. Anyway, two examples from the telecommunications business model that I think are relevant to this and hopefully useful.
One is an article that talks about fairness of use, and simply it says that any telecommunications carrier should not discriminate unfairly in providing telecommunications services. I don't think that's unusual. I think we see that in common carrier law in the history that goes around. The other that is relevant to the section we were talking about technology is another article which mentioned secrecy of communications and to quote that, it says "The secrecy of communications being handled by telecommunications carrier shall not be violated" and there is an example here that is relevant to network neutrality.
A couple of years ago one of the major ISPs was providing access, a Wi‑Fi access point from a convenience store, so a small Supermarket with a cafe, so on. It was found that if you accessed the Internet from that particular chain of stores, you would not be able to access the Web pages of competing stores. And the ISP was taken to task by the ministry over this and they didn't use the fairness doctrine that they could have done for non‑discrimination, but instead they addressed the security of communications aspect.
And that brings us to the notion of deep packeting inspection. The only way that the ISP knew where you were going and where you were looking at while you were going to the wrong convenience store was because they were examining that particular set of traffic. And so they were, they got their wrist slapped basically under the secrecy of communications clause of the Telecom Business Act. An industry study that went into a guideline on packet shaping and network management actually found in a questionnaire to members that a very sizable percentage of their members were actually violating this particular provision. So it's one I thought I put on the table as an example from existing law of how deep packet inspection and how we manage our networks can affect in different ways.
>> SALLY WENTWORTH: Thank you, Adam. And our next discussant will be Alejandro Pisanty from the National Autonomous University of Mexico.
>> ALEJANDRO PISANTY: Thank you, Sally. Can you hear me well? This is Alejandro Pisanty. Network neutrality from a technical point of view in many ways is paradise lost. The network, the Internet stopped being peer to peer, computer to computer very early in its history. Networks are very heavily managed right now in many layers. Networks are heavily managed these days in many layers and in many ways and in different forms.
When you go to Developing Countries, the arrangements are even more different because you may have a very competent provider in the middle between Developed Countries and the developing ones and then a monopoly low tech company providing the last mile to the user. Multi‑stakeholder expert enriched approach is required to define what a network neutrality problem is within each country within its legal framework and tradition and user demands or citizen demands and that should happen before and during the formal legislative and other law making or rule making processes.
Technical perspectives will allow to confine the constraints to innovation that telecos, cellcos, ISPs and consumers and innovators face. From a technical point, the technical mind, the layers principle must keep in mind to discover the site of the decisions and site of their execution which may be several layers below. You may want something for free speech, which is almost a layer 8 decision and has to be executed at the fiscal layer. In Developing Countries the technical sector may be the best developed followed by the commercial and regulators.
Civil Society must be talking to their engineers to make clearly defined demands that cannot be easily dismissed as naive or ignorant by the technical or lawyers in Governments and companies. The technical tools that can be used to provide transparency about the behavior of the network against monopolistic or other arbitrary practices will make a difference. They should be widespread in Developing Countries and elsewhere. And understaffed authorities may not have the inspection power that users will have.
Finally, we must move away from a few that is of network neutrality that is only web centric, and is centred on a consumer, on a condensed consumer point of view and look at producers of much more things than content and political videos which I don't want to dismiss, but there are many other forms of producing Internet that are critical for development.
And the final point, we must be careful not to copy. Critically what is happening in Developing Countries, we don't know if the U.S. will mess up the Internet by going to Title II of your specific laws, but we must be sure that we don't bring the Government in before we know what the intervention will do at the technical level to the Internet altogether.
>> ROBERT PEPPER: Thank you very much. Our final speaker is labeled as a respondent.
>> JEREMY MALCOLM: As a respondent I don't have prepared remarks. It was such diverse range of views that I'm not sure where to start, but I'm going to look at the question with which we opened, which was about identifying principles and defining net neutrality, and so both Robert Pepper and Sally Wentworth referred to NETmundial's list of issues which are about enabling freedom of expression, competition, consumer choice, transparency, et cetera.
These are not really a definition, and Robert said maybe we need to go on to agree on a definition in the future if that might be possible. I agree that that would be a worthwhile endeavor, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation is working with other Civil Society organisations in a new coalition that will be launched next month at The Web We Want Festival in London where we are going to try and do that. We are going to try and work out a definition that we can all agree on.
But it's interesting that everyone who spoke gave some hints about that. So Prabir Purkayasthia talked about the preferential or discriminatory access as a touchstone. Adam spoke about in Japan, the fairness of use and the secrecy and security of communications. The F.C.C. principles of transparency, no blocking of lawful content and no unreasonable discrimination were referred to. And for me a fifth perspective, we have a little set of principles against blocking discrimination amongst applications and no special access fees.
So it's a bit mind boggling to try and reconcile these into a single consistent definition, but I think it's something we should attempt, so I'm looking forward to the IGF playing a part in that. Perhaps we can refer this issue back to the main session next year and see if we have made any progress. It seems I have 30 seconds left. I will respond to what Alejandro said about the reclassification and being worried if the reclassification under Title II in the U.S.A. would break the Internet.
We certainly hope if won't, but for that reason we are asking the FCC to constrain its authority to forebear, to use the technical term, from regulating the whole of broadband services under Title II, and rather to confine itself to the three specific net neutrality problems that I referred to of blocking, discrimination amongst application and special access fees. So we think if the F.C.C. does forebear from exercising broader authority that will reduce the risk of it breaking the Internet as Alejandro said. Thank you very much.
>> ROBERT PEPPER: Thank you, Jeremy. If I could do a time check, Markus, how much more time do we have for this part, the first third of the session?
>> MARKUS KUMMER: Actually not doing badly, I think.
>> ROBERT PEPPER: Good.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: Let's have discussion, and that was a look to our remote moderator, John Walubengo, is anything happening?
>> ROBERT PEPPER: I wanted to go to the remote first.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: I think we can easily have another 25 minutes.
>> ROBERT PEPPER: What we want to do though is instead of just having sometimes random questions, whatever the question is, let's take five minutes and try to drill it down on a particular question, and that, I think, may be more productive. There were a number of questions listed as part of the background material. And I'm just going to go through those and then maybe go to the remote. What are the technical and economic factors in transmitting data across the Internet? This is the technical session.
Prioritization and how it affects time sensitive applications. In terms of applications that are more either time sensitive or sensitive to latency, prioritization of an ISP service, and its impact on available bandwidth for other services. We have already heard about deep packet inspection. And then the question is how to both define and enable appropriate network management. So those are some of the questions that were identified in the prework for the session, but we can delve in other issues as well. So is there anything on the remote with a question or should we go to the room? Let's go to the room.
Any question that the group wants to raise or a line of discussion that people would like to pursue? Go ahead, Chris, but, remember, you also are going to have an opportunity as a discussant later.
>> CHRISTOPHER YOO: I will make it a real question. In the infrastructure panel a question was raised about certain, the question about prioritization. Two technologies in particular were raised, voice over LTE and IP television. To what extent do those depend on specialized services or some type of prioritization to effectively provide service?
>> ROBERT PEPPER: Bram.
>> BRAM TULLEMANS: A TPE is a specialized system. It's a closed system. It delivers from video content in the service providers' network to the end user, and you have to subscribe for it and there are no links, so it's really a closed system. So this would be a real candidate for a specialized service in that sense, and they are delivered over the same pipe. And they do coincide together now on the same pipe that works, but with regard to transparency and net neutrality, you would like to have a situation where the end user can see what is used for specialized service and what is available for the open Internet that would be my go for it.
>> AUDIENCE: I'm an editor of Utopia.EU, think tank and web magazine on digital society. My question is network neutrality seems to rely on the assumption that the infrastructure is an independent third party operation. Is that still the case? We see a development in the direction of centralization with the Cloud services and telecom operators running their own services and content delivery networks and such. So there is a technological development and business development of the networks. At the same time there is a trend of defragmentation where we can have local networks set up for mobile phones, et cetera.
So how do these trends of fragmentation and centralization influence the premise for the discussion on network neutrality?
>> ROBERT PEPPER: If nobody else wants to take a crack at that, I'm happy to at least start. So we have always had the specialized services. CDNs are Content Delivery Networks which are specialized networks and services for mostly video. Over the next five years 80% of the traffic across the Internet is going to be video.
So we know that. We also know that even in mobile services, 90% of the traffic is going to come from the Cloud. So but there are multiple Cloud providers, there are private Cloud, there is hybrid Cloud, there is public Cloud, and one of the trends that we are seeing are the interconnection of Clouds and the sharing of data across Cloud, and it's called data orchestration. What you want to do is move the data where the processing is available so that you can rapidly get what you need, and the networks have to be very agile to do that.
But it does not necessarily require that it all be vertically innovated. What we are seeing globally is a wide range of Cloud operators, a small number of them, very small have anything to do with the network service providers. So we are seeing both of those trends that you identified.
>> SALLY WENTWORTH: And Bram had a comment as well.
>> BRAM TULLEMANS: I understood the question also as part of relating to the vertical integration of the access provider who is becoming more, the big ones are becoming also tier one providers. When we are talking with the service providers on a national level for delivering of the content for the World Soccer games, for example, we talked to one division and we have peer relations with them, and the other division, they are doing trend set delivery, and they are not, they were not integrating. They were not talking together, but more and more, there is a fight that they don't want to have private peering anymore and that fight is a bit causing the tension around the net neutrality debate in that area.
>> SALLY WENTWORTH: Prabir Purkayasthia.
>> PRABIR PURKAYASTHIA: I think that's an important question. Are we getting into a situation where we are no longer talking about this end‑to‑end service being really one that goes from a common infrastructure as it were, and network neutrality being applicable only to infrastructure, but are we also seeing platforms emerge in the middle. And, therefore, you have also requirement that those platforms also be quote, unquote, neutral. So are we really talking about if somebody is offering Cloud services then should we also talk about platform neutrality as it were.
As in something which compliments network neutrality in the real world where it's no longer end‑to‑end service where the middle has become as important as end‑to‑end service.
>> ROBERT PEPPER: Alejandro, you had ‑‑
>> ALEJANDRO PISANTY: Thank you, Robert. This is Alejandro Pisanty. Very briefly, the setting of many of these questions, the way they are set is something we should think twice. We start speaking about the Internet and the network neutrality as an enemy or a friend of innovation, enemy or friend depending whether you are talking from teleco point of view or developers point of view, but very quickly we drift in I want to see Netflix. Well, which to begin with is a first word problem. You are not looking at the Internet, you are not looking even at the teleco which was providing you with circuits. You are actually going back to broadcast quality delivered through a very complex network that is best effort.
So, again, this is not a case of be careful with what you wish because you may get it. It's be careful with what you want to wish because you should better define it before fighting for it.
>> LARRY DOWNS: Hello, Larry Downs with Georgetown University. Thank you for this wonderful session and these interesting discussions. One of the things that's concerned me is when we talked about a lot of the exceptions that we have built into the network, whether specialized services or co‑located services or CDN or peering or transit, one of the things that concerns me is this is not an exhaustive list. It's not a list that's exhaustive for the future.
In the 2010 net neutrality proceeding of the F.C.C. there are a dozen widely exempted practices and technologies, but, of course, that world has changed since then. My question for this group is how do we make sure that whatever we do from a regulatory standpoint we leave open the opportunity to add new network management practices that may not appear neutral but yet are beneficial to all users and don't violate the core principles? Thank you.
>> MIGNON CLYBURN: One of the benefits of the renewed engagements influenced by a court decision is we have four years to look and see if we got it right in terms of high level principles, but you are absolutely right, from a regulatory standpoint, it is important for us to have rules that are nimble, and rules that are forward thinking and rules that honestly leave room for us to ‑‑ I don't want to say second guess, but know that we can't see it all.
So it's really important from a regulatory standpoint to not be overly prescriptive because, again, that not only could be, I don't want to say the death of innovation, but that can hamper innovative ideas, but really hamper regulatory creativity and flexibility. So you are absolutely right on that.
>> ROBERT PEPPER: Thank you, Commissioner. Mr. Aresteh.
>> KAVOUSS ARASTEH: Thanks for this wonderful arrangement. Thanks Turkey for the wonderful arrangements made and thanks to you for these sessions. I have one small question in an individual capacity. I have a question to the distinguished Commissioner. She mentioned no unreasonable discrimination. What is reasonable discrimination? What is the criteria to define a particular discrimination for particular sort of things? Is there any globally in a multi‑stakeholder approach to have discrimination being reasonable? Thank you.
>> ROBERT PEPPER: Commissioner, do you want to handle that one?
>> MIGNON CLYBURN: It is ‑‑ can you hear me? It is a recognition of almost what I just put forth, that there is in terms of network management and the like, it is a recognition that there is a responsibility for ‑‑ when you talk about what reasonable discrimination is, is a recognition that there are management and other types of particulars that will be the responsibility to the ISP that we could ‑‑ that needs to be taken into consideration when it comes to decision making. So he is shaking his head.
>> ROBERT PEPPER: So you can keep going. Can you hear? The hand mic works. Go ahead, keep going, Commissioner.
>> MIGNON CLYBURN: So, again, it's one of those things that we will recognize it and it's necessary to have that flexibility, that dexterity to know that there is an obligation, there is a necessity for a managed network. There is an obligation and a necessity that we can't see and know all things, that there is a responsibility for that free flowing and free management and free exchange, and so the reasonableness, I think, sometimes you would say is in the eye of the beholder.
But it is necessary to have that flexibility because there is no way that we can see and know all. There might be a need for that in order for the public good, the needs and necessity of the public to be taken into consideration, and that's why we gave ourselves a little bit of dexterity as in terms of no unreasonable.
>> ROBERT PEPPER: And Mr. Arasteh, part of that also is in the history and the case law within the U.S. Communications Law. In the regulations it's called Title II for regulation of common carriers. It says that the pricing and tariffs and terms and conditions may not be unreasonably discriminatory. And the reason for that is not all customers are similarly situated. So you might have a very large customer, a large corporation that is a customer. You might have an individual.
You have different circumstances, and that's one of the things that on a case‑by‑case basis, if there was a complaint brought to the F.C.C., that's what the Commissioners would deal with. So it's not a definition that is absolute, but over time with case law, you build case law so that you know what is and what is not acceptable, but that provision is not just about net neutrality. That provision comes from the communications act that goes back to 1934. And so over the years with case law, it's actually worked quite well because it recognizes that not all situations are the same. One size does not fit all, and that you need that flexibility that the Commissioner described.
>> AUDIENCE: Just building on this, what are the parameters ‑‑ what are the parameters one needs, the regulator needs to have in order to begin to Judge if it is discrimination or not, reasonable or not reasonable. So what kind of monitoring? Is it only natural traffic management? Is it social cards and the richness of users, what are the parameters where the regulators decide what is an appropriate act?
>> MIGNON CLYBURN: For me fundamentally it goes back to the public interest in terms of the, the type of practice and the type of expectations we have with that particular, some people would call it a utility. And so I come from long term regulatory background where I dealt with, you know, pure electric, you know, water and gas utility, and I still define my, in terms of my approach to regulation through that lens.
What is the objective? What is the public good? What is this necessity? What has become a necessity? And that helps shape in terms of my definition and my framework.
>> ROBERT PEPPER: We have a question back here now.
>> AUDIENCE: Thank you. I wonder what our primary concern here is. I'm from Minister of Development in Turkey. Is our primary concern which channel should we entertain or citizens or what is the most beneficial for all of our citizens? For example, when a disaster happens and in some part of the country, and in other parts of the country, there are many people watching IP based TV. And this is a problem.
If the people with problems could not communicate because some other people watching too much TV, what is our primary concern? Thank you.
>> ROBERT PEPPER: Thank you. So this goes to the question of priority, and how do you set priorities, Alejandro Pisanty?
>> ALEJANDRO PISANTY: Thank you. This is Alejandro Pisanty. I think that we should look very carefully at some of these problems like the one just mentioned to see where you actually have a network neutrality, network management problem that's reasonably well defined and where you have an even better defined problem of political censorship or deliberate management of the networks to favor some usages or disfavor others. Also what ‑‑ to the first part of the question, what will work best in this country or in any other, it has to be studied inside the country. We are saying that network neutrality discussion globally right now is dominated by the U.S., the United States discussion about what to do with the F.C.C.'s powers that were taken away and may be coming back in some form or reach, and preventing this to go into overreach.
I highly recommend, very strongly recommend to read or listen, to read a paper or listen to a Conference recently given by Scott Markus which defines the origins of the different forms of the network neutrality debate in Europe and in the United States. The sole fact that in one of the continents things like Skype impinge on mobile Internet or mobile providers voice earnings causes a completely different approach, plus ex post and the other issues which I hope the rest of the panel will discuss, but don't copy.
>> MIGNON CLYBURN: One of the things I think you bring to the front and I thought about it when the gentle person to my extreme left talked about access and to me that's fundamentally what we are speaking about. And I differentiate from the cultural norms of each of our nations in what we are here to achieve, because that's why I use the term open Internet and not the, what I call "N squared," because the other one to me gets into a series of debates that I don't think are really especially healthy and open for what we are really attempting to channel and address.
When you talk about openness and a platform, what it means, it's agnostic, and that's a word as a granddaughter of a minister I rarely use, but it's agnostic because that is what we use it for, and what it transmits and transports, that's another series of discussions that I think are best defined within individual borders. But when we are talking about the commonality and the openness of the principles, that's what I always hope we come back to because the rest of it will have the same conversation for the next several decades, and I don't think we will get as far as we would want to.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: In the interest of time management, I think we have come to an end of the first segment, and I would like to ask both Sally and Robert to give their take away from this first hour of discussion. It was an interesting discussion. Is there any way you can help the guys who have to write the report? We have a remote participant. Yes, can you bring in the remote participant?
>> JOHN WALUBENGO: We have had about 20 people on the remote participation. There is one called Seth Johnson who is particularly concerned that the technical people were perhaps talking more about the Internet issues rather than Internet perspective of net neutrality. Then we had somebody called Gideon Rob. He wanted to hear more reports from developing nations with respect to net neutrality. Thank you.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you. That was a concern when you are actually preparing the session that we wanted to make sure we bring in voices from Developing Countries. But over to you, Robert and Sally. Who goes first?
>> SALLY WENTWORTH: I think actually the concluding discussion here was quite useful and maybe will help set up the next session, but this idea of a one size fits all policy solution is probably, certainly not where we would like to end up, but understanding the different components as we said and understanding the principles that we are trying to achieve, I think, is the right way forward. And we talked a little bit about even when we try to define these principles, when we try to define freedom or try to define free expression or access, we mean different things.
So having that conversation initially before we get to prescriptive results, I think, is really a very important outcome. We are all over the map, I think, on some of the technical issues, but issues related to prioritization, specialized services, deep packet inspection, all of those things were touched upon as things that will ultimately affect where we end up on the policy front with respect to net neutrality. So I think it was a very productive discussion and one that can help inform the next panel that comes up.
>> ROBERT PEPPER: So, Sally, when I started off and you said it's always difficult to follow me, it's very difficult to follow you because that's basically what I was going to say. I think from this discussion what we saw is that it's very difficult to pull apart and separate the technical, economic, and social issues because the conversation was technical, but it also is about the economic, how do we differentiate what is reasonable or non‑reasonable, unreasonable discrimination, that could be an economic impact, it could also from the public interest perspective be a social impact.
So it's difficult to pull these apart. And I look forward to the next two sessions, and then maybe at the end we will able to, you know, come away with something a little more coherent. So thank you very much, and thank you for your participation, and very much thank you for the remote participants. The question that Seth asked is one that we were discussing online, which is the intranet versus is Internet. It's the question of network management within networks, between networks, among networks, right, and that actually is a very important question at both the technical and policy levels as well. So thank you very much. Turn it back to you, Markus.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: Thanks to you both and can you hand over the microphone or leave the microphone where it is, and Vladimir Radunovic and Pablo Bello will pick it up from there. Vladimir Radunovic is coordinator of eDipolomacy educational and training programmes of the DiploFoundation. Pablo Bello is Secretary General of the Latin America Association of Research, Centers and Telecommunication Enterprises and he is based in Montevideo, Uruguay.
And the discussants for this section will be Andrew McDiarmid, Senior Policy Analyst for the Centre for Democracy and Technology, Washington, D.C., Scott McCullough, who will try to come in remotely, he was planning to come to Istanbul but he had a last minute impediment, and Christopher Yoo who is here in the room. And development perspectives will come from Roslyn Layton, from Aalborg University and George Fong who is executive Director and also president of the Internet Society of Australia. Over to you, Vladimir and Pablo.
>> PABLO BELLO: Thank you very much, my name is Pablo Bello. I will speak in Spanish, so I'm sorry for that. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon to everyone. To initiate this conversation, I would like to put a few concepts on the table and a few questions for those who are going to speak after me.
Net neutrality is a principle that is not in the Bible nor in the Koran nor in the Torah. I think it's important to say this because it seems to be a given, however, the introduction that I will make will make a few important points, will speak about the interest and the interests. There are a few myths that are going around about net neutrality, and it's important to debunk them, for example, the packets are all equal, that technically it's not the same.
This is a statement that didn't assess this technical discussion. Innovation is only apparently over the top, but what we see daily is that innovation in the area of the digital ecosystem happens both in services as well as Internet applications as well as in telephone networks.
It is also stated that there is monopolies in the telecommunications network and the fact is that evidence shows that it is not necessarily the opposite. There is competence in telecommunications ever more, and some markets and services on the Internet where competence is a little bit more scarce and often it's difficult to go beyond the service providers and change these, but there are some points where we can all be in agreement. One of the fundamental points that we should be having in our conversations this afternoon is that the fundamental objective that we all have before us is to close the digital divide.
And doing this requires investment in competence and flexibility in marketing so that those who have low incomes are able to have access. And it should not necessarily be a tradeoff between the full Internet that we all like to have and the possibility of incomes, the possibility of low income families having access.
Three minutes. The second point question is how could we do it to incentivize more investment in telecommunications, and I believe this is a very important question. Thirdly, we want the maximum development in the digital system, and this is obvious not only the content should be added value but also the networks that are dispensable for the division of services and we need better and more networks and services on the Internet. We want an open Internet that is free and stimulates innovation and creativity and protects Human Rights and for this we require competence within the value chain. We don't need blockages throughout the digital ecosystem that can mean that there won't be enough competition. It's an important point and these need to be resolved in the communication network.
So what would be a reasonable system that we could establish? And the final question is how can we persuade ‑‑ place the users themselves at the centre of this debate? How can we maximize the possibility for them to choose so that they are not imposed, do not have services imposed upon them. So that users are able to choose themselves which services they want. To conclude with this introduction, I would like to point out the issue of flexibility because we see that in the market, there are services with two faces.
For example, the 800 service, 0800, and this is where you have to pay for the service, and downloading content, for example, books, and the possibility of having access to the Internet through particular applications. The question is this could be a problem for the marketing for services on the Internet and I will conclude by some cases that are interesting to mention. In the United States they offer services for DvT. You pay a monthly $8 and they provide you with a DvT, that you can have at home, Netflix. So why can't we do the same in terms of digital content through streaming? What would be the difference?
The users have already paid for this connectivity, and this is quite clear, but you have paid for the basic communication, but 50% of the downloading of Internet is Netflix and You Tube. And so, therefore, we require more capacity for transporting this, and why should users pay for these additional content? These are issues of net neutrality. Let's not have qualifications on this. We have been ‑‑ let's place this in the centre to promote competition, investment and innovation. Thank you.
>> VLADIMIR RADUNOVIC: Thank you, Pablo. You did put me in the middle of the room by calling the end user perspective so I will try to reflect on this from the end user perspective. I should look at Nicholas. I see this is very serious today. So we are touching upon the economic aspect and I will try to gather the preparations received from all of you in preparations for end user experience, end wallet of end user. I will try to be provocative comments as end user put it, what I as end user want. Don't call me a consumer, call me a user. Citizen, not a consumer.
Internet is not just anything like other technology. Secondly, I want to have a meaningful choice, and that means meaningful or meaningful transparency as well. That means that I am able to know what to do with the traffic. I'm able to understand what you want to tell me that you are doing, but it also means that I need to be able to understand the whole concept terminology.
I need to be educated and have time to go through different options and offers and decide and find the best choice. If I can't do that, that means I don't have knowledge, or I don't have time, then I might ask for a protection by authorities of someone else to help me not to make the wrong choice.
Secondly, the new business model, special services, zero rating, all of those new things that come, I don't really care as long ‑‑ I don't care where the money goes between the industry as long as I have a quality of service that I want, as long as I can access anything that I want on the Internet with this decent quality of service, as long as someone can guarantee that the investments that are going to be put in will both cover the new services and the Internet as I want it.
So I want someone to guarantee that the Internet as I know it will also be invested in through specialized services if these exist. And I want equal chance for new entrants, for new services, for some new Twitter, new Facebook, local services, I want to be able to also access Wikipedia or anything I want. And thirdly, I might ask for some safeguard mechanism. I don't know from who. It might be on a legal ground or legislation to cover the basic principles as Sally mentioned, so basic principles, no blocking, no discrimination, and it might be a competition protection from regulatory authorities.
That is what I would like to see as an end user perspective and experience of the Internet. I'm trying to put this perspective in. I will stop here. Wow, I was shorter. Thank you, Nicholas. I will move here not to tease the camera men chasing me around the room. Let us go through the initial inputs by the discussants and I will start with Andrew McDiarmid, if Andrew McDiarmid is there. He is not on the table. Okay, we move on. Christopher Yoo.
>> CHRISTOPHER YOO: Thank you very much. I would like to take the time I have to try to characterize some of the discussions from the earlier sessions feeding into this about what that shared about the economics. First is in the zero rating panel, there was a number of people who expressed the importance of focusing on the 4 billion people in the world who do not have connections today. For them, the quality of the connection that they get is a second order consideration. The first order consideration is getting connected in the first place.
And in that case, they are, there are two priorities for them, avoiding regulation that makes connectivity more expensive, and second, providing an impetus for people to adopt. What we found is many consumers don't necessarily, they need a compelling app to make them get service, even when it's fairly inexpensive, even in the developed world this is a problem. The F.C.C. did a study and they found out that among non‑adopters, two‑thirds will not adopt at any price. They just don't see the value.
So what they were talking about in the zero rating programmes when you get access to Facebook, you get access to Wiki media, all of a sudden the opportunity to call your grandchildren someplace else can bridge the generational divide and the digital divide and provide a compelling reason for people to try who were not on the Internet to adopt where it's available. This has been working in Turkey, Myanmar, Sri Lanka, Africa, Middle East, many of the countries not currently connected.
There was an emphasis brought up by some of the speakers about the real essence of permissionless innovation is to allow people to try new things, new arrangements no one has seen before. And that's one of the threads that came out from some of the comments on that issue. The other thing that came out very clearly is different countries face different problems, which is some countries have competitive cable. Some countries are extending DSL and they don't have cable. Some don't even have copper and are building fiber, and some are depending entirely on wireless. In fact, what they are starting to see from them they come from different legal traditions, different economic statuses and what we have to have is a very nuanced policy instead of a one size fits all because the different realities in terms of the morality, the economic development requires different responses in different places.
And I think that these are some interesting complexities that have come out of the feeder sessions that should help us inform the economic analysis going forward.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: Maybe a word to explain to those who are not that familiar with the IGF, we have also looked at what are the sessions that have taken place beforehand, and that should feed in to this main session, and there is we listed the meeting of the dynamic coalition on network neutrality that has taken place yesterday and then this morning we had net neutrality zero data and relevant what's the data. That's the session Christopher was referring to and Network Neutrality, a Roadmap for Infrastructure Enhancement. We don't want reports from these sessions, but we are keen to learn what was discussed at these sessions. Back to you is Vladimir and Pablo and we have a remote discussant. Is he on line. Can we loop in?
>> VLADIMIR RADUNOVIC: Thank you very much, we continue with Eric. Eric is not here. We have a problem with microphones. Neutrality, please? We probably went over the zero rate. Can someone help us solve the problem with microphones? And firstly, thank you, Christopher, for adding me some more inputs into the list of end user perspective. It was very valuable and I agree at the first point I want to have a connection and everything else comes. I agree. So is Eric around? Eric around? He is not here. So we move onto remote participants. Scott is remotely. Can we put Scott on line, I mean, in the room?
>> JOHN WALUBENGO: I can hear Scott, but I don't know if the room is hearing him.
>> REMOTE AUDIENCE: I think I'm getting feedback.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: Yes, Scott, we can hear you. You can go on.
>> REMOTE AUDIENCE: I thank our host for allowing me to (inaudible). We got it based on open access. I also comment on competition, appropriate network management, neutral choice, free expression and meaningful transparency, but net neutrality arises naturally in the intranet based policy environment. Under open access you can use bandwidth or access on reasonable terms and offer your own connectivity. If the infrastructure is open, lots of providers will offer their own individual service on it and there is no telling what the users will come up with at the end. Therefore, it must handle anything and everything. It means it must be effectively neutral transmitting packets without delay.
>> VLADIMIR RADUNOVIC: Thank you, Scott. Stay with us, of course. We have two more speakers bringing the Developing Countries, and I'm sure you will help us more with that. We start with the only lady on this part of the panel, which is Roslyn Layton.
>> ROSLYN LAYTON: Thank you, Vladimir. Let me begin to say there are very many perspectives on this issue and I would like to share a few perspectives for myself and my colleagues. My university, Aalborg University in Copenhagen, the Center for Communications, Media and Information Studies, we specialize in teaching about political, economic engineering, social aspects of ICT, information, communication and technologies. We host Ph.D. students and faculty from around the world and we have partnerships with universities in Ghana, Nigeria, India and China.
We work with students in Iran and we have a number of us who specialize in the ICT in Africa. We have recently published this book called the Mobile Story of Africa where we are giving various studies about mobile as it relates to regulation, business models, banking, managing aid, transportation, agriculture and energy. So following our few comments that I have collected from my colleagues through an informal survey and I must add that not all of them have even heard about net neutrality. Some of them knew very little. So these are the comments from those who could make some responses.
First of all, they wanted to point out that two‑thirds of the world is not online. And they believe that Human Rights needs to be addressed not just across the Internet but all media. So just net neutrality discussion that's only focusing on Internet connections is not, is not helpful for all of their Human Rights concerns. Many have emphasized that in their world net neutrality is not a priority. There is not a critical mass that knows this issue let alone can understand or discuss it. The Governments and regulators in their perspective are focused on building infrastructure and it's not practical to address traffic management issues at this time.
A number have pointed to the importance of zero rating programmes as valuable to get people on board and the freedom to try and experiment with these business models. I want to point out Mohammed Hashim and colleagues from the Sudan who are Internet activists. I hope we can get their perspectives during the Q and A session. My colleagues from Iran have pointed out that it matters little if you have a free and open Internet if the content is curated by the Government. In their case they are suffering from police raids of satellite dishes on their rooftops and apartment buildings. Again, not an issue addressed by net neutrality.
In China, those colleagues have observed that the closed model of innovation has been successful to drive adoption and growth. Already by 2008, the Chinese Internet had more users than the United States, today has four major Internet companies, and people are using Internet applications built under these conditions.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: Time is up. Can you wrap up?
>> ROSLYN LAYTON: Last point is that they said to me rather than to impose our developed views of the world and our concepts of net neutrality, that we should better provide general education and principles about Human Rights that are applicable to all media and technologies, and allow the people in each place to adapt what's appropriate for their region and their needs.
>> VLADIMIR RADUNOVIC: Thank you, Roslyn. Just one short clarification for those of you who may not follow the net neutrality discussion. When we mention zero rating, that means that, for instance, mobile operator can give you a package in which Facebook would be zero rated. So you are not paying for Facebook traffic, but you are paying for everything else, just one example. That is what we refer to when we talk about zero rating. Pablo, any comment?
>> PABLO BELLO: Thank you very much Roslyn. George Fong, you have two minutes.
>> GEORGE FONG: Coming from a regional area in Australia, an often used maxim, "less want more need." Loss of providers, loss of net neutrality is not a given, but it's possible. In order to have net neutrality, there must be a net over which there is a capacity to provide choice. Australia is not a Developing Country but in regional and rural areas it displays traits common with some of the Developing Countries and there have been lessons we have learned, sparse population numbers or population cohorts, not capable of supporting traditional minimum revenues or of a socioeconomic status outside of market norms, and lastly, no innate access to capital funding capability with which to build the infrastructure.
Australia doesn't suffer from the latter, from the last point. Australia to give a physical perspective is a small population of 23 million people on a land mass significantly larger than the size of Western Europe. The majority of the population live on the Eastern Seaboard with small communities scattered across the continent. It's a huge logistical issue. Expensive 3G networks in rural areas owned by largely one provider are usually the fall back for communities in regional areas, high speeds, small data quotas. Kids aren't allowed to watch You Tube because of it.
There are disproportionate impacts of the economy from the agricultural mining sectors in Australia and as far as comparators are concerns the Pacific Islands have a population of 3.4 million people spread across thousands of islands and across numerous sovereign states, the largest being Fiji with 156K and the smallest, 10.5. Okay. The physical issues of actually getting connectivity in those areas are very much the priority and not necessarily the issue in terms of net neutrality at the start that follows after we have actually provided minimum capabilities of actually connecting to the net in the first place. Thank you.
>> VLADIMIR RADUNOVIC: Thank you. Okay. We have made the first initial round of comments, I will use Robert's trick. How much time do we have? Where are we now?
>> MARKUS KUMMER: We are doing fine. I think we have another half hour, but that would include the wrap up.
>> VLADIMIR RADUNOVIC: Thank you. So we move onto discussions. Just a brief reminder what were the main topics identified in NETmundial, in contributions and around here, we had discussions about choice, discussions about competition, we had discussions about the specialized services and zero rating on all of the new economic models and the impact on users in Developing Countries. Especially we touched upon or the comments touched upon the way forward for regulation, especially in relation to transparencies and meaning database transparency and meaningful choice. John, do we have anyone in remote space with questions or comments?
>> JOHN WALUBENGO: Not at the moment.
>> VLADIMIR RADUNOVIC: We are opening the floor. We have the gentleman over there. Can someone bring him in the microphone? Perfect. So the floor is open for you. We will take a couple of questions and then reflect, so on.
>> JENS BEST: Can you hear me? So for timing reason, I will keep it short. My name is Jens Best from Wikimedia Germany which is the German chapter from the Wikipedia movement. So just a quick flight from a fictional future to the global and regional realities. I never ‑‑ I don't remember a net neutrality debate on "Star Trek," but maybe Captain Picard and the crew didn't have the problem of some data lines which are too small or too far or too distant that we have to decide if this data has to be free and this data has to be not free.
So but now we are not in "Star Trek" future. We are in our realities today, and in that time, the Internet is still in its infancy. And I would like to remind that this infancy means that we have to take care to keep up some principles, maybe people in hundred years have fun talking about on, when they look back, but I think net neutrality meaning that we take care that data is treated equally, and not only the existing different data horizontally or vertically, meaning different platforms or different ways of, different kind of datas, but also the possibility of ideas put into data tomorrow which then have a disadvantage because they came tomorrow and not today when we decided net neutrality is not important anymore.
So I really would like to pronounce that apart from the fact that I totally accept that it's difficult to bring a fully developed Internet, I can see your hand, that I would like that we not give up too easy on the idea of net neutrality because it's difficult, just because it's difficult to bring the Web around the world.
Entering the Web only by using Facebook zero is not entering the Internet, it's entering Facebook with maybe some ideas going then to the Internet. And so I would like because I hear so many voices critical to net neutrality, and I would like to pronounce that I think net neutrality is important for the Web in its infancy in 2014 regionally and globally. Thank you.
>> PABLO BELLO: Thank you very much. Is there another question from the floor or maybe in the table? Over there, please.
>> CAROLINA ROSSINI: Carolina Rossini, Vice President for International Policy, Public Knowledge. I just would like to make two quick comments that I do think we are going to address on third session focuses on Human Rights, but I want to push back a little bit on the sense that one size fits all. I do believe that we have to come to a common agreement that we do in fact have one principle that does unite all of us, which is the need for neutral networks, and this goes back to the enjoyment of Human Rights online and we will talk about that later. So that size does fit all or does fit all. Of course, things will be molded towards regional context and things.
And another comment, but, again, we are going to talk about later, I'm very worried to hear coming from Brazil, and deeply involved with other movements on access, open access and open educational resources, I am very ‑‑ I feel very patronized when folks say that Facebook zero is enough link. It's the only connection or is enough connection, I should have the Internet. So just two core points. We can discuss more later.
>> PARMINDER SINGHT: I'm Parminder Singht, IT for Change in India. Carry on from what Carolina said about patronizing.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: Can you go closer to the microphone?
>> PARMINDER SINGHT: I'm Parminder and I follow Carolina's point about the zero rating being very patronizing to be spoken of in terms of whether we are trying to get access to the people of the Developing Countries and any kind of access would be good. And I think Developing Country people need access to the Internet, what the promise of Internet was, which was a neutral Internet, and Developing Countries need the neutral Internet because a non‑neutral Internet is dominated by so much of ill content. There is a bigger problem for them for non‑neutral content and it's like saying that they need water, but safe water is not really a concern right now, but they need health information, but it doesn't matter if it come from the quacks because the quality control is adding cost elements to health services.
So one of the examples of what the problem with it is to show a positive thing like Wikipedia accepting to be zero rated on these kind of services, and Wikipedia guys should think if it was early part of this millennium and telecos would have said that Encyclopedia Britannica is being made free on these services whether Wikipedia could have existed at all.
These are the kinds of bigger issues which would not normally be very evident to policy makers, things that we should bring to the table. Thank you.
>> BERIN SZOKA: TechFreedom. I was fascinated by the question about "Star Trek." I thought that was going in a different direction. "Star Trek" is a fantasy world where there is no money or trade‑offs and you get everything for free. So in a fantasy world you could have everything you want and never have to pay for it. In the real world that's not how things work. We had a discussion about this on the zero rating panel. There was a clear set of evidence presented by most panelists that in fact in the real world we have to deal with two very difficult values to reconcile, on the one hand, neutrality and concerns about competition, and on the other hand making sure that we promote adoption by getting people who don't see the value of the Internet on board, getting them engaged and getting them to start using Internet services, and then in term helping carriers build scale to deploy networks out to make services cheaper.
That's the trade off we have to deal with in the real world and precisely since we are, as the gentleman said, in the early days of the Internet, we should be careful about trying to preserve a rigid principle. So contrary to what Carolina said we don't agree on what net neutrality means. And then many people like Scott earlier today and people on the infrastructure panel who are talking about net neutrality but who really mean a return to public utility style regulation giving up on the idea that we are going to encourage competition among different deployers of different networks and agree that we are going to have one network heavily managed by the Government and run as a private utility.
That's a model that didn't work well in the U.S. that we gave up on in terms of promoting facilities‑based competition. That's the model that Google fiber is taking advantage of to bring a third pipe to American cities and one I think is a flexible vision net neutrality would encourage, not discourage.
>> VLADIMIR RADUNOVIC: Without going into discussion about "Star Trek," I would allow the gentleman to clarify what he wanted to say.
>> AUDIENCE: "Star Trek" was made as an inspiration, but as somebody likes to put himself as a realist and everybody else as a irrationalist, I have to say that, of course, it's talking about how we do it today and if this means that we have to find better ways than a commercial only way, then we have to talk about this. And I really don't like if commercial people try to call themselves realists and then telling other people that they are not so realistic because they are talking about "Star Trek." I mean, I really don't like this. So I would really like that we don't do rhetorics here but skip to the idea how to make net neutrality work in 2014. Thank you.
>> ALEJANDRO PISANTY: Alejandro Pisanty here. To the last comment, he is from Wikimedia in Germany, if I understand well. What I think we have to do is this is one of the purposes of the panel certainly is to arrive at least get in our way to better the divisions of network neutrality in order to know what we are actually fighting for when we fight for network neutrality.
To the point of zero rating on the comments made among others by Carolina, and by Parminda, there is a failed assumption there which is that consumers are easily duped or fooled into thinking ‑‑ let's say having access to Facebook and almost nothing else.
What they do in, at least what they see in the Mexican market with thousands of students and other people is they get these zero rate contracts with very cheap access to Facebook and some data, and for everything else they use free Wi‑Fi. So they are using free Wi‑Fi in subway stations where we have it, in parks, at schools or wherever they want or they use the few pesos that they need for the cyber cafe, which is part of the subject even for very poor people because they know how to use it and it is much more efficient than anything else for the business they have to conduct. So there is a false assumption there about thinking that consumers are not smart.
>> PABLO BELLO: Thank you very much. Please.
>> CHRISTOPHER YOO: So I wanted to talk about the idea of a common understanding that all apps should flow equally through the network. In many instances that's not the case. For example, in your cell phone, if you are in a low density or low bandwidth area, they will hold your email and give you voice. Why? Because voice is time sensitive and they will do optimization to make this work.
Our friend Bram talked about this with video. It's what makes the shared media, you can do video with limited bandwidth. We have complained about over the top voice, VOIP. They have higher quality than traditional voice on VoLTE, but they could only do it by reserving bandwidth. So we live in a world, the points that Alejandro Pisanty made, the idea of end‑to‑end has died a long time ago. You may not know it, but reliability on the phone is done through DPI, a process called hybrid ARQ and it's one of the things that just to accommodate different technologies we have had to do different things.
The last comment, one of the remote participants mentioned something about interconnecting and worrying about equalizing traffic between networks. Right now, the Internet consists of 47,000 autonomous systems, negotiating through bilateral independent negotiations. The idea that two packets coming will go with the same latency, pay the same speed and have the same quality doesn't take into account the fact that there is such a diverse environment of 47,000 interconnected networks. That's just not equal under any circumstances and in fact, if you force some form of economic regulation of that and got one price wrong, you couldn't adjust the price later and it would cause traffic to flow through the network in a very strange way, without the ability to adjust it to make it work properly.
>> VLADIMIR RADUNOVIC: Markus, how much time do we have?
>> MARKUS KUMMER: If you could wrap up within 15 minutes from now.
>> VLADIMIR RADUNOVIC: Let's do another 5 to 7 minutes. Nicholas, you are really instrumental there. Let's cut on a minute. Let's be really prompt because we have a high number of comments, so a minute. Carolina, very shortly and then we have Christopher, Adam, right. Carolina.
>> CAROLINA ROSSINI: Just quickly since there was a comment addressed to me by Alejandro, I think it's okay to have free beer, and many know the expression what free beer means. But I think we need freedom and you gave me a very great argument, that's the need to offer complimentary services in some countries so Mexico, Brazil does have a very strong broadband plan that offer state subsidized Internet connection in schools and public spaces, so that's necessary. But I don't know if every country has the capacity to actually offer this infrastructure. So what I worry here is to give free beer without opportunities for freedom. Thank you.
>> VLADIMIR RADUNOVIC: Thank you. Rosy.
>> AUDIENCE: So I want to give you the example of the opposite of zero rating. In a number of universities in Africa, tablets are provided to the students, where Facebook, Twitter are blocked on purpose, and the idea here is that the students are supposed to use the university's property, this equipment to work on their studies, use library, resources, so on. This is actually one of the conditions of using the Wi‑Fi in a number of these universities.
So it may not fall under the net neutrality idea, maybe it does, but this is something that's important to this particular community. The one other thing just to highlight is we know that Human Rights and development are intertwined, that we need to have economic development supports Human Rights and vice versa. We may want to provide free water and that means we want clean and free water for everyone, but that doesn't mean we necessarily need to fill swimming pools. So all of these things are subject to limitations and what's appropriate in the context.
>> PABLO BELLO: Thank you very much. Adam, please?
>> ADAM PEAKE: I just wanted to follow up on Parminda's point and this idea that Wikimedia may not have existed if we allowed the zero rating to exist. I have been doing work with Microsoft education and looking at how network neutrality is considered in the Asia‑Pacific region and the emerging economies there and Roslyn is quite right. You asked the question and very few heard of network neutrality. If you talk about the issues of how you are using these technologies, in particular over the top services, the first reaction of carriers and providers is very much that they, first of all, they want to grab some of the revenue as they were losing some of their legacy services, particularly SMS services and voice services. And when that didn't work out particularly well, what they went on to was partnerships with these services particularly in the Asia Pacific.
It's worth noting that the over the top services are much more sophisticated SAP type applications. You are seeing streaming, blogging services, Twitter‑like services that are integrated streaming voice, I'm sorry, streaming music and so on. But all of these services are only a few years old. I mean, WhatsApp itself is 2009, WeChat, which was 3 million users, Zillo which is a service in Vietnam, and that has 12 million users and that originated at the end of 2011. We really are looking at the potential of when an over‑the‑top provider partners with a carrier, that innovation will be killed because there will not be an opportunity for the new, the new entrepreneur to get on that platform. They simply will not get the bandwidth.
They won't get it within that sort of monthly either free or reduced cost of the service, monthly service fee. So I think it's important to mention innovation in this as well.
>> VLADIMIR RADUNOVIC: Okay. We have Chris and then we have Prabir Purkayasthia and Christopher Yoo.
>> CHRISTOPH STECK: Chris Steck from Telefonica. We are an operator to one of these guys who provide connectivity on the Internet and most of our customers, two‑thirds are Latin America and the other third in Europe. And I would like to say what we want, because a lot of people are saying, you know, we always say what we do not want, but I want to say what we want. We want an open Internet and we want to give as many people as possible access to that so we want to connect everyone. I think this is important because very often we forget the second point.
And as we heard earlier in a lot of parts of the world we have no connectivity with Internet and two‑thirds are still not connected, and that's something the IGF should speak about and what we can do. Now, I want to touch on what we ask for, and that's quite easy, actually. We ask for the freedom to innovate as well, we just want that freedom. We believe that what we see today is an Internet which is very dynamic, and there will be new models coming up, commercial models, and we ask for the flexibility to do that, I mean, of course, supervised by skillful regulator by Mignon Clyburn and others, but the freedom to do it.
There needs to be no prescription because we are in competitive markets. And second, we want the possibility and freedom to manage the networks. I want to give you an example. In the future when you are sitting in your driverless car, I think you would like the information that there is a red light in front of you coming fast to the car. So the idea that everything needs to be treated neutral is just not right. Today there is no neutral treatment of all information on the Internet. It's just a myth.
That does not mean that the end customer experience is worse. On the contrary. So these are two things we ask for. Give us the freedom to innovate and give us the freedom to manage for the sake of end customers. Thank you.
>> PABLO BELLO: Please.
>> PRABIR PURKAYASTHIA: I would start with the opposite that we would not have had telecom in remote areas if we had not regulated the telecom companies and universal service obligations. I would also suggest that when we talk about net neutrality, the implementation is a different issue from the principle itself. Implementation can be in various ways, but the principle and that it should be non‑discriminatory is something which is the first part of net neutrality which should be common across various countries and domains.
So I think that is something we have to build into the architecture of the Internet itself. It does not mean, therefore, you do not do simple common sense things and let the cards crash if you have rival cards, but you should have them on opposite issues. The third point I would like to make, and it's a strong argument I would give, is that let's not talk about priority of rights.
If we look at that that Internet is not a felt right, people say I need food, water, so on. So I think we have to agree that let's not contrast the right A against right B. They are all rights we have to protect. Let's not talk about net neutrality versus other rights and see it as a conflict. They are all rights that have to be met. How we do that is something we have to really, architecture.
>> VLADIMIR RADUNOVIC: Thank you, Markus, timing.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: We risk running out of time. Can I have a show of hands on how many people would like to speak?
>> VLADIMIR RADUNOVIC: Can we do a Tweet? That means a Tweet, 140 characters? Are you able to do that? We start there, we go there. Including white spaces.
>> LARRY DOWNS: Larry Downs, Georgetown University. This is an economic panel, so we had a feeder session on infrastructure and we didn't really acknowledge that we didn't really have a good economic. I wanted to ask Professioner Christopher Yoo if he could talk about the research on the impact of regulation on infrastructure investment.
>> CHRISTOPHER YOO: The ITU studies talk about regulation. You need data. The EU did a mapping study and the U.S. has done mapping studies and it's available at greater length, but the regression analysis shows that infrastructure sharing in the early stages when you had a monopoly and weren't upgrading maybe was a defensible policy. Latter investment gets you the unbundling but not the facilities‑based competition, but when you are building out new networks and we are talking about 25 megabit networks, it tends to deter investment with problems of not getting return. If you invest in ten neighborhoods and you know five will work out, the problem is if you have to share, you will get competition in the five that are profitable and take all of the losses in the five that aren't. Whereas if you have all ten and everyone has to take the risk equally with all ten if they are going to get it.
>> VLADIMIR RADUNOVIC: We have two more Tweets. One Tweet.
>> AUDIENCE: Here is my Tweet. Hashtag network neutrality enough. Is it sufficient to guarantee consumer protection, free competition or fair competition and the innovation? Because in other fields, we use regulation for this purpose. We have health inspectors checking restaurants, we have competition law, we have cosmetics companies applying for permits to sell their products. So why don't we talk about regulation in this space? Hashtag regulation?
>> VLADIMIR RADUNOVIC: Back to you.
>> AUDIENCE: Just a point of clarification. In India the U.S.O. fund did squat for penetration of the rural marketplace. It was done 100% by the private operators without the use of U.S.O. funds.
>> VLADIMIR RADUNOVIC: One last here and we are done.
>> BRAM TULLEMANS: In the end it is sort of a branding question. What is open Internet? What can be sold as an open Internet? And isn't an NCR rating, can a provider deliver in one application a device if he doesn't sell it as open Internet, why not? I mean, who says it's a definition of what is open Internet if you can use to brand and sell things as open Internet or not? Thank you.
>> VLADIMIR RADUNOVIC: Time for a very brief wrap up. We, as Robert said at the beginning, it's really hard to distinguish the three levels and the regulatory also and developing, but I think we managed to bring up some of the or to extract some of the economic aspects, and those I saw the big questions was how do we get service for free and freedoms at the same time? Probably we can't. We have to maybe make a balance, but that's something we need to discuss more. We need both access and freedom.
Secondly, we had a question of how to achieve innovation and investment at the same time, which means that innovation is not stifled including services while the investment can still, or the money flow can still be invested in the public interest services as well. Thirdly, we have a mention of principles and how to protect or how to set up the limit for the third part of the panel.
And lastly, the choice also needs to be on the users whether they want use services, how do they want it, so on. I had one question which we might ‑‑ the question we might leave for next IGF probably will be going more into the zero rate and specialized services and how they can impact the user experience, and the let's say platforms like Wikipedia and all others we touched upon, but I think we have much more to cover next time.
>> PABLO BELLO: Just in order to conclude, when we come down to the specific issues of net neutrality, we note that there can be differences in opinions on this. We do not have broad consensus on this definition, but if we go to the general principles, those that are behind these conversations, that is to close the digital divide, and the Internet be dynamic, and that there be more investment, then we can come to an important consensus.
And one aspect that is important to highlight with regard to what's being discussed this afternoon is that the priority for some countries, particularly Developing Countries, continue to be closing the digital divide. And we must not lose this from our sight.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you very much both to you, Vladimir and Pablo. And we now move to the last segment that is End User and Social Human Rights Perspectives. And we have Carolina Rossini, she is Vice President for International Policy, Public Knowledge. We have ‑‑ based in Washington, D.C., but originally from Brazil. We have Rajan Mathews, Director General of the Cellular Operators Association of India and we have Elvana Thaci, Administrator and Directer General on Human Rights and Rule of Law of the Council of Europe in Strasbourg.
And we have discussants as we had in the previous session, one of them is Luca Belli, University of Paris, he represents Dynamic Coalition on Network Neutrality. We very Dominique Lazanski. We had Berin Szoka, TechFreedom, and for the development perspectives, Ephraim Kenyanito from Access. Is Claud here? Did he make it in the end?
>> ELVANA THACI: He is mediating the copyright panel.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: I was going to announce her. Then we have Flavia Lefevre Guimaraes from Brazil. She is an expert on net neutrality on CGI, Internet Steering Committee of Brazil. Okay, with that can I hand over to you, please? In this is Elvana not moderating?
>> ELVANA THACI: Thank you, Markus, and thanks to the discussant in the previous sessions, segments which made the transition to our segment really easier. So I will just introduce a little bit the protocol, how we think we will organize this session, and then we will proceed with the discussions. We are three discussion leaders. We will make very short introductory remarks, statements, and then we will, we will invite our discussants and respondents to participate in the discussion. Hopefully we will have twenty minutes' time for participation from the room.
So first, just to introduce myself, I work for the Council of Europe, which is an intergovernmental organisation in Europe. It includes 47 Member States, and it has also a Court of Human Rights, the European Court of Human Rights based in Strasbourg. For my organisation the direct link between freedom of expression and network neutrality is well established in standards of the organisation, but also in the juris prudence of the court. In a judgment issued in 2012, late 2012, Elderren versus Turkey, the court said that freedom of expression applies not only to the content of the information, but also to the means of dissemination of information.
We have had also statement by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe in support of the principle of network neutrality, and now we are developing guidelines for our Member States on how to implement the principle. The points I would like to suggest for this discussion essentially relate to diversity and pluralism of information on the Internet.
So there are a couple of questions there. How to manage networks and how does network management affect users' rights to access information of their choice? How to inform users about the impact of traffic management on their right to access information, and how can they challenge a decision about traffic management that they think has interfered with their rights? How can we make sure that preferential treatment of traffic on the basis of commercial arrangements between carriers and content providers does not diminish the quality and affordability of Internet access of individuals.
How do policy choices that we make today influence the pluralism and diversity of information online? So those are my questions. And I now hand over to my colleagues. To Carolina Rossini first.
>> CAROLINA ROSSINI: Okay. Is this working. Thank you. So my task here is actually to relate a lot of this debate with the Human Rights debate. A lot of people do approach net neutrality exclusively from the economic and technical perspective, so the role of this panel is actually to make those links a little more clear for the community we are part of.
So Human Rights as you all know often emerge from the struggling social process at all levels and when I say at all levels, if we are talking about the Internet, we are talking about all of the levels of the Internet, the infrastructure, the application, content and social layer. So we would need to understand what net neutrality means in all of these layers and how managing or controlling or filtering things in these layers actually can impact on a series of Human Rights, but not just freedom of expression, some Human Rights that a lot of times are actually forgotten, the right to assembly, the right of self‑determination. One thing that has extremely important economic impact and that U.S. uses in international trade negotiations such as free flow of information. In the market the big question is what drives investment? And what drives investment is demand. So how can we see Human Rights as an issue of demand? So if you think about freedom of expression and free flow and all of those things, you can think about what was said here on permissionless innovation.
And when we talk about this concept, we are actually talking about the end user being able to innovate on top of all of these layers or within all of these layers of the Internet. So I think it's really interesting to understand how this will affect the regulation that actually will drive market investment in a series of areas. And, of course, as many of my colleagues have pointed, we need to understand that each country has its own context. In Brazil, for example, as in many Developing Countries in Latin America, education is one of, access to education is one of our constitutional rights that, of course, have a traditional Human Rights in the part of civil, political, economic and social rights.
So how can we avoid the fast lanes destroy free flow of information, diverse cultural expression which innovation is a part of and national identity which also increases, which also could increase the wealth, racial and gender gap. So I just want to give this broad view on how things relate, and I'm happy to talk deeper with anybody who wants, but that's my intervention.
>> RAJAN MATHEWS: Hello, and thank you, with regard to net neutrality, I'm speaking principally as the representative of private operators in India, and the term net neutrality is an interesting term. It's like motherhood and Apple pie. We all seem to agree it's necessary but we can't agree on the definition.
With regard to the context of India, I think the challenge that we face is not about net neutrality, it's simply about connectivity to the net, and that is where the significant challenge for us lies, and let me just contextualize what that challenge implies. First of all, we love to be able to give to everybody a place at the table and then tell them that they have access to a wide buffet of services. Our challenge at this point is to make sure that everybody has a place at the table and to be able to give them clean water and food. That's the principle challenge in terms of connectivity issue and the right. And when we look at India in terms of what is the challenge, please understand that we are single threaded in terms of the network.
That means that mobility is the principle network that just about all of the Internet and broadband services will ride. It's only 7% of the total population that has access through landline infrastructure. So all of that is going to have to ride. In India we face the added challenge of scarce spectrum. We have on average 12 to 15 megahertz of spectrum compared with 50 to 100 megahertz of spectrum. That means we need to service 1.2 billion people off 15 megahertz of spectrum, which is a challenge. In addition to that, the Government now auctions all of the spectrum which means all of the networks which are private networks, 85% of the networks in private, and all of the funding which is about 250 billion U.S. dollars is going to have to come from private sources.
So the issue and the challenge is the scare resources, significant amount of investment that have to be made in India that has to be taken in account when we start talking about the whole notion of accessibility. When we look today in India, what we are facing is the whole migration from voice oriented networks to data oriented networks because that's where operators see the whole nexus of the market going. So in that migration a significant amount of resources are being asked for. When we talk about the Internet and when we talk about access, what we find is that operators are having to double every year investment in network as a result of access to the Internet.
Principally it had been a result of a video service and this is causing investors to raise significant amounts of money to keep up with the demand that comes from aggregating and adding people to the Internet. This is a priority. The Government of India says we have to penetrate up to the rural areas. One billion people today have no connection to the Internet and that has to be fixed. That is the fundamental right that we are dealing with, not just the core question of what is net neutrality, whatever the agreement may be.
Two other points I would like to quickly make is the fact that when we look at our services.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: You are running out of time.
>> RAJAN MATHEWS: With regard to those services, we have to manage the network. Gray market handsets are another problem in India which we have to manage carefully on our networks.
>> CAROLINA ROSSINI: So now we are going to pass through the mediated discussion, and I would like to ask some of the discussants to start. The first discussant, yes.
>> ELVANA THACI: Perhaps Luca Belli wants to start.
>> LUCA BELLI: I think it is ambitious to try to define what is reasonable or acceptable traffic management. I think it's much more realistic to define what is unreasonable or unreasonable and inacceptable traffic management. Indeed there are traffic management techniques that have the potential to jeopardize the full enjoyment of end users' Human Rights and those techniques to me should be considered as inappropriate and should be regulated. Blocking legal application or services is an interference with end users' freedom to impart and receive information.
Using intrusive techniques such as deep packet inspection to manage traffic can have serious consequences on the privacy of end users' communications and throttling or prioritizing specific applications or services does not only affect end users' freedom of choice. It also affects end users' capability to freely form their own opinion.
So these kinds of techniques are not worse case scenarios. They are techniques that are applied on a daily basis by a variety of ISPs even in very competitive markets. In 2012 the body of European regulator of communications gives a report on the European market highlighting that 20% of fixed connection and up to 50% of the connections are affected by this kind of restrictions and this data have been confirmed by a survey released by the commission in February. So that means that competition and transparency alone are not able to tackle these issues. They are extremely important, but they are not able to tackle these issues, and that is unacceptable practice, not unacceptable, inappropriate.
Let's call them inappropriate practice should be regulated to establish rules of the road for ISPs and it is not to regulate the Internet, but it is to protect the end‑to‑end Internet and hope that allows end users to be active participants to the Internet and not just users. Thank you.
>> ELVANA THACI: Just to be able to move forward since we have a short time, I would like to pass the word to Dominique Lazanski, but point something really interesting that's emerging through the sessions which is the concept of what is reasonable and what's unreasonable. And I want to call our attention back to what the Commissioner said that these will be defined based on what public interest means for that society in a certain moment of time. So let's not try to define it here because it may vary by time and place.
DOMINIQUE LAZANSKI: So Dominique Lazanski. I am from the GSMA, Mobile Phone Trade Association. We represent over 800 operators worldwide and over 250 mobile ecosystem players as well. So we are well placed to have a look at what's happening internationally, and I realize a lot of the focus has been on the U.S. and U.K. throughout all of the sessions, so hopefully I can provide a little bit of different perspectives.
The future of the Internet is mobile. The future of the Internet is mobile, and there are 2.2 billion mobile broadband connections now as we think, but a theme that's been emerging quite rightly throughout the last three or four sessions I have been sitting in with net neutrality is connectivity. My colleague Rajan as well as Christoph has mentioned, and I'm pleased to see quite a number have mentioned it because that's what mobile operators are concerned about worldwide.
However, throughout all of this debate, there has been a number of misconceptions, and I would like to touch on four from the mobile perspective. One is that users of the mobile industry are our enemies. We wouldn't be in this industry and we wouldn't want to grow the connectivity if we didn't want to do it, and quite frankly, we have focused on our users quite a lot and develop and innovate.
The other question, the other issue is that mobile operators are cash cows. Rajan spoke to this. In the next seven years the entire worldwide mobile industry will be investing $1.7 trillion. Vodafone alone is investing 7 billion pounds by 2016 and that's 50% above what they had planned to invest originally.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: Dominique, 30 seconds.
>> DOMINI QUE LAZANSKI: Two other things I wanted to say is that all networks are not the same and it's an issue I would like to bring up later. Spectrum is our choke point. That brings us to traffic management. Traffic management is not bad, but needed, absolutely needed and we are legally responsible in many cases and bound to the quality of service issues. And so that's where I'm going to leave it and hopefully we can talk about it a bit more. Thank you.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: All right. We now go over to Norberto Berner, Norberto Berner, if you would.
>> NORBERTO BERNER: We have heard about consensus today. Let me suggest what an actual consensus would look like it's not around the words net neutrality. It's, number one, there are real harms to consumers that we might see here and Government needs tools to deal with those. Number two, we should be focused on promoting broadband adoption and deployment at the same time. Number three, promoting innovation at all levels.
So let me take those in turn. First of all, as several people have made clear today, access is a core goal here, core goal both in the developed world where there are many people not online and across the developing world where the fundamental question is how you build out the infrastructure. Our infrastructure panel today didn't cover that at all unfortunately, but I think it's clear on our discussion on the zero rating panel that what we need is flexibility for companies to do things that market to help get people online who are not yet online and to build a scale that's needed to promote broadband networks.
I would suggest that there is a larger conversation to be had about how Government can get out of the way of broadband deployment, can build smarter infrastructure that can lower cost of broadband deployment and avoid returning to regulatory paradigms that discourage investment.
That would be the second point that much of the conversation you have heard is not about net neutrality, it's about returning to tried and failed paradigms of regulations. They are anticompetitive paradigms that presume you have a single network that give up on encouraging competition among networks. My third point would be that we need to focus on promoting innovation at all levels. There is good evidence in the U.S. that sponsored data plans can give new companies a leg up by giving them equal marketing stature with better established companies. And to conclude I would suggest in terms of regulation, Government needs tools, but it also needs appropriate degree of humility. I would applaud Commissioner Mignon Clyburn in what she said about Government doesn't know what all of the future will look like, it needs to be careful about how it regulates.
It needs to focus on policing against harms, and that should start with applying consumer protection law and if we are going to craft special regulations for net neutrality concerns, they should be tailored carefully to real harms. They should be focused on transparency and blocking.
>> ELVANA THACI: Thank you so much. Now, moving forward to the Developing Countries' perspective I will excuse myself instead of starting with Brazil folks where we heard about that I would like to call. Ephraim from Access in Africa.
>> EPHRAIM KENYANITO: I work from a rural town from Nairobi and I would like to point out that these big telecos and ISPs do not know what the users feel like about connectivity, and they should not determine that users should access this or this service and not this other service, so that brings me to zero rating. First, my issue with zero rating would be competition. We find that zero rating limits competition in Africa such that a small set of Facebook from a rural town in Africa will not be able to have the same access, the same platform with consumers, the same platform with the big telecos to consumers in Africa.
Also in competition about the telecos you find out that Facebook, Google, they provide free services, but then it is to insure that people have knowledge, but then for you to click on the links outside Facebook, you have to pay money.
There is a research that shows that zero rating plans have increased data cost and phone sales such that in the end it's still more expensive. We find household spending 25% of its income on data just as a result of some new research. And the second is access to knowledge, culture and linguistic diversity. With these kinds of plans it limits free content from Developing Countries. Not only am I speaking about Africa but other Developing Countries in Latin America and East Asia.
Then about normalization, that's my third point. With these kinds of plans, you find that you have this kind of discrimination is, it becomes normalized such that in Africa recently on August 11th, the South Africa ISP issued a letter telling the committee that network neutrality is not an issue in Africa and we should not discuss about it, but then at the end of the press release, there is a sentence there that if a consumer or a content provider would like to provide prioritized service they should not be banned from doing that by paying for it.
Then to conclude, I would like to add that we think about this issue, about net neutrality in the long term, especially in the Developing Countries. We engage the Global South so we can limit the global digital divide. Because zero rating, it's a short‑term fix, and if you look in the long term, it has potential effects to close the global digital divide.
>> CAROLINA ROSSINI: Thank you very much. Now, please, Flavia. She is the Civil Society elected representative.
>> FLAVIA GUIMARAES: Good afternoon. I'm going to go over briefly the issues that threaten the rights to universal rights to Internet are suffering using Brazil like example. Despite the fact that in Brazil there are some legal instruments that assure regulatory treatment for the service of the Internet access as a universal right, in other words, that should be available to every citizen with quality regardless their social classes. There are serious issues to be overcome in order to achieve the democratization and the digital inclusion.
We have federal constitution, a general federal law of telecommunication, and also the 7175 from 2010 which has established the national plan of broadband. And now we have law enacted this year in April that has stated that the access to Internet is essential for the exercise of the citizenship. Also assuring a series of important rights to the Internet users, especially the ones that verse about privacy, freedom of expression and right of information. This makes neutrality a rule and empowers the multistakeholders community to discuss eventual exceptions to neutrality.
We have also the crucial document which is a result of the national law that makes clear the public character of the Internet access and it's relation with Human Rights. However, the basic of the Internet access is to decentralize it in Brazil. The federal Government resists adopting regulatory posters to guarantee the following arrangements, inclusion of the broadband Internet in the public regime. It would allow the release of billionaire public funds to subsidize the deployment of infrastructure in locations that don't necessarily attract interest of private corporation, viewing the relationship between the necessity, necessity of big investments and the low economic capacity of the citizens. There is an upcoming battle now.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: Time is up. Can you wrap up kindly?
>> FLAVIA GUIMARAES: The last words, please. Aiming the regulation of fundamental rights containing democracy mainly about the exceptions of the neutrality principle which is fundamental to insure freedom of expression, access to information and privacy. It is important to consider that neutrality is as a principle and as a right. Thank you.
>> CAROLINA ROSSINI: Thank you. So now we would like to open for comments from the discussants around the table and in the audience. So if you want to please raise your hands, I'll start here because he has not spoken before, and then I go there.
>> CHRISTOPH STECK: Chris Steck, just another very brief comment. Chris Steck from Telefonica. With respect to the issue here, which is Human Rights, I think, on this panel, again, I would like to see, I would like to explain that there is, of course, from a private business perspective no interest in blocking any kind of expression and to go against freedom of expression of our customers. Sometimes I feel that people feel that this is like something we like to do. We don't like to do that.
These are all customers. We try to keep them in a competitive market and we do not want to block them from saying what they want to say. So this is not true. And I would like to see or ask is if there are cases where private companies have, you know, blocked freedom of expression anywhere, I think it is something coming rather from Government side than from the private sector. So maybe someone can comment on that, because I am getting confused here.
>> CAROLINA ROSSINI: Just let's go like this.
>> ALEJANDRO PISANTY: Thank you, Carolina. There has been a report, one of the previous speakers has reported some points of consensus. I would like also to point some very sharp differences that are remaining after this discussion. It concentrates maybe on the words around innovation and those before rights, et cetera. Everybody claims that there is a specific need around network neutrality and innovation.
Telecos and cellcos are against network neutrality because they say that is against innovation, whereas large OTTs, large Over the Tops and small innovators say they need network neutrality for innovation. We need to find the data and see what innovations are being hampered and which are being helped by network neutrality.
There is a risk that we will not get what we really need which is general open access to a whole Internet by network neutrality agreements. You don't have the most perfect network neutrality agreement and you will still have a cartelization among ISPs or telecos that agree not to perform like opening and closing ports, or just agree among themselves silently. By the time you can prove this collusion (?). A multi‑stakeholder approach can help here. The laws still have to be available. Marco Civil mandates network neutrality, but it doesn't exist yet.
There is one last point that has not been mentioned which is the question about ex ante versus post legislation. In liberal companies and liberal markets, people are happy and countries with common law, people are happy with ex post regulation. You get something, you get told you are wrong, you correct it. In countries in Europe, Latin America and Africa where we have the positive law where the law has to exist before it's broken and then you can be penalized. The companies will always want ex, we get ex ante because it's over prescriptive, but when they do something against network neutrality or competition and you try to get them to regulate, find or changing conduct what you get is they will say I have not broken the law, you are trying to apply the law retroactively and you are in a catch 22 kind of situation.
>> ADAM PEAKE: About innovation, this idea of whether network neutrality is for or against or impacts, there has been a major investment by a major European teleco, a $10 billion buyout of a Brazilian carrier. So they have just invested and bought out the carrier for $10 billion, which is now under one of the strictest network neutrality regimes in the world, the Marco Civil, which we heard about, and it does point to the fact that if you are willing to invest a large amount of money, then perhaps network neutrality is not going to put you off too much.
I understand that the 2010 FCC order is still in place. I think that's the case. Communications investment in the U.S. has been going up since 2010 and we have been seeing not the most favorable economic environment. The rules are in place, yet telecos and communications are investing. Looking at the financial returns of Comcast and Verizons and AT&T, these are extremely profitable companies and their comments to investor relations calls and so on mention specifically the broadband aspects of their portfolios as driving growth.
So I don't think that's not evidence, but it starts to show that perhaps we shouldn't be dismissing network neutrality as being anti‑innovation and anti‑investment. Thanks.
>> AUDIENCE: I wanted to echo something that Alejandro Pisanty was saying. One of the amazing things is how much bandwidth we have been able to wring out of the old twist tie copper and the idea that we are getting more and more innovation out of that with VDSL and pair bonding and vectoring, promising 200 to 500 megabytes and under ideal you can get it big. That directly ties into competition. It's allowed AT&T to compete effectively with cable even though they don't have bandwidth, and that makes the space more competitive. The other comment I would make is we talked about free speech. Free speech means something different in different parts of the world.
The U.S. free speech means freedom from Government interference and regulation. To promote free speech is a self‑contradiction. Other places it's a subsidiary right. I was looking at Twitter feeds. They are saying that there is an access to education issue in India. Right now they are facing a crisis in schools. They are looking to the network to actually, they need access to the network to provide that and they have competing set of rights that have to be balanced against each other.
And in those context how these will play out to say there is a general consensus of how free speech plays in the space is hard to reconcile that free speech means different things in different parts of the world.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: May I briefly as a point of order also say that may the discussion leaders turn a little bit towards the room because there are many people who have not spoken yet and there are many people around the table have spoken more than once.
>> CAROLINA ROSSINI: Let's start here.
>> AUDIENCE: I want to give you a quick overview for your information on innovation. The literature, academic literature and in innovation, please get the second report of the Dynamic Coalition of Net Neutrality. I have a chapter in this, just so you know, the literature of innovation goes back to Adam Smith. There are literally tens of millions of academic articles studying innovation. We love to talk about the principle. It's only cited about 500 times.
There are things like the theory of complimentary assets and the diffusion of innovation theory which are literally cited tens of thousands of times more. So what's important when we talk about these things we shouldn't get caught under the false choice that net neutrality is about innovation on the application layer versus the network layer. These things go hand in hand.
And in here in our case study in Africa we are looking at lots of projects where there may be a health application where we need to put a certain application on the device that will help deploy AIDS management in certain countries or intelligent transportation systems that require us to make, to calibrate the networks in a certain way. It's not neutral, but it is accomplishing the goal that's very important, to facilitate the commerce or the transportation of that region. So I would like to invite you to look at the literature of innovation. It's quite diverse and helpful to understand some of these things. It's not black and white.
>> AUDIENCE: So I'm Medura, from Comcast Corporation, we are the largest ISP in the U.S. and I wanted to echo what the gentleman from Telefonica said. I don't, I mean, for us, we have at Comcast, we have been supporting and we are actually bound by the 2010 open Internet rules. We are entered into an agreement with the FCC as part of the NBCU transaction, so there is some sense sometimes and promoted by certain people that there is some huge fight going on in the U.S. I think most, at least I can speak for Comcast, we are in favor of open Internet and in favor of specific enforceable rules like the one from the 2010 order because we say that because we think that the 2010 open Internet rules achieved a balance between very, very competing goals.
And that's a very difficult thing for a regulator to do, because they have to compete, they have to balance competing goals and those are Human Rights issues of open Internet, good jobs, especially for minority communities who are suffering from jobs which means investment needs to be considered. So that's why we at Comcast have always been in support of open Internet rules. We are bound by it and we are happy to be bound by it, and we think that the process that the FCC is continuing we hope and we are confident that it will lead to enforceable rules. So I think there is a misconception that at least in the U.S., and I can only speak for Comcast, that somehow broadband providers are opposed to open Internet rules. They are not. At least Comcast is not.
>> CAROLINA ROSSINI: We have a line here, and then here, but just one clarification, and I think that's what Flavia said well about the Brazil boilerplate that is net neutrality and the exceptions about that. In the exceptions we are thinking one thing does not exclude the other, but we need to understand what's the rule and what's the exception. Can you introduce yourself?
>> AUDIENCE: Thanks. That's exactly my point. My name is Yanakabahu and I work for the executive secretary of the steering committee in Brazil. And that's the not the first time I hear in one of the sessions in this IGF that Brazil does not have net neutrality as a rule. But I would invite you to read the English version. Marco Civil, net neutrality is a rule. There are very specific prohibitions of discriminations related to the five, the five points which are other, accession, destination, service, application, et cetera, et cetera. Blocking and content filtering is absolutely forbidden and Carolina just pointed out the two exceptions which will be under the process of regulation in the furtherance of this year.
So it is not correct to say that Brazil does not have net neutrality rule. It's up to the court to implement the prohibitions on any sort of filtering, any sort of blocking, and any sort of discrimination, but there is a general rule established according to our legal system and those who are not proficient in the Brazilian legal system should not be spreading this information in public Forums like the IGF. Thank you very much.
>> CAROLINA ROSSINI: Thank you. If you guys are interested I have Tweeted the English version of Marco Civil. I did when it was approved and the version distributed after NETmundial.
>> GONZALO LOPEZ‑BARAJAS: Hi, this is Gonzalo Lopez‑Barajas from Telefonica. Regarding one of the comments that was said this morning in the session, it was from a representative for the Civil Society of Sri Lanka and she said that platform, and specifically mentioned Android and Appsters were identified as a barrier for application development and not zero rate tariffs. And another issue I would like to comment referring the Barik report, I think that competition and transparency is more than enough to guarantee net neutrality. And the Barik report is mentioned that some place in some countries were blocking some services which did not mean that all operators in specific countries were blocking the services.
We have competition and transparency. Those players that are blocking the services will get all of the customers because customers will shift to those providers providing them the best service. So operators we don't have any, we don't have, we are not really ‑‑ we do not want to block the services because the best service that we provide to our customers, the higher number of customers that we will be getting. And I can assure you that Telefonica, a company that has over 300 million customers around the world, we are not blocking neither throttling any service to our customers.
>> RAJAN MATHEWS: By way of clarification to the lady who had said from India. No one has blocked any traffic except under court order or as a result of governmental intervention on the law.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: We seem to have remote participation so as a matter of principle we should give preference to remote participant.
>> JOHN WALUBENGO: We have a question from Alex Cominos from Germany. They would like to highlight increasing threats to net neutrality due to geo fencing of content, and automated copyright enforcement. They say they are currently unable from Germany to access the You Tube live stream of the current plenary.
This is not an issue of the network, but in this case, a content platform You Tube. It does, however, highlight the risks to freedom of speech, access to information, and neutrality of the network posed by automated copyright enforcement. They say they would also like to thank the host country for the excellent quality live stream, and highlight the problem is not with WebEx or the IGF live stream. Thank you. That was the only intervention.
>> CAROLINA ROSSINI: Thank you very much. We have Flavia, Luka and then over there. Do we have any more from the audience?
>> AUDIENCE: This is on zero rating. I'm from India, and I'm Preshant and I'm from a non‑profit organisation in India. So the issue on zero rating, if you look at India more than 90% of people access Internet through mobile devices, and, of course, they are providing something like zero rating is good if you look at it from the point of access. But the excuse given for access, providing access through zero rating, I would say, I mean, in India, Government now gives a lot of services on the Internet. It will be really good if people could access these services, the Government services, the financial services on the Internet when compared to Facebook. Facebook is not that important for a poor person, as financial services which are important. So the priorities have to shift. That's all. Thank you.
>> RAJAN MATHEWS: Thank you.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: We seem to be running out of time. We have lots of people who would like to speak and we said when preparing the session we also at the end would like to look at what role the IGF plays in this discussion. This is one of the questions that were made by the community. So I would suggest then again go to the Tweet format and ask for very, very short.
>> CAROLINA ROSSINI: How long do we have?
>> MARKUS KUMMER: Maybe we can go a little bit into overtime so if you could wrap up the substantive part of the session within 10, 15 minutes, and then have a brief discussion also to this question, what is the role of the IGF in this discussion?
>> CAROLINA ROSSINI: Three or four interventions. Flavia please and then Luca.
>> FLAVIA LEFEVRE GUIMARAES: The president of Telefonica said that the companies don't want to disrespect the Human Rights, but in Brazil, the business model of the companies result in Internet can be, can become fragmented and discriminatory, ignoring the rights of the poorest citizens.
>> AUDIENCE: Can you hear me? Okay. My name is Bishaka Dutta. I live in Mumbai, India, and I want to speak in two capacities, one is I'm a member of the board of trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation which hosts Wikipedia. In that context I would like to say that for us what is extremely important is, of course, access to knowledge, which is why we do enter zero rating agreements with operators where we pay nothing. What I want to actually do is flip the whole discussion a little bit and talk from a slightly different perspective because I feel like when we talk about access for people who are poor or people who don't have the means to pay for data plans and we have many millions, hundreds of millions of people like that in India, we tend to think of their access as a very limited form of access.
We tend to think that unlike us they don't need access to the full Internet, that they should not enjoy social media, that they should do sort of things which are more educational or informational. I just want to say that that's according to me a problem. I think when we think of access, we need to think of it much more broadly for everyone.
>> CAROLINA ROSSINI: Let's go for the panelist and for the audience. Go Luca.
>> LUCA BELLI: I wanted to clarify and read what I was quoting before from the Barik report is a percentage of 20%. I wasn't arguing that all ISPs throttle or block in Europe. That is not what I said. I said 20% of fixed connection and up to 50% are a victim of this traffic management, and I'm happy that Telephonica is not part of this, and then I would like to build on Christopher's comment on free speech, obviously free speech and freedom of information defers from one country to another, but there are international agreed standards, the international covenant on civil and political rights. This is not an absolute right. There is some exception and restriction that have to be necessary proportionate. And that means that also net neutrality is not an absolute principle. There are restrictions.
>> CAROLINA ROSSINI: Just a second. We have online. So audience and remote participant. But after that we need to wrap up for the reporting and then back to Markus. Tweet your opinion.
>> AUDIENCE: Hi my name is Alexander Castro. I representing the major telecom operator in Brazil, mobile and fixed operators. Here I would like to say that we have a long discussion of net neutrality in Brazil during three, four years. During the whole time the operators support every time the concept of net neutrality, but the problem is that we have different kinds of definitions with different ranges of these kinds of definition. But finally, we reach a final decision, and in Brazil, they decide to treat all of the packets as the same so we have to deserve the same treatment for the whole packets.
We are now currently obeying this, these net neutrality definition, and we believe that the net neutrality definition in Brazil makes possible the operators offer zero rate programmes such as for reasons reverse tariffs, and I'd like to say that in Brazil our word was about the monitoring of the traffic, of the Internet traffic. And we believe that we had a success accord agreement with the Government and we are, we believe that we are free to monitor the necessary traffic in Brazil. Thank you.
>> CAROLINA ROSSINI: Okay. So back to our colleague lead discussant for the session report and back to Markus. Thank you.
>> ELVANA THACI: Do we have one more minute for the gentleman? He needs to make a statement.
>> CAROLINA ROSSINI: There is a lot of other people, so I think we should go directly to the report. We cannot open for everybody. Sorry.
>> ELVANA THACI: Okay. Thanks. So just to recap the main points that I retained, I took notes out of this session. So first point was about connectivity. So there is connectivity is basically the principle objective and concern for operators, and that includes promoting broadband and investment in networks. There is a convergence of views in the room that there is no intent or no specific interest by operators to block content on the Internet. However, operators generally feel that competition and transparency is really what is needed to promote and to guarantee network neutrality.
From the user's perspectives, we had some inputs highlighting that actually copyright enforcement can result in restrictions of freedom of speech online. And then we moved on to some region specific approaches to network neutrality ranging from regulatory measures such as legislation in Brazil through the Marco Civil was mentioned a couple of times here, and some points of view from other Developing Countries that access, sometimes access to Internet is looked in a narrow way in Developing Countries. So that's it. Thank you.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: Well, thank you very much, and thank our discussion leaders. Now, there is the one question that was relating to the role of the IGF, and there were actually three policy questions sent to the IGF Secretariat, issues a call for input. What is the role of the IGF? Should it develop norms, do monitoring? Evaluate? Should it look at best practices, comparison of policies and defects? We have, of course, a Dynamic Coalition on Net Neutrality, but this is in a way a little bit, I would say systemic problem of the IGF. The dynamic coalitions, they got started, it was right at the beginning. People said let's see how they evolve, but the IGF never actually found a proper framework that established a mechanism for the dynamic coalitions to validate their findings by the broader community, but at the same time, I do feel there is obviously a strong interest in these issues.
The room was, I think, fairly full and the discussion clearly was very rich, and there was still many who wanted to contribute to the discussion, and we did not because we simply run out of time. So I would like to turn to Luca who is very closely involved if not running the Dynamic Coalition on Net Neutrality. How do you see the role of the IGF?
>> LUCA BELLI: Why the Dynamic Coalition has been created and what is the role? As any Dynamic Coalition it has been created to discuss a specific issue, to grant a multi‑stakeholder platform for debate and potential actions. The three basic tasks were to discuss net neutrality, to evaluate an annual record. We have, we present every year at our meeting and then to elaborate a model framework on net neutrality. This task was initially stimulated by the Council of Europe that with the declaration of net neutrality suggested the interest of exploring the elaboration of the model framework and Dynamic Coalition tried to do a sort of technological experiment trying to shape a policy, framework a policy blueprint through a multi‑stakeholder approach, trying to reproduce the motus operandi of the ITF Working Group, so working online and producing a common standard that can be used as a model and can be adopted or some fragment can be adopted if they are deemed efficient.
If they are not deemed efficient, they will not be adopted, so I think to me this is an interesting experiment, and it has to be taken into consideration because it shows that some kind of multi‑stakeholder corporation that produced concrete outcomes is possible. It is not perfect. There is a lot of room for improvement, but it shows that it is possible. So I think that the IGF and MAG should take into consideration dynamic coalitions as tools to develop in an open, transparent, multi‑stakeholder fashion, eventually some policy blueprints that could be used for their efficiency.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you for that, and maybe for the broader audience we had this discussion online a bit when preparing this session, and Luca referred to the ITF model. And we as Internet Society had actually proposed seeking inspiration from the Internet Engineering Task Force and we had then proposed best practices and these are taking place now at this IGF.
But to go back to the Dynamic Coalitions in the ITF there is a clearly established process. You start an idea as a bird of a feather, and then it has to be approved by the Internet Architecture Board and the Internet Architecture Board approves the charter of the Working Group and the result gets then again approved by the broader community with possibilities for making input, and this is something we have not been able to establish or never looked at it in the IGF context.
This session will not decide on that, but I think it's worthwhile maybe spending a few minutes discussing and I would like to listen what other people have to say, and I see Robert Pepper is asking and Vladimir is asking for the floor, please.
>> ROBERT PEPPER: So if we go back eight years to the beginning, eight, nine years for the IGF, the idea that any issue can be raised and in fact issues have been raised over the last eight or nine years that nobody actually thought would be, even thought of back when it started. So I think the idea that was talked about the role of the IGF and the Dynamic Coalitions to generate issues for discussion. So that's even before you have the discussion.
Things that bubble up, I mean, not just this issue, but some of the environmental issues, some of the energy issues, sustainability, nobody thought those would be related to ICT, and they are, and we are discussing them, the broader access questions. So I think discussion, yes.
I think the ideas that there are opportunities for people to not only speak, but in the annual report, which is not proscriptive or a recommendation, but, you know, as Roslyn points out an opportunity for collecting different viewpoints and making them available to the wider community, that's very helpful. The one issue, and I need to think about it more, but I don't think we are yet ready to talk about a model framework because going back to what Markus said within the IETF process and model with the rough consensus, I mean, in arriving at something, I don't think that we are there yet on, certainly not on this issue given the broad, broad range of different views, but I do think that, you know, the role of the IGF here, if you look at the number of sessions on this particular issue, the interest broadly, the number of people in this room and the number of people who have been in the rooms earlier today, and the other discussions, and your Dynamic Coalition meeting yesterday, this is exactly what the IETF was envisioned to do. And you bring people together with different points of view over time working through those issues.
And new things come up. So I actually see this as a substantiation of the success of the IGF model that this is an issue that is being discussed very deeply and also in the component pieces in the theater sessions. I see this as a real success and I want to thank you, Markus, for pulling all of us together over the last two months in what was a long ‑‑
Online process to bring us all here.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: I have a few more speakers. I'm not sure whether I got all of them. Alejandro Pisanty, Adam, Christopher who else wanted to say? In any case, this is not the end of the discussion. That, I can assure you, and we will have a session on Friday when we take stock and look forward and also we look at working methods, but I would definitely like to echo Robert's words. I mean, the IGF seems to be the ideal place to look at this kind of issue from all of the various perspectives what we have been trying to do.
>> VLADIMIR RADUNOVIC: Let me firstly join Robert and praise you for your work. You manage to put all of us together in a three month process through discussions and all of these people around to follow up on and it's quite emeritus. It's the first main session on net neutrality of the IGF for years. I took a couple of notes and I hope this might be helpful for you and the rapporteurs we can follow up and basically one is what the role of the IGF can be. Since net neutrality is a dynamic area as we again certified, there are a couple of roles. One is to monitor, to monitor meaning following the data, and we mentioned a couple of those, the data of cases when telecom block or throttle, the data of how ante net neutrality framework can impact innovation, the data if the Telecoms need huge incomes for further investment, how net neutrality rules can impact investments in innovation and growth, so monitoring is one function. The second function, and there are a lot of data around, the second function might be a work on basic principles.
It seems like we agree that some things, we all agree about, and this is like there is no blocking. There shouldn't be unproportional management and so on, but we don't know the details so that's something we can work and try to find more details on in different regions. The third one is interesting. Discussing emerging aspects of how emerging services can impact investment, economy, Human Rights and user perspectives. One possible title for a future thing is basically what Carol said, and I think that needs a thorough discussion is how can we make that Human Rights drive the demand and the economy?
I think this link between Human Rights and the economy is a partnership that we need to establish. And lastly, one sentence about how IGF can contribute to that, yes, Dynamic Coalition, Mark will have a lot of work in the IGF and the meeting of the IGF procedures and why not even the intercessional dialogue that's something we need to continue between the two IGFs and work on.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: Thank you. Alejandro Pisanty.
>> ALEJANDRO PISANTY: Alejandro Pisanty speaking. I think I will just add to what Pepper and Vladimir have said in the following sense. The IGF cannot do someone else's homework. The IGF is a place where we come to discuss real aspects of the subjects that were not previously revealed at least to many participants. We peel off layers like an onion of things where we see what are the real difficulties, the real contributions. We listen to each other, so we, you know, you are against the teleco position, but you listen to the teleco position, and you know more what you are against or maybe you actually are now able to sit at the table, but the locus of the resolution is going to be somewhere else.
Network neutrality rules are going to be made nationally, they are going to be made in legislation, in regulation, in coordination in each country and that's where people who know about this, who can look at the record of discussion in the IGF can really use this IGF. And to finalize, we have a research programme that each can pick up to say, you know, we realize that we don't have enough data about zero rating. We don't have enough data about collusion.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: Sorry, Alejandro. You have to wrap up. The interpreters gave ten minutes, but that will give the Chairman to close the meeting and say a few words. We have to close now. Still Adam and Christoph. Can you reduce to 30 seconds?
>> ALEJANDRO PISANTY: Thank you, Markus. I acknowledge Luca's hard work for pushing this forward. I agree with Pepper there is a lot of disconsensus. I think there are bigger issues about going forward not out of this session but how you think about the IGF process generally. There is a best practices thread that is considering this issue now, it's an issue for the MAG. In many ways I know they are looking for input. Consistent with the IGF I would encourage everyone to feed suggestions about the role of how to suggest this back into the best practices and make that practice stronger that is not just about this session.
>> ADAM PEAKE: Just to come back to where we really started off which was NETmundial and remembering that the meeting did recommend that the IGF in particular should consider intercessional working, and network neutrality was one of the issues we were considering, and it was one that all see in comments and contributions as an issue that was thought to be important. And NETmundial, the drafting groups did recognize that the Dynamic Coalitions exist but they thought that perhaps Working Groups and a Working Group would be actually built around a specific goal might be a more appropriate vehicle for going forward in intercessional working.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: 30 seconds are over.
>> ADAM PEAKE: Whether that would be for network neutrality or not, but to think about something more specific.
>> MARKUS KUMMER: With that, Mr. Chairman, I have the privilege of giving you back the floor for your closing remarks and for closing the session. Thank you.
>> GALIP ZEREY: Distinguished participants, thank you very much for the role of this moderatorship. I would like to thank Mr. Luca, other moderator colleagues of ours, I would like to thank all participants for contributing their opinions. Everybody is tired. I'm aware of that so, therefore, I won't take too much of your time. I'm closing the session. Thank you very much, to all of you.
The following is the output of the real‑time captioning taken during the IGF 2014 Istanbul, Turkey, meetings. 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.