<div class="hide"><font face="Verdana" size="3">Hi all - just want to share some notes of an interesting event held in Sγo Paulo recently as a preparation for the IGF. Hope it can be useful for you. If you are interested in more info, please get in touch with me or with Carlos.
</font></div>
<div class="hide"><font face="Verdana" size="3"></font> </div>
<div class="hide"><font face="Verdana" size="3">We will soon launch a second edition of this event in Rio de Janeiro (probab. Sept).</font></div>
<div class="hide"><font face="Verdana" size="3"></font> </div>
<div class="hide"><font face="Verdana" size="3">Regards,</font></div>
<div class="hide"><font face="Verdana" size="3">Seiiti</font></div>
<div class="hide"><em><font face="Verdana" size="3"></font></em> </div>
<div class="hide"><font face="Verdana" size="3">*****</font></div>
<div class="hide"><font face="Verdana" size="3"><i>Observation - These are private notes taken by Seiiti Arata in the event organized by NUPEF/RITS with Direito GV, CTS/FGV and DiploFoundation, with support from CGI.br and Ford Foundation. RITS was the executive leader in the process. Note that the following are private interpretations and do not constitute the opinion of the speakers. An official transcript of the event will soon be made available at Nupef website and more information can be obtained from
</i></font><a href="mailto:seiitia@diplomacy.edu" target="_blank"><font face="Verdana" color="#0000ff" size="3"><i><u>seiitia@diplomacy.edu</u></i></font></a><font face="Verdana" size="3"><i> Further, a discussion list is to be made connecting the participants of the event and other interested people to make this an ongoing debate leading to the second preparatory seminar and beyond.
</i></font> <br> </div>
<div style="MARGIN: 1ex">
<div>
<p align="justify"><font face="Verdana" size="3"><b>Opening</b></font> <br></p>
<p align="justify"><font face="Verdana" size="3">The preparatory seminar to the IGF at Getulio Vargas Foundation in Sγo Paulo held in July 3 and 4 discussed 'possible governance models', 'open standards', 'access to knowledge' and 'gender'. The second seminar will be held in Rio at Getulio Vargas Foundation on September 12 and 13.
</font> <br></p>
<p align="justify"><font face="Verdana" size="3">RITS and NUPEF are not only playing their role as actors in the context of a democratic process but also stimulating others to join.</font> <br></p>
<p align="justify"><font face="Verdana" size="3"><b>DAY 1 July 3</b></font> <br></p>
<p align="justify"><font face="Verdana" size="3"><b>Possible governance models</b></font> <br></p>
<p align="justify"><font face="Verdana" size="3">The initial involvement of the Brazilian delegation in the Internet governance debate can be identified in the ANATEL Brazilian National Telecommunications Agency internal meeting for Bavaro PrepCom. The discussion of backbone cost and ICANN governance model got attention.
</font> <br></p>
<p align="justify"><font face="Verdana" size="3">At Bavaro, US joins to counter Cuba proposals. This is when Brazil adds the proposal to consider the Internet as a multilateral, democratic and transparent resource. As the US had joined the process because of the need to counterargument Cuban draft proposals, the Brazilian proposal does not get objection from the US side and is subscribed.
</font> <br></p>
<p align="justify"><font face="Verdana" size="3">From this point on, the Brazilian Foreign Relations officers are always promoting synergy with ANATEL officers in negotiation strategies. </font> <br></p>
<p align="justify"><font face="Verdana" size="3">The discussion develops to the creation of the WGIG. A need for a centralized forum is felt, but at Tunis, the argument that we shall not fix what is not broken is still strong. IGF is created as a discussion forum with possibility of making recommendations, but that did not happen in Athens.
</font> <br></p>
<p align="justify"><font face="Verdana" size="3">Being the second host, Brazil wants to be better able to influence and promote further developments according to the mandate. One of the ideas is to bring ICANN issues in the core, such as the governance model for critical resources (ICANN) and infrastructure (ITU). These are the most critical governance discussions as there are no current existing discussion fora for that, compared to other issues in which existing bodies are taking charge of things. Spam is one such example needing more international cooperation.
</font> <br></p>
<p align="justify"><font face="Verdana" size="3">As a second product of the IGF, the enhanced cooperation, this was not implemented so far. Today we have the IGF with great potential for promoting ICANN and ITU change.</font>
<br></p>
<p align="justify"><font face="Verdana" size="3">--</font> <br></p>
<p align="justify"><font face="Verdana" size="3">We shall not take the internet for granted, just as we cannot take water for granted, the environmentalists would say. What is the governance behind? Different interests clash, different possible futures. The governance will have lots of political and cultural effects as well.
</font> <br></p>
<p align="justify"><font face="Verdana" size="3">Governance of what? Who makes it?</font> <br></p>
<p align="justify"><font face="Verdana" size="3">Multistakeholder comprising different countries and also different actors. Tunis seemed too vague. But even then we advanced and the Brazilian delegation was very important. But how to conciliate so many different actors together? Countries in theory represent their people. But what about big corporations? What kind of representatives do we have? As this process is new and somehow connected to the UN crisis, we have to be aware of how to do it properly otherwise the IGF may become just a rhetoric process, a show for all to see but without effectiveness.
</font> <br></p>
<p align="justify"><font face="Verdana" size="3">Of what? Internet some years ago was considered another media. But TCP/IP transmission is swallowing other technologies and media. Let us think in layers. </font> <br></p>
<p align="justify"><font face="Verdana" size="3">Different governance models for different layers such as infrastructure, which implies interconnection issues. Network neutrality is about keeping the road neutral. Logical layer governance makes us think whether a corporate entity in California can control finite resources. The problem is not its location, but being subject to US law. Now that China is entering the Internet market, there will be a huge demand for resources.
</font> <br></p>
<p align="justify"><font face="Verdana" size="3">Architecture (hardware and software) layer also to be internationally discussed.</font> <br></p>
<p align="justify"><font face="Verdana" size="3">Content do we want regulation? Of what kind? Undesired content such as spam, criminal content such as pedophilia and even intermediary and subtle issues such as age rating for television.
</font> <br></p>
<p align="justify"><font face="Verdana" size="3">Who makes governance? Of what? We are not anymore only discussing Internet strictu sensu we have now a larger picture. Today is the deadline for organizations run into CGI (Brazilian Internet Steering Committee) elections. Brazil made a governance space that deals with some of these questions touching even digital divide, net neutrality, content regulation, etc. Also CGI has elected representatives 3 from academy, 4 of the private sector and 3 from civil society.
</font> <br></p>
<p align="justify"><font face="Verdana" size="3">--</font> <br></p>
<p align="justify"><font face="Verdana" size="3">Why logical infrastructure is the most discussed issue? Domain names will soon loose importance with the evolution of search mechanisms. Unfortunately this is still a popular item for discussion.
</font> <br></p>
<p align="justify"><font face="Verdana" size="3">Interconnection agreements are unfair because developed countries have favorable agreements. It's too expensive to have broadband in developing countries as who decides the price has freedom to change how much they want. Australia and EU were able to negotiate prices. There is no international control of these costs.
</font> <br></p>
<p align="justify"><font face="Verdana" size="3">In the analogic era, these discussions were held in ITU. But today there's nothing, no body we can rely upon. Another issue is censorship. Here in Brazil senator Azeredo has proposed a bill to identify users. In the name of security, censorship is being proposed. There is no international convention to avoid these scenarios.
</font> <br></p>
<p align="justify"><font face="Verdana" size="3">Another important issue is convergence and net neutrality. In thesis you can connect your computer and render services. Servers are now located in certain places. It is still possible to render any service but with convergence there is a tendency to have a controlled layered network deciding which sites you can access and how to interact.
</font> <br></p>
<p align="justify"><font face="Verdana" size="3">A recent ICANN discussion on generic TLDs is that the registrar shall only use technical arguments. There is no international guideline to discuss what should be adequate or not, such as .fun or .xxx
</font> <br></p>
<p align="justify"><font face="Verdana" size="3">--</font> <br></p>
<p align="justify"><font face="Verdana" size="3">We want less of a show for Rio IGF and more knowledge from the panelists, increasing the depth of discussion. A wrap up is needed to avoid losing words in rhetoric. And the moderator shall also be able to make a link and point out which workshops will deal with such and such theme.
</font> <br></p>
<p align="justify"><font face="Verdana" size="3">Also, each country will be able to present its governance model in a specific forum. Another forum will be available for entities such as WIPO, ICANN, ITU
to present their work. Dynamic coalitions are another example of groups of people together decising.
</font> <br></p>
<p align="justify"><font face="Verdana" size="3">--</font> <br></p>
<p align="justify"><font face="Verdana" size="3">MAG was to be like WGIG however it is not so multilateral. MAG is too influenced by ICANN related members and thus ICANN issues were not discussed as we wanted.</font> <br>
<br></p>
<p align="justify"><font face="Verdana" size="3"><b>Open standards</b></font> <br></p>
<p align="justify"><font face="Verdana" size="3">IDEC, the Institute of Consumer Protection, is just starting work in IPR although had previous contact with transgenics and patents.</font> <br></p>
<p align="justify"><font face="Verdana" size="3">--</font> <br></p>
<p align="justify"><font face="Verdana" size="3">Open standards are very important. The network society is based in standards, protocols and architecture. Communication intermediaries are essential elements of the day to day life. Direct communication is being substituted by mediated, regulated and controlled intermediaries.
</font> <br></p>
<p align="justify"><font face="Verdana" size="3">Code is law. Standards define different levels of liberty and rights including research rights, anonymity, private and public interests. Therefore, standards have great importance and shall not be controlled by one single corporation.
</font> <br></p>
<p align="justify"><font face="Verdana" size="3">There are many layers of protocols such as application, transport, network and physical. And the Internet can be understood as a big agreement. There are agreements that one layer shall not interfere on the others to preserve free flow.
</font> <br></p>
<p align="justify"><font face="Verdana" size="3">From the economic point of view, standards are vital for the market. J. Stiglitz mix of monopoly, competition and IP influences innovation pacing. Controls previous innovations, which is the base for next innovations, acts as barriers to disruptors. By innovating, increases the incumbent power and innovates just to keep position of power this cannot be considered as an optimal innovation. Monopoly reduced innovation in the long term. De facto standards defined by the market are different from consensus standards, which shall not be the one from monopoly and not protect one company.
</font> <br></p>
<p align="justify"><font face="Verdana" size="3">IPv6. If we define that to communicate on the net we have to digitally sign each packet, this will be the end of anonymity. The network shall not work under the vigilance empire.
</font> <br></p>
<p align="justify"><font face="Verdana" size="3">Open Document Format allows any software to open documents. Assures whole interoperability. Why would companies approve ODF? Because it is ISO approved. Microsoft is the one reacting with OOXML standard. They are adding lots of routines under its property. OOXML implies lots of patents. It is open, but its contents are not.
</font> <br></p>
<p align="justify"><font face="Verdana" size="3">--</font> <br></p>
<p align="justify"><font face="Verdana" size="3">There are multicultural aspects linked to governance. </font> <br></p>
<p align="justify"><font face="Verdana" size="3">The Azeredo bill, if not implemented on a global level, will not solve problems and will only be an obstacle to civil liberty rights. However, it is supported by the banking associations due to online fraud.
</font> <br> <br></p>
<p align="justify"><font face="Verdana" size="3"><b>Intellectual property and access to knowledge</b></font> <br></p>
<p align="justify"><font face="Verdana" size="3">Challenges and opportunities for access to knowledge.</font> <br></p>
<p align="justify"><font face="Verdana" size="3">Number 1 driver of change in IG space is the protection for IP rights. We have seen lots of rights being granted to holders and limiting users. How do we see these drivers being manifested? DRMs, Technology restrictions, policy issues for IPR which is not necessarily law, just policy with implications in rights.
</font> <br></p>
<p align="justify"><font face="Verdana" size="3">Technology restriction digital locks for music, videos, digital books, for example.</font> <br></p>
<p align="justify"><font face="Verdana" size="3">Proprietary standards and tech patents being embedded on the internet patents in protocols are one example. </font> <br></p>
<p align="justify"><font face="Verdana" size="3">To combat that, we have to promote open standards and protocols, non proprietary software and creative commons type of works.</font> <br></p>
<p align="justify"><font face="Verdana" size="3">WIPO 1996 Internet treaties. Proposed treaty on Broadcasting was a threat to A2K.</font> <br></p>
<p align="justify"><font face="Verdana" size="3">Brazil played an important role fighting it and the proposal was defeated 2 weeks ago.</font> <br></p>
<p align="justify"><font face="Verdana" size="3">Development agenda weigh costs and benefits. Are we increasing innovation? Become more public interest approach based.</font> <br></p>
<p align="justify"><font face="Verdana" size="3">Free trade agreements the target is P2P file sharing. </font> <br></p>
<p align="justify"><font face="Verdana" size="3">ICANN is another policy forum. Problem with the UDRP is that the filing party picks the arbitror. 84% of decisions are favorable to the plaintiff. Policy for new gTLDs is a problem of expansion of trademarks' holders on the Internet.
</font> <br></p>
<p align="justify"><font face="Verdana" size="3">Keep the core neutral initiative.</font> <br></p>
<p align="justify"><font face="Verdana" size="3">ICANN policy no offensive words and ideas. No works against public policy or morality. Religious sensitivities. Problem: massive censorship and little protection of freedom of expression.
</font> <br></p>
<p align="justify"><font face="Verdana" size="3">ICANN whois: privacy threat to EU Data Protection laws and local laws such as the one from Argentina.</font> <br></p>
<p align="justify"><font face="Verdana" size="3">--</font> <br></p>
<p align="justify"><font face="Verdana" size="3">History of intellectual property and the problem with its expansion and strengthening to protect not the authors and innovation, but the industry exploring it.</font> <br>
<br></p>
<p align="justify"><font face="Verdana" size="3"><b>Gender</b></font> <br></p>
<p align="justify"><font face="Verdana" size="3">Gender issues are being discussed since the 90s conferences. Gender balance is necessary for social and economic development.</font> <br></p>
<p align="justify"><font face="Verdana" size="3">Gender is not a synonym of women. </font> <br></p>
<p align="justify"><font face="Verdana" size="3">In the WGIG lots of efforts to amplify female participation: only 6 members out of 40.</font> <br></p>
<p align="justify"><font face="Verdana" size="3">Context in which technical aspect receive more attention than social themes.</font> <br></p>
<p align="justify"><font face="Verdana" size="3">An effort must be made to demonstrate how IG debate shall bring more actors together.</font> <br></p>
<p align="justify"><font face="Verdana" size="3">Part of WGIG members from the government were from countries in which women are treated as second class citizens.</font> <br></p>
<p align="justify"><font face="Verdana" size="3">Hot issues linked to sex and freedom freedom of expression, A2K, content, privacy and security.</font> <br></p>
<p align="justify"><font face="Verdana" size="3"><b>DAY 2 July 4</b></font> <br></p>
<p align="justify"><font face="Verdana" size="3">There are lots of people already dealing with horizontal issues. What is the goal? Preaching for the preachers or bringing new people around? A2K for instance how was this proposed in the IGF? Is there coordination with WIPO/WTO?
</font> <br></p>
<p align="justify"><font face="Verdana" size="3">Seems we have 3 groups those already connected to the IGF process. This is the core circle we already reached. The second group is related to people dealing with communications. The third circle is the civil society groups not already involved.
</font> <br></p>
<p align="justify"><font face="Verdana" size="3">It is also important to talk to media representatives. We will do this before Rio. Those meetings with media are very important. We already did this in the past and had great success.
</font> <br></p>
<p align="justify"><font face="Verdana" size="3">IGF is not a traditional event. For the Brazilian Foreign Relations, it is important to have good multistakeholder model. The IGF is still under construction The 4 big thematic groups from Athens are being considered openness / access / security / diversity. A new one is technical resources.
</font> <br></p>
<p align="justify"><font face="Verdana" size="3">Inside these 5 big themes, what will we discuss? There are consultations for workshops, which differ from Athens they will be linked to the themes. In this preliminary list of themes we have interesting ones. One Swiss entity will discuss a development agenda in IG similarly to what Argentina and Brazil did at WIPO.
</font> <br></p>
<p align="justify"><font face="Verdana" size="3">Dynamic coalitions a space in Rio will be available for meetings and reporting to the central meeting. Who are the specialists we want in the tables?</font> <br></p>
<p align="justify"><font face="Verdana" size="3">These are different days since Tunis. Civil society and private sector do not rely upon governments anymore to have their voices presented into international for a. Anyway, the Brazilian government, through the Itamaraty, is open to receive input from different stakeholders and compose a good position.
</font> <br></p>
<p align="justify"><font face="Verdana" size="3">There are ideas to use November 10 and 11 to a civil society meeting.</font></p></div></div>