Okay, ladies and gentlemen, I invite you to take your seats. You have bonus points for the front row. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for joining us. My name is Ian Wallace. I run the cybersecurity initiative here at New America alongside my colleague, Ross Shulman of the Open Technology Institute. For those of you who don't know us, New America's cybersecurity has existed for nearly three years. Started originally using a grant from the Hewlett Foundation, for which we are very grateful. And now our international work is supported by an exciting new partnership with Florida International University that we hope to build on, particularly on the capacity building side in the course of the next couple of years. Central to that work, as I suggested, is how it is around cybersecurity and general internet capacity building. And what we've found as we've dug into that is that that work is now very closely aligned to governance, both how countries govern and how they think about how the internet should be governed. And in recent, the fairly recent past, not too long ago, internet governance had a very specific meaning, a very narrow meaning. And it still does, of course, and we're going to dig into some of that. But we also, particularly in the last year, have seen a shift in the relationship between governance and the internet. Part of that reason, I think, is because information systems are increasingly becoming pervasive, both in depth in terms of what they touch within our daily lives, but also in breadth in the number of countries and places where you can expect those information systems to operate. And therefore the question is not so much how do you govern the internet, but how do you govern in the age of the internet? And that sort of hits at some basic truths about how governments work quite apart from how the internet works. But at the same time, it bumps up against some very real and significant issues of what it means to keep the internet alive and operating in the way that we've come to expect. And how do you reconcile that challenge with sort of the practicalities versus the very real concern of governments of keeping control of their societies? So those are the sort of issues that we're going to try and dig into today. To get to the sort of meat of some of those questions, I am joined by an all-star panel who I will briefly introduce. Firstly, on my left, I have Jovan Caballier, who is the director of the Diplomacy Foundation and the head of the Geneva Internet Forum and has had a long career as a diplomat and particularly focused on sort of cyber diplomacy, advising many high-level groups at the UN and in the multi-stakeholder community. Next to Jovan, we have Megan Steeple, who is the Cyber Security Policy Director at Public Knowledge and a non-resident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council. She was previously the director of the International Cyber Policy at the National Security Council in the White House and a longtime cyber policy advisor at DOJ. Next to Megan, Sean Connook, who is now the director of the Future Conflict and Cyber Security Program at the International Institute for Strategic Studies and doubles up as the chair of the Research Advisory Group of the Global Commission on the Stability of Cyberspace, which Sean might tell us a little bit more about in due course. He has had, until fairly recently, a decade and a half in the US government, including five years as the US's first National Intelligence Officer for cyber. And last but certainly not least, we have Jane Coffin, who is the director of Development Strategy at the Internet Society, which I assume is familiar to most, but she can perhaps tell us a little bit more about ISOC in due course. And she comes to that from background of doing internet policy at the US Commerce Department and also worked in USAID in a past life. In terms of format, we are going to have a conversation up here on stage and then as we get going, we're going to open it up to questions from the audience. If people have a sort of question, then please hold it back. We will get to you in due course, but I think we'll cover most, at least set this up fairly well in the next half an hour or so. For those of you who are among the Twitter-arty, the New America Twitter address is at New AM Cyber. I don't think we have a hashtag for this, but feel free to use the hashtag New AM Cyber. And if anyone is watching online and would like to ask a question, please do so, and we will make sure your question gets raised. Okay, kicking off, we'll start with Jovan. What are the trends that you see in internet governance and governance relating to internet issues that are going to frame the conversation going forward and how is that different to what we've dealt with in the past? Thank you. Thank you, Jan, for organizing this panel, and it's great to be here in Washington with so many friends in audience and fellow panelists. And, well, it's always great to speak about the future. The future is tolerant. Whatever we say will be somehow viewed with a sort of necessary time distance. And this famous saying goes, it's difficult to make a prediction especially about future, but we'll try to make a few indication of what's going on and what is ahead of us for what we can call it digital autumn. The weather is not going to be as nice as it is today in Washington DC. It will be cloudy. We won't have the hurricanes, but we'll have definitely some strong winds and some new dynamics into the weather system of digital policy and internet governance. Now, when you ask me to outline the main trends, I basically combine intuition, what all of us are doing, reading consulting, and more evidence-based sources which we collect every month on the trends in digital policy at Geneva Internet Platform. We have 60 curators all over the world who are following and you will see why I'm highlighting it, local developments in digital policy. We are sometimes too focused on the developments that you can consult in New York Times, economists and the main newspapers, or in academia which is circulating this field. But there are quite a few substantive developments happening outside the, we can call it a circle of usual aspects including myself. I will try to outline, I started with 10 trends, but I said okay, that will be too many. Then I moved to three, you know, famous Aristotelian French, everything has to be in three. Then I had to add one trend, therefore there will be four trends that I will try to outline. And the first one is what we can call it, shift towards digital realism, a real politic, what is happening I think big time in international relations. Second trend is the moving towards the local digital policy. The third trend is on the digitalization of non-core internet areas like health, migration, humanitarian trade. And fourth trend is basically the trend that courts are starting to run global digital policy. Courts are becoming in a way norms shapers. And I will just elaborate on these four trends quickly and then I hope it can introduce discussion. What is the digital real politic? What is basically happening? For those of you and I can see quite a few of you who have been in internet governance for quite some time, you can recall that the digital policy in internet governance had always this interplay between values and interests. Core values in particular promoted by civil society, technical community on openness, inclusiveness, transparency and interest in particular promoted by governments and business sector. Now obviously there are interplays, sometimes interest are camouflaged as values but this was part of the show which has been going for the last 15 years. What we have been noticing over the last, in particular over the last six months is a huge shift from value centered approach to the clear interest centered approach. In particular governments and businesses are going towards the bottom line and seeing what is in it for me, that it is the cyber security policy, e-commerce and that trend is clear and it has been gaining momentum and it is quite certain that it will be one of the dominant trends in global digital policy. Practically speaking, what does it mean? It means that the negotiation on UNGG unfortunately failed because of the too strong push towards the real politic and direct interest of the main players with lower focus on sort of commonality and common interests. Governments are a particularly interesting player because they are looking for control of their information space, they can call it cyber sovereignty, digital sovereignty and I'm sure that sovereignty will be one of the topic that we'll be referring to, which is coming with the different motivations. Some governments are doing it for censoring the policy space but there are increasing number of governments who are witnessing the situation in which they cannot rule anymore. Max Weber, German sociologist, did an excellent analysis of bureaucracy and the way how governments function and the key commodity for governments in order to perform their function is information. Suddenly governments are out of the control of the information and they started being nervous that they cannot govern and rule anymore. In cyber security field, in e-commerce, taxation, you name it and you have it. Therefore there are this second group of governments, I would say mainly European governments, who are trying to regain that space of the core government's function around the question on information. What is going to happen with this trend? Most likely we'll have a strong shift towards that traditional policy and the gradual withdrawal of what we call multi-stakeholder and inclusive policy ahead of us definitely over the next six months to one year. There are good and bad news. For all of us who invested a lot of time in inclusive digital policy, that would be definitely set back. On the more positive side, there will be more realistic basis of global digital policy. We will know what are the interests of the key players and I'm optimistic that some sort of compromise will be found. What we found recently with Uber case, City Authority in London, tried to bend the use of Uber, but then users signed the petition, half million users signed the petition requiring some sort of solution. Therefore all players around the table, governments, business, civil society will have interest to preserve the internet dynamism from various angles, economic development, security, business model, access to the internet. Therefore I'm more optimistic that something will come out of this shift towards digital real politic that we will have over the next one or two years more reality-based, sort of not in negative sense, but reality-based digital policy. This is the first major trend. The second trend which is emerging is that internet governance is getting local. Here I will introduce one very dangerous bias that internet governance and digital policy, I'm using interchangeable digital policy internet governance community has developed. The same goes like this, internet is global, therefore internet governance has to be global. And it sounds logical, it sounds obvious, but when you really dig into the digital policy you realize that yes internet is global, now the colleagues are following this session from all over the world, will be able to exchange information, but what is happening is that impact of the internet is very local, given the social, economic, policy, cultural context. Therefore the internet policy will be increasingly local. The best analogy of this development is with climate change in 2009 in Copenhagen, climate change community wanted to make, I call it naive global compact, it failed as you know, it took the climate change community six years to have a proper deal in Paris. And one of the underlying point is that they went through the local and the regional arrangements in order to recreate the new global deal. I fear that we will have some sort of development, similar development in internet governance. And if I can put the provocative question, we may not need digital United Nations, we may need digital United regions. A lot of digital policies happening in regions. And there is, there are interest in cybersecurity in different digital commerce, there are different developments on the regional level. Third major development, which is quite shaped by my experience in Geneva, is digitalization of traditional policy areas. It already started six or seven years ago with security. We have now major stream of cybersecurity. It's happening in trade, in health, migration and other fields. Therefore you have communities which are addressing more or less the core issues of internet governance from completely different angle. One example is data. Data is discussed in WTO as free flow of data in the prerequisite for digital economy. In human rights council as a question of privacy. In international standardization or organization question of standards. In the WTO World Health Organization or question of protection of data, health data. And more or less in all of this organization they're discussing similar topic from different perspectives. Famous word, policy silos, is policy silos that are emerging and we are getting quite a lot of confusion among these policy silos. Therefore that will be one of the major trend. How to follow the shift of digital policy from the usual suspect circle or triple I, icon ITU IGF towards the wider space. And the last trend is basically that internet governance is increasingly run by courts. All of us are familiar with the decisions, the court decision of European Court of Justice on right to be forgotten. Now we are waiting for the court decision on Uber is Uber transportation on information company which will have enormous impact on the future of the sharing economy. And this trend is interesting and the main player is European Court of Justice but we are seeing it in Canada, we are seeing it in United States, we are seeing it in Indonesia, Brazil, various places but courts are getting the more important role. And one can ask what is the reason for this trend? The reason is very simple. Individuals, citizens, internet users, companies have to address their legal concerns and they have right to justice. They go to the courts and they ask courts to rule on their concrete problems. Unlike us in internet governance and other policy spaces, we cannot. Judges cannot establish another working group, you know, how it is going in the UN. When you have a problem, you establish the next working group or government group of experts. They have to rule, they have to make judgments. And those judgments as a sub are, they do quite substantive consultation. They bring experts into the process. But still, those judgments are sub-optimal incomparison to the inclusive multi-discipline or multi-stayholder policy. Those are four trends which, based on our research and Geneva internet platform we identified as probably trends that will mark the next six months to one year. dystopian future where lawyers make all the decisions is terrible. Speaking of which, Megan, we've heard some fantastic suggestions on where the future of the internet may be going. From your perspective, coming out of government now working in civil society, where do you see the future taking us in this particular area? I'll begin with the similar things that Yovan offered to Ian and the company for the opportunity to join you all this morning. Pardon me for my mic. I endorse Yovan's forecast, which is partly cloudy with a chance of a few bright moments, but probably not blizzards, but problems. So I guess maybe I can take a step back and observe sort of where things have been over the past year to think about how that's influencing the next six months to a year. And I would sort of identify three or four trends or characteristics that I think the future conversation will be responding to in a way that it evolves. The first is this idea of the vulnerability of major platforms and intermediaries. So certainly we can think of the misuse of platforms like Facebook and Twitter to influence, obviously certainly here in the U.S. we are sensitive to the way that what we're learning about what happened with the U.S. election last fall, but we also know from our European colleagues that there have been some challenges abroad as well. Similarly, you can look at the vulnerability of not just the social media platforms, but also some of the communications platforms like Yahoo. We've seen Yahoo insured it upon, and Sean can probably address that too. I would also just quickly note the idea that we're moving a lot of things to the cloud, but Amazon is not the pick on Amazon per se, but we've seen a number of security breaches from companies that are using cloud services, and Amazon is one that quickly came to mind. So I think this idea that some of these new-ish institutions and, as I said, intermediaries are in some ways the way of the future, but we're beginning to see slight cracks in the shiny path, and I think we really need to be careful about the way we respond to that, because for those who've looked at the way the Western world has approached this conversation, internet governance, and the way that some of our other counterparts have, there has been a discussion over a decade, Sean can correct me, since he's been advising GGE work for a long time. It's a notion of information security. So depending on the way we respond to issues of the misuse of platforms, weaknesses, and things like DDoS events, we can quickly, I think, find ourselves in a trap that may present an opportunity for those who think that information security is the right approach to managing the internet, can seize upon that opening to dry and drive for a more multilateral approach to so-called internet governance, and I don't think that most of us, I'll speak for myself only, think that that's the way we want things to go for a number of reasons that I won't run through because I think they're all pretty familiar to many of us. I also just want to highlight one other vulnerability, which is something that hopefully Jane can talk to a little bit more, what we've seen in Spain in the past week. We're thinking about, essentially, it's unclear to me what process, in a legal sense, was used if there was any process beyond a prosecutor saying please go take that domain, but that's a weakness in a system that, again, if we're not able to try and vector and think strategically about how we respond to it, could easily, I think, wind us up and erode a few years from now that that's not so... Just for the sort of general audience, can you just give a little bit of a picture of what happened in Spain in the last week? I'll attempt to and Jane can correct the record, maybe. So there's, as I understand it, an election coming up. There is a group in Catalonia that has, I suppose, I think, the current regime and have used the dot-cat domain as a platform to present alternative views. And a prosecutor, or possibly, and I think a mayor, were involved in arresting the administrator of the domain and, essentially, I'll use the word seizing the content, but forcing them to find an alternative platform to host their information, which is now off of the dot-cat domain. I think it's on dot-eu. So I have a number of... I don't want to get too far down the tangent on this, but among the reasons that's problematic is Spain is a member of the Free of My Line Coalition, which means that they, when they joined up, agreed to protect online speech as it would be protected in offline. So, again, I think we need to be unilateral. I'll use that phrase. It may not have been unilateral, but unilateral action by countries that we think are partners in approaching this as a multi-stakeholder area. Again, potentially can lead us into a trap that fractures in our allegiance are problematic. So that's one sort of issue, I think, that will potentially impact the conversation going forward. The second is exhaustion and scarcity. And by that, I mean, I was talking to one of Jane's colleagues and the person said to me, the I-stars in that community are still just exhausted. They got through the IANA transition process, but unfortunately there's a scarcity of people who have the capacity and the knowledge to manage some of these more technical issues, and that speaks to the new America found... New America's working on as well as we are at Public Knowledge, trying to build a greater capacity, technical capacity, among civil society, but also among governments to understand where we are now in a post-IANA transition world and how we can best continue to maintain the platform in an open, maybe regionally open process. The other piece of exhaustion is, I think, particularly for the U.S. space, but also potentially globally is kind of on the negative forecast. We see reports, including a Pew study recently, that talk about the increasing concern over privacy. And I think we've reached, particularly in the U.S., an exhaustion where people just assume that their data is not secure. That's particularly problematic, obviously, for a country like the United States that has many of its citizens have their information stored somewhere else. It's in someone else's custody, so to speak. But as we move to bring more and more users online, we, I think, need to take a serious look about how we're going to manage privacy for these newer online global citizens. So, as I think most people in the room may know, there was a significant data breach recently by Equifax, which is essentially a data broker. I'll try to be diplomatic. And the concern for many is that in the U.S., there was no, the users whose information were, the consumers whose information was stored by Equifax was not something that they had a choice in their information being held by this particular repository, because we don't entirely follow the fifth approach to information. So I think in the coming months we may return to a conversation about privacy, both from governmental actors, but also from corporate actors. The last, on a higher sort of a more positive note, we're about two years post-transition. And by all means, from a technical vantage point, at least from where I sit, we've been fairly stable. The internet is still working. This great experiment worked. The key rollover was successful. Most people don't even know what that is. I'm not going to even try to define it. One of my other colleagues will, but I can tell you that it was important that it went as well as it did. And so I think, you know, while we have these sort of negative or pessimistic or problematic challenges and the immediacy, we need to go back to where we began and think about the fact that the hierarchy and the platform that continues to grow but was started 50 years ago and its technical elements works. So we need to figure out how to manage the people factor behind it. That includes corporations, but also governments, all of us as stakeholders. So I'll wrap up with that. Thank you. We're going to come back to many of those points. But Sean, you spent much of your career in government, and that's where you focus. What do you see going ahead, the sort of key issues affecting not just the U.S. government, but governments around the world in general? Again, thank you to New America for the opportunity to speak with you all here in Washington and in the online community. And I would like to pull that thread based on my intel experience as an analyst and then on my current role at IWS on the strategic interstate side of things. So I think the key trends that Yovan mentioned are definitely the appropriate ones to be thinking about. I'd love to explore the localization and the court impact a little further. But I personally want to draw on the first one, the realpolitik, because that's the area I play on. And the ladies on each side of me are much better suited than I am to talk about civil society of things. So when I think about the future of the internet and the trends from that realpolitik side, I start with the question of global interoperability. What is the issue we're discussing? Where would the potential impasse be? I offer that it is not at physical connectivity. I can maybe think of two countries who don't want extensive connectivity, the physical layer, where you can actually be connected in. Is it at the technical functionality or technical standard level? Largely not. We have major standardization protocols that are widely adopted, and even where they're not perfectly adopted, you have commercial solutions that allow you to bridge between the two that are being used, sort of like a roundhouse between two different gauge railways, if need be, at some of these international gateway routers. So what is the real impasse that we're discussing here? It's about political and economic regulation. That means it's voluntary, and it's led by nation-states, whether it's through courts, executive action, or police power in its various formats, but it really comes back to sovereignty. So the question is, are nations going to be trying to enforce sovereignty for personal advantage? And for me, that was a little bit of a kernel from Yovan's first trend that I want to underscore. So when I look at what happened at the UN, I completely agree that we came to the furthest point as an international community of where the agreement and the fig leaves and the polite diplomatic conversation could go, and we really unearthed a fundamental disagreement about what governments want out of the internet. You have some countries who are looking at it from a national security and political regime stability status. You have others who are looking at it largely or primarily as an economic innovator and engine. And you have others that are looking at it as a possibility of development and social opportunity. I do a lot of work in India, and I hear them talk about this three-pronged triangle between cost-effectiveness, access, and human rights. And then somewhere dancing around all three of those is security. How do you bring a billion people online and try to provide social services, making sure that it's not commandeered by criminals or a foreign nation state, protecting a delicate balance of human rights in the world's largest democracy, but also a varied multicultural, multilingualistic environment where they've already had the example of fake news, a fake tweet getting replicated and causing a million people to migrate out of fear for physical harm coming to their families in the northeast. Compare that to the conversations you hear oftentimes in the UNGGE meetings or in the bilats between the United States and China or the United States and Russia where it's at a much different political and security level when you're getting those candid conversations. So in addition to those incongruities between what different nation states are going to be seeking in this place, of course it's not just limited to nation states. You've got private actors who are even more capable in certain respects than some of the nation states who are trying to govern, and I'm going to put that in quotes because I don't think anyone really is governing it in the way they would want. It brings me back to an analogy to outer space and how space law first developed. It was from a very real, politic approach. At that point there were two nations who could put satellites up and they determined what was in the interest and how the rules of the road were set. So if we ask ourselves who can, not who wants to, not who should, but who can affect this environment? It's going to be nation states with the police power and the will to enforce it. What are these court rulings without an executive power that says yes, our court should be ruling on this and who's willing to have the police go enforce that court ruling? That's where the rubber's going to meet the road. In the United States, remember what happened in the Microsoft case where the Department of Justice was demanding information about users who had originally registered through Ireland? Okay? That's going through a legal process. The police power has not rated Microsoft's offices. Think about the Apple case with the Department of Justice and the San Bernardino shooter's phone. Was Apple rated the way we see offices in other countries? No, but then the burden was placed on the government. Well, at what point does that willingness, where do we find the balance between where the burden is put on the public or the private companies? And it's incredibly important when you think about your large telecommunications providers, your internet service providers and increasingly your cloud providers, when you ask me who can, I'm increasingly saying private sector names rather than the who wants, which are usually ministry of this, department of that. I'll leave you with one thing that was on our pre-notes discussing, I'm sure it'll come up here. Look at the normative, the policy proposal coming from a company like Microsoft for a new digital Geneva Convention. Now, I have personal analytic questions about how that's been framed and if anything were to come of it, what it would eventually look like. There's a private sector entity with global reach who's mired in numerous political discussions, again for a new euphemism in multiple countries because they're a multinational company dealing with business opportunities all over the world, to basically trying to set the standard for how interactions should be occurring, what acceptable and unacceptable behavior should be. I look at the Facebooks and the Twitterers who have their own corporate censorship policies. I had the opportunity to ask one social media company when they were discussing their terrorism blocking policy. I said, so that clearly presumes a definition of terrorist or terrorism. Do you use the UN Security Council list? Do you use the United States State Department list? Are you using some other list? So now you have corporate bodies, governance boards who are obliged, fiduciary duties to shareholders around the world who are trying to set policies for free speech on their platforms. And then, of course, you can always have the throwaway comment, well, if you don't like the policies of this social media provider, go start your own that allows Falun Gong or allows white supremacy or whatever. Well, easier said than done in an economy of scale world. So I note all these tensions, but as we go into our group discussion here, I want to underscore realpolitik four times. I think that is the leading trend. And for me, it comes down to the governments who want to, how willing are they to go with enforcing their police power to get what they want. And then in the private sector, what are their incentives and motivations and end objectives? Because the end of the day, it's they who really can, unless the police come in and take over their office in whatever country it may be. Sean, thank you again. A lot to chew on. But before we get into the detail, Jane Isoc has been in the space forever. And yet sort of the world has clearly changed a lot in the time that Isoc had been around. How do you and, if you want to have a better face, the internet community see the weather forecast? We're having us here today. I work for the Internet Society, otherwise known by some as Isoc, I-S-O-C. We've been around for 25 years. We just celebrated our 25th year last week at a huge celebration. I have to put in a plug, sorry for that. Also another shameless plug for a report we just issued called Paths to our Digital Future. It is timely that we're here because this is about the future stability, growth, development, inclusiveness of the internet. So many of the things that everyone on the panel has said are all of the things that we stand for as far as inclusiveness, interoperability of technology, openness of debate, inclusion of people, stakeholders throughout the discussion, and transparency. And the key thing that relates to all of this is collaboration as well and partnerships. So I work mostly with development of internet infrastructure and developing countries. And so I'm a community builder working with people to build internet exchange points. Something mind-numbing for some of you who don't know technology probably, but it's exchange of traffic in an open manner so that you don't have to send your traffic out to another country to exchange it inside and talk to each other. The other is community networks. They're bottom-up citizen-built run and managed networks. These are a trend in many countries now and developing more and more due to the fact that there isn't infrastructure in many countries. So I'm going to riff off that for a second because we're talking at a high level of cross-border data flows and whether or not there's access or not. I've been in many countries where governments are saying that because of cybersecurity, we need to shut off that data flow. We need to re-monopolize those gateways, international gateways. Been there, seen it, watched it. Used to live in the former Soviet Republics for five years. Got to watch this space because it means that data can't come in. There isn't interoperability of some of the systems because they're trying to create that through the technical side. And you can't have multiple partners exchanging traffic over borders. That's tricky.  So the question is, at that basic level, we need to still continue to build that infrastructure, build those communities. So for many of you, I was just in Cote d'Ivoire a couple of weeks ago, we're still having this debate about building out infrastructure exchanging traffic with each other which builds up to more of the citizen level of do people have access to information as well. So we focus our work right now on access and trust. So I want to bring back also on this trust theme with respect to his trust in the infrastructure. Megan mentioned Equifax. I've been caught in, I think, three breaches. Once when I was in the government, once when my credit cards were stolen, I was told each time by the FTC to go register with Equifax and or any of the other two companies. There were three companies, right? So recently I saw this breach and I said, so when does my data become irrelevant to some people?  It's important, perhaps, but there are other people that are. So how do we protect each other? And can we? Because there's some fear and there's some helplessness here. It was a great article in the New York Times on Saturday in the business section about this. Over 2,000 pings were felt by this guy in his email. He said, this has been the key trend, fear and helplessness. So is that where we want to be as people using infrastructure? I certainly don't. I don't have any data. What next? That was one of the key themes for my report is inclusiveness in human people participating in the process. So from a civil society perspective, how do you create a bottom-up governance type of inclusion in this debate? Whether it's from a cybersecurity perspective, development of infrastructure, creation of that infrastructure. So it's human rights perspective, continuing that end-to-end operability of the internet. This is something that surf who's one of our founders, who's a father of the TCPIP with Bob Khan. Those were the creators of the Internet Society, some of them. So the key technical aspect of end-to-end interoperability. Are we looking, as Yohan said, about regional...  We're going back to the old telco model where it's not end-to-end operability, where it's state-to-state. There has been a trend in some of the UN organizations to try and protect that infrastructure. So I'm working at the practical level, building that infrastructure, building communities to support it. And at the Internet Society, we want to see more inclusiveness, all stakeholders having a certain voice. So how do you break into the UN conversation? If you're us. We go, we participate, we try and meet people, but it's a hard road if you're civil society working with the UN organizations. We're going to a meeting in two weeks called the World Telecom Development Conference. We are a member of the ITU, the development sector, and the standard sector. We can sit in the back of the room. We're allowed to speak if we're called on. So luckily we know a lot of people in the room, but if you're not allowed to speak as civil society, and people that know both the technology development, the economics, the governance discussions from the bottom up, then how do you inform that debate? From a practical perspective, we work around the world with lots of our chapters. We have about 120 chapters. These are incarnations, or people that believe from a principle-based perspective than what ISAC does. And we work with them to talk about the technology, the development, the governance aspects, to build that infrastructure, to talk about how people have a right to discuss issues and bring their own perspective. Megan mentioned Katalan. I have to put in a pitch here. We have put out a statement that it's a complicated situation with Zocat right now. One of the technical experts has been arrested. He was released yesterday, but he was arrested on Tuesday, and he wasn't sure why he was arrested. And I was talking to Larry Strickling, who's a former boss of mine, in the back of the room. I asked him, what is sedition, Larry? Because I'm not a lawyer. And quite frankly, the fellow was arrested on terms of sedition related to secession. And it's a very highly political issue in Katalan. We're living in the middle of that debate with the government of Spain and their territories. But the question is, when you start to arrest technical experts who work at a top-level domain because of a website that was put up for a referendum, that's a voice that these people want to have so they can speak. So you're arresting a technical expert for putting up a website? So the question is, are we reaching that point from a civil society and a governance perspective where there isn't a voice? I will say that the referendum website went up under .eu right away. So the question is, what is the European Union going to do if Spain comes to them and says take down the site? This is a very simple site about the referendum, just the right to speak. So I'm going to stop there. Thank you, Jane. There is an enormous amount of information apart from anything else, but also beneath the surface of ideas and technical detail apart from anything else. But I want to sort of step back and start to try and draw links between some of the trends that we've heard. And I think one of the things that I take from what we've heard is that we've now reached a period in time where there are just so many trends swimming around, sometimes bumping into each other, sometimes diverging, that it's very difficult even for experts to get their head around where we want to go in the future, let alone where we think we're going to go in the future. So Yuvan, just to take your initial point about a shift to sort of rail politic away from values. Values, of course, still remain important, not least to anchor the ideas that we have for where we want to get to. So in terms of potentially values, but also other markers for the sort of, if you like, pegs in the ground, what do you think the sort of framing ideas ought to be around which we can navigate some of these trends? Well, the first point is always to recognize reality. Sean and I completely shared this point and that's the starting point. And as I indicated, I'm more optimistic than this weather forecast in our introductory presentations because the reason for optimism is, for example, the reaction of the Uber users in London. And it is governments have sovereignty over their space. They can do whatever they want within the international, limits of international law. They can analyze what are their possibilities. They are limited because they are vested interest of grandmask connecting via Skype to her family across the ocean. There are various, various from Uber users to grandmask to the Facebook users. Dependence on the internet economy is huge and I think that's shown indicated this is new source of power. Now in this real politic setting there are the ingredients for, if I can use another metaphor for some meal or some pie that we may create and which would be relatively of a good taste ahead of us. Few key points are there. Therefore, we are speaking openly. There are no sort of hiding behind the big narratives. There are now clear issues around the table. There are the real interest. Now what is missing in this line is the space and the time to develop some sort of understanding. Governments are finding shortcuts with bilateral agreements. They are moving fast with regional agreements and there are not that many spaces. UNGG basically failed with their report. IGF is IGF and I always say IGF was the result of compromise which has some value, concept of compromise at the versus in 2005 because nobody in principle both sides were equally unhappy with the IGF. But it was created. It started somehow growing, moving on and now I think that there is opening for a possible strengthening of the IGF as possible space where some more serious discussion can take place. Not in the current format, not in the current dynamics. There is institutional space thanks to the versus regulation and the versus plus 10 and Daniel and Larry were involved in negotiation or that. Therefore, IGF could be some space where a few new dynamisms could be created. I know that that question will be criticized by quite a few but I don't see any other space on global level where we can have that serious discussion. So I'm going to open it to these guys as well but just to directly come in on that Megan I think quite rightly spoke about exhaustion and to a certain extent this is to do with the various different strands that are going on but it's also just a very personal thing. There are a lot of conversations that a relatively few number of people either need to be involved in. So two questions. To come in on Jovan's point what are the institutional opportunities going forward? Is it an expanded or modified IGF? Was it something else? And secondly what else can we do to mitigate some of that exhaustion? Megan, you raised the issue. Well, hopefully I'm not speaking out of school but my memory is that sometime in the fall summer to fall of 2014 we had a conversation, one of the actors in this space was proposing a series of concentric circles that would go from a regional to a national to international. Largely through we'll call the multi-stakeholder organizations but given the complexity of the conversations going around, I think Jovan mentioned some of our conversation ahead of time and particularly in Geneva there are a variety of multilateral institutions that are talking about issues that obviously have impact on consumers. So do we need to think back to this proposal that I think dot one was maybe it was part of the dot one effort to think about these building a framework of local, regional, national, international organizations that are multi-stakeholder in nature that allow for simple resolution of questions like how do I get PayPal to I forget the example that you had I feel that those questions are answered quickly by a regional body that understands the particular characteristics of the local entity that's having an issue so that in the end these issues don't become so problematic that they ultimately end up bubbling up to essentially the multilateral level. I don't know how conceivable that you know how possible that is I remember that at the time there was a particular concern about the organization that might lead this concentric circle building effort that was ICANN and as we've seen in the past couple of years we've seen ICANN sort of take a step back which personally that's appropriate but I do think that because we have the I-STAR community by that I mean ICANN, IETF in part the IAV, IEEE community tired how do we help put more people into that community but also connect these other issues I don't know that a UN effort is one that will solve that because as we've heard and we know much of this space is controlled at least by private actors so we need there to be an opportunity for all stakeholders to be at the table so that's my quick answer. There's been fatigue but there are a lot of people out there a lot younger than we are we honored 25 of them last week it's just reinvigorating people and communities but working on the ground really using almost a grassroots effort think of a campaign here in the United States for an election you go out to the people you talk to them and listen to what they have to say and quite frankly it's the listening that builds that trust and when there's the trust among the people who are doing what they do I've had people say to me thanks for just listening to it I had to say rather than telling me when you go to the developed countries and you go and work in another place people will say really you think that's how it works and so we have to think about all the different cultural perspectives as well and not dive too far into the weeds of civil society because I don't want to say I'm flaky there's serious economic and security ramifications absolutely but when you're working at the grassroots level to build that cadre we did it 25 years ago I had people in Africa say to me basically you brought us to a place so please never doubt the importance of convening humans together in a room a massive room perhaps thousands of them maybe IGF to Jovan's example there's a human chemical reaction that happens when people see each other and know each other and know what they're doing it happens at the IETF it happens at this WTDC meeting we're going to be a small part of that chemical reaction and figure out where we can push the margin and also have people listen to us like some of my agenda is not going to be based on everything at that meeting that we're going to but we're going to focus on the key things for the internet society building faith in what we do having trust in us because if there's trust in what we do then they might listen more to that bigger debate to re-energize this conversation and or do we Larry and I were chatting a minute ago about the term multi-stakeholder some people hate that term governments that are top-down, super top-down Mike Nelson, they agree with that how do you reinvigorate a conversation that we're all used to but re-booted like let's talk about how do we start to talk about this with youth as well so there is energized as we are to go out there because there's something exciting about working with people at that grassroots level I think back again to build off of I think something that Jane said and something I know that Jovan said and Sean may or may not can sort of put the the real politic layer over this but one of the things that we've been thinking about at public knowledge, initially in the cybersecurity context but I think it applies more broadly to internet governance whichever term we want to use data policy, we really think that we need to be thinking about this trajectory in a more sustainable manner so how do we build off of the climate change analogies and think about as users, as corporations, as governments how are we going to, I don't agree with the term use of the term global commons per se but this is a shared space so how do we think about frame our actions around where we want to see this go less in the means of we're going to it can go as simple as building devices that are insecure, that are essentially weakening trust in our current approach to the internet but as sort of high level to governments who may control themselves or control their employees who undertake the stabilizing actions that ultimately also we can trust in the current approach given the inclusivity argument swings both ways and there are many governments who would say that they ought to be more included and that brings us around to the role of the United Nations in this it is relevant because I think we are going to see more interest, notwithstanding the challenges with the GGE more pressure to have the UN involved in this not least to include some of the countries in the developing world who feel that their voice hasn't been heard. How do you see that dynamic playing out going forward reconciling this rail politic dynamic that we pretty much achieved consensus on but also the very real role of the private sector and civil society that needs to be incorporated into that. Good venues are always part of real politic. I mean if you want to have the conventions observed by countries you have to involve them in negotiations. If I can paraphrase famous saying there is no implementation without participation. Countries may be forced by big players to sign the treaty but then they will implement it without a lot of interest and to implementation of cyber agreement cyber deals requires quite atomic interventions in society. It's not like some big bilateral deal in cyber security including what we are following these days nuclear deal which you can deal between countries. For cyber issues because of the nature of the internet you have to find ways to implement to the level of the final user or vice-pre-provider. Inclusion is part of the real politic. The problem there are two problems. One is easy to address the question of UNGG we just extend the number from 25 to whatever we have open ended group there are different ideas. But what is becoming a big problem is sort of indicating inclusion is inclusion an illusion. This is saying okay have your say join the meeting very genuine I would say in all of the spaces like ICANN, ISOC, ITU like different spaces which are proclamation you can join you can have your say. But the fact of small and developing countries civil society or governments cannot use that possibility. Therefore it very often creates even frustration it is something where okay we may join it's open and usually argument counter argument open the doors we invited you why you don't join us you can have your say and you have a government with mainly maybe one or two experts who have some understanding of cyber issues and we find it very often in Geneva small countries come and say they are not ideological on the question of need for the big internet treaty. They have very practical problem. Small mission of two or three diplomats in Geneva is usually the only place where they can follow digital policy negotiations and those people are renaissance diplomats they start with Red Cross in the morning they move in the afternoon to human rights in the evening they get internet governance. Therefore that element of inclusion which is not formal is in my view the most delicate ICANN, ISOC we are trying to put a lot of efforts to build the capacity but it is not enough. What more needs to be done? What more first we have to find a solution which won't be centralization of digital space to have a place where governments can have simple answer like you know in Europe you have easy jet and those companies people need simple and easy answers. I have a paypal problem I mentioned it in our one of the governments in Africa they came to me and say how can we solve the paypal problem we call the IMF they don't have a clue bank of international settlement they were not necessarily to tell them ok go to IGF and raise your voice would be difficult then through some contacts more personal contact I initiated the process and those are issues which are not big ideological issues those are very practical issues therefore there is a need for a space that could be clearing house something where governments and other actors can voice their concerns and second point is we need to build institutions most of capacity building currently in most of our institution is focusing on individuals these individuals are very smart great people they help their community sometimes they move to Europe and the United States but we don't have robust institutions in developing countries civil society and business association and if you need a sustainable policy and if you need real inclusion you need a solid institution and that's I would say those are two major challenges to find a space where people can voice their concerns not having another big organization but some clearing house some simple and light structure and second to build institutions in developing countries I'm going to open it up because we have some extraordinary expertise in the audience but I'm just going to push on this last point the clearing house idea is one that has been emerging over the course of the last few years the NetMundial initiative was an attempt at that it didn't really kind of take correct me if I'm wrong but what what can this community do what can governments private sector do to take that trick what an important one to get right there is a gap whether that gap will be addressed in one way with the central organization or with something which is more in the spirit of multi-stakeholder approach with clearing house depends on the stakeholders that gap has to be filled somehow because there is increasing pressure and there will be more and more requests for that the idea for example in article 72 of the versus declaration has a possibility to act as a clearing house that's one possibility there are different ideas like UN OSHA in humanitarian field but it's more intergovernmental I would say one has to reflect the spirit of the internet governance and cybersecurity community which is more multi-stakeholder but I think that there are concerns because anything which is sort of centralized in the UN raise some concern on one side and on other sides if we don't have new internet international organization and this is probably good space to have some reasonable compromise with check and balances I think that is extremely important element transparency and check and balances if we inbuilt in that structure check and balances many eyes seeing what's going on that could be a possible solution for clearing house I want to get some other views but I want to open it up to the audience the back has the microphone it's kind of an intern this year if you have a question please raise your hand and give me your name and affiliation Paul start with you please use the microphone so people online can hear you thank you okay thank you I thought those were great presentations I think the timing is also where are you from I think this is a great opportunity to discuss these issues and I look forward to discussing them further with all the panelists I think a couple things I didn't hear mentioned which probably we can talk more about one is China I didn't hear the word China one and the other is I didn't hear about I didn't hear terms like want to cry and not pet you and some of the recent global issues which I think are helping to propel some of these discussions about the need for example for some sort of international body on cyber security or other issues to do things like spread intelligence globally so I think this is a particularly interesting time and I'd like to get your thoughts on the potential for for such a I think somebody raised the panel on space so the potential for something like the committee on space something like some structure like that working in the cyber world because who knows maybe it's something that will be proposed in the near future and how that might work and what are some of the constraints on that and why is outer space different than cyberspace but I think it sounds as though there's sort of a building pressure to do something at that level I think with the failure the apparent failure of the GGE people are wondering what's the next step on this and then expanding the GGE may be one option but I think there seems to be a growing sense that maybe some different approaches So Sean first if say the Chinese come out and propose a big new UN body to do what you described and how do you see that actually playing out? Well I'm going to go back to my statement earlier of who can actually do something to resolve the problem at hand I think there are very few things that anyone in the consumer marketplace would turn to the UN to solve in a timely and cost effective manner so I would ask the question who would and could actually do something about it now you're seeing this locally or regionally you're seeing it in certain sectors here in the United States some of our major financial institutions have started a new information sharing platform to try to protect that sector and I know there's an interest in them growing to include smaller medium sized institutions and then internationally self help solving the problem within that sector I'm very familiar with some of the I'll call it the internet infrastructure operators who are interested in improving the cyber hygiene of the ecosystem we've seen some of the work that companies like Microsoft have done with the FBI to eliminate botnets a well celebrated public-private partnership effort there there are examples from foreign jurisdictions I'm giving the US examples because those are some of the most readily available to me but each of those examples isn't a value based origin an ideological one here's a problem that needs to be solved and who can do it so talk about the UN I'm familiar with the multi-year effort that I think was the ITU had to try to set up something called impact in Malaysia years back that never really got off the ground to fruition we can all speculate on why that was and people may have different optics on it but the answer is impact is not providing you your cyber security today there was a vision for it to be doing that many years ago do I think the ITU is going to be where the rubber reads the road not necessarily, when you're getting DDoS do you call the ITU or do you go by more bandwidth from Akamai it's quite obvious how the problems actually get solved so I'm going to keep coming back to the real politic question not the politic side of it but the realism side of it who can and a couple of terms I heard discussed up here were distrust multiple times citizens and users distrusting governments governments distrusting companies governments distrusting other governments who they're negotiating with at the UN and then conducting espionage against and covert actions against the following day and the other word starting from the Max Weber discussion the frustration what you have here is governments who feel they don't have the ability to control or direct this primary activity upon which their whole social, political and economic structure is dependent you have private sector entities who have the ability to control on a day to day basis but you have the real genesis of desire from the user base who wants functionality and real time convenience they can put pressure on the companies who will respond in a market sense and they can put pressure on governments who in many jurisdictions will respond at a political level and that means you don't have those democratic steam release valves but I would look at the actual dynamics of how you do this I wish to you and the best and I think they've done some great things over time and I hope they continue to do more I don't think that's the cost effective timely solution and I actually don't think the global consumer base who wants their social media who wants global interoperability is prepared to wait for that I'm going to take another question we'll go on this side and then we'll continue Good morning and thank you very much for your presentations I'm from American University I'm the doctoral program there working on internet governance and privacy issues I'm actually quite interested I'm from India and I'm very interested in finding out what you think about countries like India that kind of made a transition from multilateral stance towards internet governance to this so-called multi-stakeholder model and how much of it is really as you say, real politic to get other kind of maybe bargains sought to change but in reality they remain very much multilateral kind of form of governance where they do want the Indian government in the driver's seat but on the veneer it seems that they've sided with multi-stakeholder Thank you So I'm saying that in some countries and I'll put myself back gosh, 15 years ago when I was living in a small country in Eastern Europe and I suggested to the regulator that we were helping strengthen that we have a forum for these internet service providers and that we needed to create a group so that we could look at different issues in the country it almost turned into a fight and it was literally no one had ever done this before literally brought the private sector and others to meet with government because government was used to and I used to be government so I'm empathetic I'm sympathetic empathetic all of these things in the United States so why isn't this working? Well, their authority shouldn't be questioned according to them and so we had another meeting about two months later when I assured myself that they wouldn't start to punch each other because they almost did that we had to continue to try to have the discussions in the beginning and others have said this to me about developing policy in Kenya to be honest submarine cable policy to work with each other versus back to front in a room and you have to keep going so that you reach a point where you can work with each other and the reason I'm creating this giving you this example is that I'm working with some people in India right now on these community network discussions places where people don't have connectivity they can't get backhaul out to the larger global internet and they can't do that in a village according to certain standards well, they don't have a way to get the Indian government to help them understand better what to do except for now that they're discussing this with the Indian government but they're seen as a pain in the neck because these villages are less than 3,000 people or fewer so the question is can you create a public forum to have that discussion where people don't embarrass each other because quite frankly when I was a government official I'm going to scream at you in a public forum you're going to have that no matter what and so I think there has to be some way we level that discourse how is it that we can all come together we all politic or not and have that conversation now this is a former communist country that I was working in and it finally did work because you had to establish some modicum of trust some layer and I think in the UN space you also are trying to do that at some level countries that don't love what someone has to say from another government because of certain issues whether it's human rights or other but you still have to respect each other let me make a controversial proposition could it be argued that just at the point where within the internet community multi-stakeholderism has become the orthodoxy the likes of Brazil and then India and even China generally a sort of at least learning the language the wider geopolitical trends have actually pushed the debate the other way where the sort of apparently governments interfering in the elections of other countries the geopolitics are actually putting governments back in the driving seat because of things outside of the internet community how how much space is that bottom up effort going to be given against concerns about security be they want to cry or governments interfering in elections and other issues in other words is this too important to be left to the IGF in the internet community there is one important way what Jane mentioned and the aspect is that the more you get to the closer to user the more you diffuse ideological twist in discussion the higher you move with the lift elevator in the geopolitics issues are becoming more ideological because they become part of the trade off on the global diplomatic agenda I scratch your back on this issue and you scratch mine on the other but again inclusion here has a very very practical value because strictly speaking you cannot have effective digital policy without definitely private sector around the table in the issues of social media and I would say even civil society or user community whatever consumer organization therefore if it is labeled and contextualized first the ideology I moved the lower the sort of this elevator level and then explain to the governments that they can benefit and I can tell you whenever I go to governments including governments who are against multi-stakeholderism and you explain them that they can benefit practically by having their technical experts around the table they like it they don't like their multi-stakeholderism but de facto they like because they will have more expertise therefore they can control their stuff in the ministry or something for their advices they may win next elections because they will look cool with the digital community and you give them points which are very very practical I think we have a major major challenge in communication selling the multi-stakeholderism as an ideological concept is very dangerous if it is put in the very practical level my experience direct experience in interacting in Geneva, in developing countries is that people are quite ok they are ready to there are elements of saving the phase they don't want to be exposed to the criticism in public, in some cultures because of the cultural specificities but all of those issues can be dealt therefore in brief reduce the ideological tension bring all people who can help in practical way for example in cyber security I know in cyber security because they are a bit worried about multi-stakeholder approach but cyber security is per se multi-stakeholder issue because you need the companies you need the governments, you need the users you need digital hygiene you need all of those elements and you need to have all of these people on the table Mike Cloudflare it's hard to know anything about politics and policy but one thing you can count on is that the more powerful the policy maker the less depth and detail because they have to cover so many issues and I guess there is also Jovan's law which is that renaissance diplomats which make up most diplomats also have a pretty broad portfolio and therefore can't get very deep so I have a very specific problem that we have been struggling with which is that for a lot of these powerful people the internet is what is on their screen and so when they see a problem they want to regulate the internet and they don't understand the stack they don't know the difference between Verizon and Verisign and Facebook and the different roles they have they don't know the role of the financial industry and even the electric power grid that make this all possible they just want the internet to solve the problem so do the four of you have any suggestions on how we can more effectively communicate to these people that it's really different if your job like Cloudflare is to just move the bit sufficiently that's very different than Facebook which is to build an online community and to actually moderate and curate the content Thank you Sorry This is a rather I'm thinking aloud so not a very well-baked idea that's the phrase I was looking for and the practicality of this may be quite remote but I think there may be an opportunity for organizations basically getting the stack together and doing I mean this is pretty naive by doing trainings regionally or locally together with ISOC chapters so you can envision and I think we need to be we as most of us here on the panel need to be cautious about the approach that's taken in the faces both the faces but also the companies that are at the table appearing partners and financial institutions in different regions that are able to sit down together and explain I know it's hard to get these diplomats time but I do think that there's diplomats and staff can talk to each other as much as we want but I think in some places it probably sounds and resonates a little bit more coming from the actual operators in many places but not all that's corporations and so I think I would urge you to work together with some of the other companies in the room and your international partners to try and think about a way to do it was kind of a crash course because I think for a while there was a time where it was kind of, it is the screen but I think there are so many actions being taken that can be really destabilizing by some of these countries and whether they be at the local level or the nation state level that we can no longer sort of wave our hands and say the internet's going to fix it I think we need to teach them a little bit more Teach them to fish, sort of in a good way Last question Thank you, my name is David Sittola I'm from the World Bank Thank you for New America and the panel for this great discussion I wanted to pick up on a point that Jovan mentioned in his forecast and that's the role of the courts and the judiciary in these trends and I'd like to hear the panel's views on what they think I mean so far ISPs and over-the-top providers have mostly avoided intermediary liability and I foresee that in the next year or so that that's not going to be the case there will be cases coming out about how those ISPs and over-the-top providers are going to be liable for content and are going to be liable for the content that their users use those platforms for so I'd like to hear your views on what you think the impact of intermediary liability might be on the development and the sort of whole discussion about internet governance Thanks Jovan you raised the issue and perhaps to link it to your localization issue how much does it matter that different parts of the world may well have different jurisdictions and courts that come up with different views and what does that mean for the idea of a single global internet Well, that's to bring a challenge to one notion that it's notional cyberspace I always challenge my students and fail some of them who do not give me, provide the reasons to explain what cyberspace is now you have Chinese cyberspace authority need to have the cyberspace as a fifth or fourth operational domain domain but they always have a difficult they said tell me where is the cyberspace out of the physical space data traveling computers and other issues that brings us to the question of jurisdiction and question of the local content what we'll be having, we'll be having governments basically imposing their role over their portion of cyberspace within the caveats which we already discussed that they don't want to ruin the cyberspace, global cyberspace because they can benefit for their social economic development again the users will remind them stop that funny measures like people are doing now in London now one clear tendency within this court bubble is the tendency towards the liability of all providers of the services it's coming recently from different angles it's coming from the anti-terrorism angle with the Theresa May and the French government last week in the UN it's coming from the fake news angle in Europe therefore there will be increasing pressure forward and basically the logic of government is very simple you are benefiting from the internet message to companies you have to be liable you cannot be just shielded from the previous narrative that internet economy is different and that's basically strong message and we can see that it's currently on political level we can expect over the next year a year and a half spillover into the legal system and I would say first the serious court cases mainly in the European court of justice by other courts along this line of the liability intermediary liability therefore this is definitely clear trend that we can we can envisage in the forthcoming period can look forward to probably is that of software and hardware manufacturing entities they have thus far also similarly been outside the realm of courts we may not see that directly as an internet governance issue one could argue that capacity and cyber crime and cyber security are essential elements of the current approach to internet governance I think you are going to increasingly see regulatory and tort liability issues coming up here I think criminal liability won't come in I think the common concept will prevail in that respect and sir I think your question for me ties directly to Mr. Nelson's question is I would personally hope that we'll start to get some courts with expertise in the area where we have intellectual property cases brought in the Ninth Circuit and the way we have the Delaware Chancery Court in the United States making some of the most important corporate law decisions with all due respect to the public service careers I think the European Court of Justice case showed an immense lack of sophistication in the international markets and on how technology works so they didn't solve the problem they kicked it down the road I'm sure the case will get back to them a couple more times we've already seen renegotiations of the Safe Harbor for anyone who does transatlantic business looked at that ruling and said naive now can that court possibly later come out with a more sophisticated helpful answer possibly but I think you're going to need to get some expertise in your judiciary which will then set the standard so just picking up on that theme just to wrap up I'd like to sort of come down the line starting with Jane we've put out there a lot of concerns and a few good ideas including the one Sean just mentioned that we would like to see to start to sort of drive events in a positive direction so in wrapping up Jane sorry to put you on the spot but one big idea that you and your colleagues would like to see with some additional focus in the next year or two within the internet governance space continue to build bottom up governance through the capacity building as Megan had mentioned and not give up we are tired some of us but there are a lot of people who are not tired and still want to learn the old policies that were in place need to be shifted into some new policy realms to cover all of these different issues so it means engagement across different stakeholder groups in different fora and to work together to do that I mean we really have to push it on the collaborative side to keep things open and transparency is critical in a lot of these conversations Sean watch India it's a billion people English is the world's largest democracy they have the world's largest biometric database for social services they are in Asian culture they have traditional ethnic communities they reflect a lot of what's happening in a lot of different countries the Singh to Modi government transition multilateral to multi-stakeholderism and a lot of the other smaller developing countries look to them because they may not trust US, Russia, China etc. in this cyber space and when I say watch India India's national cyber conferences next week, sci-fi and then next month India is hosting the biannual London process meeting the global cyber global conference on cyber security so if you're interested in where future internet governance is going keep an eye on India this fall a lot is going to be happening there Megan I guess my slightly half-baked idea adjusting to Mike I think while yes there is an opportunity for governments to come and really take this in a real real-politique direction I think there's similarly an opportunity for corporations and civil society to work together to bring some proposals together so that a more forward-looking and interoperable future is what we find ourselves in in less of a retrograde political regulatory state what's the big idea that we should take away to take the global internet in a positive direction probably to quote the Churchill the further forward you want to see the further backward you have to look there are around this big stone in the middle of the Milky Way or whatever for millions of thousands of years there is a lot of wisdom based on basic humanity more recently based on great thinkers of enlightenment great thinkers of India, China and there are the common points which we can refer to in the very heated debate it was my message to the last conference the world internet conference in China because I was referring to the common points in the history between Chinese philosophy and European and Indian philosophy therefore we have to avoid the chrono-narcism that everything is happening now and we have to be more humble and downturn and build trust in the way out trust in us and trust in our history and future thank you that's I think a perfect a note on which to end there is clearly a great deal we look forward to having people back to continue the conversation but I think it is clear that as the physical and virtual worlds collide governments are going to get more engaged in these topics but as they do they need to engage the private sector and civil society even more actively becomes even more apparent and conversations like that I think will help that so please join me in thanking Jankoffin, Shun Kanok, Megan Stiefel and Joven Kor Baie almost there thank you


I found 11 remote job specific companies that are almost always hiring. Yes, these are companies that almost exclusively hire remote positions. And chances are, you haven't heard of a single one of these. Hey champ, that's really interesting. And the first one on the list is going to be wordvice.com. And one of the positions you could be hired for is editor. And this is a company that specializes in providing professional editing and proofreading services to other companies worldwide. And they typically serve universities, medical centers, research institutions, and journals. Now the pay is around $25 per hour, which is pretty good for an entry-level remote job. Now they do require that you have academic experience, so this is one of the harder proofreading companies to get into. But if you can't get into this one, you can also check out Scribber, Scribindi, or Cambridge proofreading. So some of the skills you need for this are obviously excellent English skills, as well as written communication skills. And then you need strong attention to detail, as well as editing and proofreading skills. And it definitely helps if you have a deep understanding of academic or scientific writing. And to get started, you just visit the wordvice website, navigate to their career page, and apply. So overall, it does have some pretty steep requirements, but this still can be a really good opportunity. I'll give it an eight out of 10 opportunity score. The next one on the list is going to be cloud task, and you are gonna be working as a B2B seller. And this is a company that specializes in sales, lead generation, and customer support outsourcing. And as a B2B sales rep, you'd expect to make about $96,000 a year. So this is one that I've talked about many times on the channel. There's other words for this, such as sales development representative, business development representative, or tech sales. And that's what I recommend going for if you wanna try to get into this, is the tech industry, just because that industry has the most amount of opportunity. Also put a link to a free tech sales training course that has helped like thousands of people get tech sales jobs. And they also have a cohort based program that you can upgrade to if you'd like. And I'll put a $50 off coupon for that as well. And I'll put it down in the description as well as the pinned comment below. But yeah, this is a really good opportunity, great career to get into. I'll give this one a 10 out of 10 opportunity score. So the next one on the list is a company called Anywhere Works. And you can work in a bunch of different positions with this company. And this company typically provides IT related services. And recruiters, for instance, at Anywhere Works earn somewhere between $70 and $113,000 a year.  It looks like they also have internships available too. So this could be a great opportunity for the right person. I'll give it a 7.5 out of 10 opportunity score. The next one is gonna be a business development associate for Bandalier. And business development is basically a tech sales role as well. And in this position, you'd expect to make 66 to $104,000 a year. They also have a bunch of customer service and compliance related roles as well. So all you have to do to apply is go to the website, browse the jobs and then apply. And overall, I'm gonna give this one an 8.5 out of 10 opportunity score. Quick video break. I wanted to talk about the three day remote job challenge. So I'm really excited about this. I'm gonna be doing it the 28th, 29th, and 30th of July. And basically, I'm gonna be teaching you how to get a remote or a work from home job in three days. That's gonna be the challenge. You're gonna be learning directly from me. It's gonna be a Zoom session. And at the end of each day, I'm gonna have an assignment for you to do the next day. So if that's something that interests you, go ahead and check it out. I'll put it down in the description as well as the pinned comment below. Hope to see you there. Next on the list is gonna be a customer service representative for foundever.com. And they hire a lot of people. In fact, they have over 170,000 associates in 45 different countries. And they basically provide customer service support for other businesses. Now they do have really good ratings online. And as a CSR, you'd make about 35 to $47,000 a year. So obviously you need good communication skills, thick skin, and you need to be able to solve people's problems. So all you have to do is go to the website, navigate to the career page, explore open positions, and apply for the ones that you'd like. Overall, I'm gonna give this one a nine out of 10 opportunity score. The next one on the list is going to be a case manager for the website wegolook.com. And this is a company that specializes in providing insurance inspection services. So this is basically just making sure that people and businesses are being honest about the things they're trying to ensure. And case managers here make about $47,000 a year. So there's honestly a ton of different jobs in the insurance industry. They're not the most glamorous jobs out there. But there's also a lot of opportunities for remote work as well. So overall, I'm gonna give this one a seven out of 10 opportunity score. The next one on the list is going to be a service provider for liveexchange.com. And this is a service that basically connects service providers with companies that are looking to hire them. So something you might do is an order entry service provider gig, and you'll be making about $14 to $17 per hour. Inbound customer support is another one in the list about $14.25 to $17 per hour. And it looks like the company today's shopping choice, or TSC, is hiring for multiple positions at about $14 to $17 per hour. And in terms of salary, some of the positions they often hire for, customer service representatives, make about $40,000 a year. Product support specialists make about $66,000 a year. And concierge makes about $52,000 a year. This one is also relatively flexible. You don't necessarily have to work full-time. So this could be really good for a lot of people out there. I'll give it an eight out of 10 opportunity score. The next one on the list is gonna be intouchcx.com, and it's gonna be for a customer service representative-related position. And they basically partner with companies to help them optimize their customer service through data-driven and brand-specific approach. And as a customer service representative, you'd expect to make about $32 to $43,000 per year. So this is another one where it's relatively easy to get your first remote job. Customer service representative is not the most glamorous job, but it is underrated, in my opinion. So I'll give this one a nine out of 10 opportunity score. The next one on the list is going to be a tutorforbrainfuse.com. This is a company that connects students with qualified tutors, and they work with students in various subjects as well as academic levels. So some of the positions they hire for and how much you can make in these positions are gonna be for a math coordinator, 54,000 a year, for a math tutor, 38,000 a year, for an English tutor, 50,000, and for a teacher, 49,000 a year. And in order to qualify as a tutor, you do have to have an in-depth understanding on whatever your topic is. You also wanna have strong communication and teaching skills and a genuine desire to help students learn. So to get started, you would just go to their website, navigate to the career and job opportunities section, explore the available tutoring positions, and submit an application. Now, overall, with this one, you may not be able to find full-time work. A lot of the time it is just going to be part-time, and it does require a lot of specialized skills. So for that reason, I'll give it a seven out of 10 opportunity score, but it can be great for the right person. The next one on the list is gonna be a virtual assistant for thecleardesk.com. And that's a clever name because they're basically trying to help executives and business owners clear off their desk. And they basically provide support in various different administrative services to other companies. So some positions that they often hire for are virtual assistant, personal assistant, and administrative assistant. And these roles require excellent organization skills as well as time management skills. And on Glassdoor, it says they make about $3,500 to $4,500 per month. So to begin with them, go to their website, go to the remote job opportunities section, browse the available virtual assistant positions, and submit your application. This one, I'm gonna give a nine out of 10 opportunity score. The next one on the list is going to be kind of an alternative option. It is technically not a job, and that's gonna be a freelancer for freeup.net. And this is a website that I have actually used myself to hire freelancers. And I found this website to be really high quality. And they offer freelancing services for a variety of different tasks. And some of the salaries you'd expect to make if you did freelancing full time would be $51,000 a year for freelance graphic designer, $66,000 for SEO content writer, and $59,000 for graphic designer. So with freelancing, it's not as simple as just, you know, you get a job, you get a paycheck every two weeks, you do have to kind of go out there and kind of find gigs and the work may not be steady, but you can also sometimes make more than you would in a regular job. So there's definitely some pros and cons to being a freelancer, but it's definitely something to look into. Overall, I'll give this one an opportunity score of seven out of 10. So if you haven't checked it out already, you can check out my 21 highest paying remote jobs video by clicking right here.