{"id":369,"date":"2010-06-21T03:30:40","date_gmt":"2010-06-21T03:30:40","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/rigf.asia\/?page_id=369"},"modified":"2024-01-25T06:50:26","modified_gmt":"2024-01-25T06:50:26","slug":"hong-kong-igf-june-17th-2010-session-4","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/event.rigf.asia\/2010\/hong-kong-igf-june-17th-2010-session-4\/","title":{"rendered":"Hong Kong IGF \u2013 June 17th, 2010: Session 4"},"content":{"rendered":"

Report from Regional roundtable & IGF issues specific for Asia Pacific<\/span><\/p>\n

________________________________________________________________________<\/p>\n

REAL TIME TRANSCRIPT: Report from Regional roundtable & IGF issues specific for Asia Pacific<\/p>\n

Hong Kong IGF
\n 17:00-17:30, Thursday 17 June 2010
\n Hong Kong<\/p>\n

DISCLAIMER: Due to the inherent difficulties in capturing a live
\n speaker’s words, it is possible this realtime transcript may
\n contain errors and mistranslations. An edited version of the
\n realtime transcript which amends the inherent errors, will
\n be posted later. LLOYD MICHAUX and APrIGF accept no
\n liability for any event or action resulting from the
\n contents of this transcript.<\/p>\n

________________________________________________________________________<\/p>\n

>> Edmon Chung: Good afternoon, everyone.<\/p>\n

We don’t really have a scheduled break, but it seems
\nlike most people are out for a biobreak.<\/p>\n

But let’s get started.<\/p>\n

This session is really just a quick report from last
\ntwo days of meetings.<\/p>\n

I think Stephen and many others mentioned that on
\nTuesday and Wednesday of this week, we had an Asian
\nPacific regional IGF round table.<\/p>\n

This panel will report some of the discussions that
\nwere held during those two days.<\/p>\n

Really, grateful to have Sam Dickinson to help us
\nstart off with a comprehensive summary from the last two
\ndays.<\/p>\n

I’m also happy to have many distinguished panellists
\nwith me to just say a few words about the first Asian
\nPacific regional IGF and how it went.<\/p>\n

Just realised that all of them are chairs of some
\nsort, chair of the ICANN nominating committee, Wolfgang,
\nchair of the APTLD, Keith; chair of Internet Society
\nHong Kong, Charles; and our chair for the local
\norganising committee, Stephen Lau.<\/p>\n

First, I think we’ll have Sam help us just recap on
\nwhat happened at the round table.<\/p>\n

>> Sam Dickinson: This is a very high level summary. There
\nwere a lot of case studies discussed during the last two
\nday, but I haven’t gone into those. It’s just the
\nhigh-level themes.<\/p>\n

The first session looked at security and was quite
\ninteresting, because there were a number of perspectives
\nshown this that session. We looked at how internet
\nusers view security, how businesses view security, how
\ngovernments view security.<\/p>\n

There was also an interesting emergence of the
\nconvergence between on-line and real world worlds, so
\nthere is a convergence between devices these days which
\nnow have a lot of internet connectivity, through
\nwireless networks quite frequently, and so threats that
\npreviously were separate physical threats, so if you
\nwanted to enter a building illegally, you would have to
\ngo there and break down the door. Now the door may be
\ncontrolled by a networked device and you can hack that
\nand just digitally unlock the door.<\/p>\n

There was also discussion about how previously there
\nwere internal threats, so you would — a type of
\ninternal digital threat is stealing intellectual
\nproperty, whereas you would have an external threat such
\nas we all know, phishing, where you’ll get an email that
\nsays please go and check your bank account and they will
\nsteal your your details whereas nowadays there a is
\nconvergence where there will be malware that will be
\nused in conjunction with insider knowledge to have
\na more targeted security threat. So an example you
\nprobably all heard about was the Google example in
\nChina.<\/p>\n

There is also a big discussion about the importance
\nof balancing security against the need to protect the
\nopen internet structure and the privacy of users.<\/p>\n

The internet will not continue to grow if you don’t
\nhave security measures, but equally, it will not
\ncontinue to grow unless you have users assured that
\ntheir privacy will be protected.<\/p>\n

As time has gone on, the threat has moved on from
\nthings like viruses to now large botnets.<\/p>\n

There was an interesting discussion, because some of
\nthe governments speakers were talking about cyber threat
\nas a national security issue, so threats to critical
\ninfrastructure like electricity systems, whereas for
\ncivil society offer, if you are in a country where
\nperhaps the government is a bit more authoritatively,
\nthere is a threat that the government can actually take
\nthe users. Depending on which side you’re on, cyber
\nthreat definition can change.<\/p>\n

One of the things that as more and more people enter
\nthe internet, it’s affecting the security issues.<\/p>\n

So you get more new users who don’t understand
\nsecurity issues, you get new internet operators who
\ndon’t necessarily understand security issues.<\/p>\n

So there is a need to educate both the users, so in
\nterms of things like children, you teach your children
\nat a young age not to run into the middle of the road,
\nyou need to do the same thing with the internet.<\/p>\n

Equally, you need to teach the internet operators
\nwho know how to operate a network, but you may not have
\na security understanding, you need to teach them how to
\nmanage security threats.<\/p>\n

An interesting thing that came up towards the end
\nwas the notion that a lot of attacks appear, not
\nnecessarily are, but at least appear to be originating
\nwithin the Asian Pacific.<\/p>\n

Which mean that is if you’re a network operator, you
\nmay be called on in future to respond to this. It also
\nhas an effect on government policy and speaking as
\nsomeone from APNIC, I know that a lot of peak blog any
\naddress from the Asia Pacific region.<\/p>\n

The following session looked at openness. There was
\ndiscussion about needing openness at all layers of the
\ninternet, so whether you’re a user of the internet, so
\nthat you have the ability to speak freely, if you’re an
\nintermediary, so you’re someone that hosts a web size or
\nhosts a group discussion board, or openness at the
\nactual technical specification levels.<\/p>\n

The internet, it was discussion about the internet
\nas a tool for societal change. So if you have an open
\ninternet culture, you can use that to make changes to
\nthe political environment in your country, make that
\nmore open, or the societal culture of your country.<\/p>\n

There was also discussion about how it can be used
\nas an alternative voice to mainstream media or
\nmainstream government views.<\/p>\n

There was also an interesting link back to the
\nsecurity section which was held before it, that if you
\nhave an open internet, where there is freedom of speech,
\nhow do you protect children from that free content?
\nThere was discussion about a report that the Hong Kong
\nGovernment has done looking at how parents control their
\nchildren’s activity on the internet and protect them.<\/p>\n

On the flip side, if there is a lack of openness,
\nwhat can happen is that people are so scared of being
\npunished, criminally, that they several sensor and quite
\noften, if you are afraid of some sort of defamation
\ncase, you will censor yourself more than you actually
\nneed to.<\/p>\n

But there were discussions about how you can
\ncreatively work around this. There was discussion about
\nThai blog. What they do is they change the domain name,
\nthe IP address, to try and get around these issues.<\/p>\n

Digital divide. One thing that came out that was
\nvery interesting about that, there’s two aspects. One
\nthat is traditionally discussed at IGF, which is looking
\nat providing the physical access, so actually providing
\ninternet connectivity, but that is just one step. The
\nsecond step is making people feel that there is
\nsomething on the internet worth looking at, so providing
\ninteresting content or applications or different
\nlanguages on the internet that it’s like you can take
\na horse to water, be I you can’t make it drink.<\/p>\n

Provide something interesting.<\/p>\n

Digital divide is there for a number of reasons.
\nThere can be economic reasons, old people who may not be
\ntechnologically savvy, people with disabilities, or
\nbecause of cultural or linguistic differences.<\/p>\n

The other interesting aspect that came out was that
\nif you are not someone who has access to the internet or
\ncan’t use a computer, it mag fews a real world divides
\nthere may be, so if you can’t use a computer, that means
\nyou can’t do an awful lot of jobs.<\/p>\n

That may then increase your financial divide.<\/p>\n

The problem, though, is that when trying to address
\nthis, for governments for civil societies, there are
\nlots of other wordy issues in the world, so how do you
\nencourage this issue to be a priority?<\/p>\n

Some of the strategies that were show cased were
\nlooking at government policy, although one of the
\nwarning bells that can happen is that if you regulate
\nthe internet too much, it can actually stifle people
\naccess in the internet, so in a country, a developing
\ncountry that’s trying to encourage people to connect to
\nthe internet, there is a balance between providing
\nenough regulation and over-regulating.<\/p>\n

There was discussion about how governments are
\nworking with the private sector to try and develop
\nprojects to cross the digital divide and there is also
\na lot of community projects to bridge that divide.<\/p>\n

One of the interesting points that someone brought
\nup was that I’m not sure if it was in the Philippines,
\nthere was a high percentage of people who could access
\nthe internet, but a much lower of people that were using
\nthe internet at home.<\/p>\n

It was pointed out that because the internet was
\navailable freely in many locations, why do you need to
\npay for it at home?<\/p>\n

When you’re looking to come up with — it was
\nMalaysia. Thank you.<\/p>\n

When you are looking to come up with policies to
\nencourage people to connect to the internet, you have to
\nunderstand what the real problem is, because there the
\nproblem is not that people don’t want to use the
\ninternet, it’s because it’s free elsewhere.<\/p>\n

The developing world is the majority of the world.
\nThey’re not yet on the internet, but when they are, that
\nwill significantly affect how the internet works.<\/p>\n

So there is a great need to do capacity building for
\nboth the user, to know how to understand the internet,
\nand user and not be liable to botnets, et cetera, and
\nfor operators in these countries to understand how to
\nmanage their networks effectively.<\/p>\n

There is also a very large diversity in our region
\nin particular, which then reflects a large diversity of
\nneeds.<\/p>\n

One of the solutions is to have multilingual content
\nand use IDNs, but while regional venues like this or the
\nIGF are great, there is also a need to find local
\nsolutions.<\/p>\n

Another point was someone brought up was that with
\nbridging the digital divide, often the people to benefit
\nare the companies that provide access and provide
\nwebsites and sell domain names, whereas what you really
\nneed to do is empower the users.<\/p>\n

That session most of the people on the panel were
\nfrom developed countries. So for them, the digital
\ndivide was about bringing people up from say an
\n80 per cent penetration rate to 100 per cent. But for
\ndeveloping countries, it’s often bringing them up from
\n30 per cent to 50 per cent.<\/p>\n

There are digital divides, but there are different
\nneeds in different countries.<\/p>\n

Markus at the end of the session explained that the
\nmandate of the IGF is not to provide incentives or the
\ncontent and use of the internet, it’s about the
\ntechnical providing access. But that if that is an
\nissue in our region and it seemed to be given the topics
\nthat people discussed, it is certainly something that
\ncan continue to be discussed in the APRIGF and in
\nnational IGFs.<\/p>\n

The first session on Thursday was looking at
\ncritical internet resources and one of the main issues
\nwas looking at IP addresses and the need to move to
\nIPV6, given that IPV46 is about to become exhausted.<\/p>\n

There are two main issues. The IP address
\navailability and that is the main problem is getting
\nwidespread deployment of IPV6. So a number of the ccTLD
\noperators discussed who they were deploying it. But the
\nproblems are that there are locust mer demand and there
\nis no financial gain if you have IPV6. It’s just we are
\nrunning out of V4, so you have to move to V6.<\/p>\n

But one of the interesting things was as soon as
\nYoutube enabled V6 on their website, the IPV6 traffic on
\nthe internet shot up.<\/p>\n

It will be interesting to see when Facebook enables
\nV6.<\/p>\n

Once again, in the V6 deployment, you need both
\ngovernment and the community to work together.<\/p>\n

Also in that session, there was discussion about the
\nopen transparent bottom up processes that organisations
\nlike the regional internet registries and ICANN that
\ncoordinates domain name IP addresses, et cetera, use and
\nhow this has been reflected in more recent creation of
\nthe IGF.<\/p>\n

Finally, I don’t have a link to it, but one of the
\npanellists Lined to a survey he had done a number of
\nyears ago that looked at what people actually think are
\ncritical internet resources, because in the IGF context,
\nit’s things like IP addresses, domain names, grid
\nservice and that’s an interesting survey, because it
\nlooks at for a lot of developing country, it’s things as
\nsimple as electricity or roads, so that you can get to
\nplaces.<\/p>\n

IDNs.<\/p>\n

There was discussion about how it helps the rest of
\nthe world that doesn’t speak English use the internet
\nmore effectively.<\/p>\n

But there are a number of issues still being ironed
\nout in IDNs. Characters and different scripts can look
\nthe same. In Chinese, there are characters that are
\nalso usused Japanese, but that are different character
\nsets completely, but they look the same to the user.<\/p>\n

Sometimes in the case of some of the endian
\nlanguages, different languages can use the same
\ncharacter set. There is also the support that you need
\nin software. For people to be able to use these
\nwebsites to create this sort of technology.<\/p>\n

Some someter sets are used by more than one economy.
\nSo in the case of India, Hindi is used both in India,
\nbut it’s also used if if Ijy, ur du is used in India and
\nPakistan, so who has a right to those character sets as
\na top level domain name.<\/p>\n

There is also the intellectual property
\nconsiderations for businesses. If you own certain
\ncopyright term like Pepsi Cola, once you get all these
\ninternational domain names, do you own each of those
\nthis can other people have them in if you have a certain
\ndomain name in the ASCII form of a country code TLD, do
\nyou also therefore automatically have the right to the
\nIDN version.<\/p>\n

Yesterday afternoon, we were looking at the role of
\ncivil society in internet governance. It was quite
\ninteresting. Wolfgang in particular was looking at the
\nrole of civil society, how originally in the early world
\nsummit on the international society, civil society had
\nbeen pretty much kept out of the room or right at the
\nback as you heard this morning.<\/p>\n

Now they are firmly in the room, in the IGF.<\/p>\n

But it’s not just about making people participate,
\nit’s making here that the view that is they express are
\nalso considered equally to any views expressed by
\ngovernment.<\/p>\n

Another interesting point that came up with that
\noften there is a divide between people who are
\nparticipants and those who complain. Basically, if you
\nwant to have your say, you need to be in the room.<\/p>\n

It’s not enough just to complain later, because you
\ncouldn’t turn up to the room. The point is to make sure
\nthat people’s views can be heard and there are enabling
\ntools that allow voices to be heard, so that they don’t
\nfeel that they can’t participate.<\/p>\n

Like the issue of the divide, internet gov is one of
\nissues that entered the civil society sphere. If they
\nhave competing priorities, how do you get that threw to
\nthem and for people that are new it to it, it’s very
\nhard to understand the processes, so there’s a need to
\nhave simplified processes so that new civil society
\norganisations and participants can can even the
\ndiscussion.<\/p>\n

There was also a look at what civil society can do
\nwithin the Internet Governance Forum.<\/p>\n

One of the things it can do is that for many
\ngovernments of a more authoritarian nature, they may see
\ninternet governance as a form of control. What several
\nsociety can do is challenge that view.<\/p>\n

What they are also doing is raising the issue of
\nhuman rights and ICT for development and that is
\nbeginning to come into the IGF.<\/p>\n

Another view was that this dichotomy of civil
\nsociety versus government is an age old story and this
\nis just the late I chapter. But what’s interesting is
\nthat this negotiation between the different stakeholders
\ncould form a new multi-stakeholder government model that
\nis used elsewhere.<\/p>\n

In the final session, there was discussion about the
\ncontinuation of the IGF. Its mandate is up this year.
\nLast year, when there was a consultation, the community
\noverwhelmingly supported the continuation of the IGF.
\nThe next stage is for the governments of the United
\nNations to decide whether the IGF should continue for
\nthe recommended five years one of the panellists brought
\nup an interesting point of view. The United Nations
\nsecretary general have written a report of
\nrecommendations to go to the governments of the UN about
\nthe continuation of the IGF.<\/p>\n

The panellists pointed out, Chris Disspain, I think,
\nthat many of the recommendations seem to be at odds with
\nwhat the community had actually suggested.<\/p>\n

He’s publishing that within the next week or so, so
\nthat would be a very interesting document to read.<\/p>\n

Who came out of that session was that regional IGFs
\nand national IGFs like the ones that are being held this
\nweek are very important conduits for information from
\nIGF back to the community and from the community through
\nto the global IGF.<\/p>\n

Ended with a bidding war for the next regional IGF
\nand lots of people expressing an interest in national
\nIGFs.<\/p>\n

I think that’s that says that people were very
\nenthusiastic and enjoyed the meeting.<\/p>\n

>> Edmon Chung: I was hoping to start this conversation with
\nsome status I cans from the last two days. I finally
\ngot them.<\/p>\n

We talked about multi-stakeholder. In the last
\ncouple of days, in the APRIGF round table, we had about
\n150 participants come in from over 20 countries, just 21
\neconomies, including Hong Kong.<\/p>\n

We had 13 from government officials. We had about
\n40 coming from civil society.<\/p>\n

We had about 10 from international organisations.<\/p>\n

We had about 10 from media that have been
\nparticipating.<\/p>\n

The rest were private sector.<\/p>\n

It’s sort of like about 10 per cent for government,
\n10 per cent for international organisations, about
\n10 per cent for media, about 25 per cent coming from
\ncivil society and the remaining about 50 per cent from
\nprivate sector.<\/p>\n

I think we didn’t do too bad. We had a pretty good
\nparticipation there.<\/p>\n

If we include today and the youth IGF camp, there
\nare about a total of 300 participants over the week long
\nevent.<\/p>\n

That’s a very summary of the statistics so far.<\/p>\n

With that, I’ll go across the table, Wolfgang, Keith
\nand then Charles and then I’ll go to the floor for any
\nquestions and then end with Stephen with a wrap up for
\nthe session and for the day.<\/p>\n

>> Wolfgang Kleinwachter: I got two minutes to wrap up.<\/p>\n

Chair of the Internet Governance Forum who served as
\nthe special internet adviser to Kofi Annan and Ban
\nKi-Moon, always says a United Nations conference is
\neither a success or is an outstanding success.<\/p>\n

My summary from this meeting the last two or three
\ndays is this was an outstanding success.<\/p>\n

This was really a very impressive meeting and as
\na first meeting, I think it did a great kick-start and
\nwhen the IGF started in the year 2006, nobody could
\nexpect it that within a couple of year, this becomes
\na process which involves more and more various
\ncommunities and regions and constituencies in so many
\ncountries in the world.<\/p>\n

I think my experience from all these meetings is the
\nfirst and most complicated thing is to get the process
\nkick started.<\/p>\n

Because if you have to first version, then you know
\nhow it looks like and then you can improve it.<\/p>\n

What I was impressed here from this very first
\nmeeting is that you, it was organised as a bottom up
\nprocess and bottom up process has the power to pull
\npeople into the process.<\/p>\n

You have now a version here on the table with
\npractical experience, so you can immediately use the
\noutstanding success of this meeting to think about the
\nnext version in the year 2011.<\/p>\n

Because I think this is important, that the IGF is
\nnot a single effect. When we discussed the sign of the
\na IGF in the working group of internet governance, we
\nhad to positions. One people said OK, that’s an annual
\nconference and in particular, people from the civil
\nsociety argued, no, this is a process with an annual
\nhighlight in between.<\/p>\n

So it means very important is what happened between
\nthe different conferences, so my encouragement to you is
\ncreate mailing lists, create on line working groups,
\nwhere you continue the debate of the issues you have
\nraisraised and try to pull more people to the process.<\/p>\n

The other important and impressive observation from
\nmy side is really the multi-stakeholder nature. The
\nstatistics just given us by Edmon prove that all
\nstakeholders has been involved, still in probably not
\nreally balanced way, but you can do it better. My
\nexperience from the German IGF, in the beginning the
\ngovernment was sceptical and said, the internet crowd
\nmakes another noise and that will do it. But with the
\nfrom the Federal Parliament, we had one vice minister
\nfrom the federal government and three ministers from the
\nregional governments, because now policymakers have
\nrealised after the third one, something is going on,
\nthese are important issues, we will lose the connection
\nto the community in so I think these are very brief sum
\nof my observations and probably representations for the
\nfuture and I’m looking forward to see second IGF for the
\nAsia Pacific region and also national IGFs for this many
\nhuge region with so many countries.<\/p>\n

Thank you.<\/p>\n

>> Keith Davidson: It’s always intrigues me the way the
\ninternet has grown. It started off as a playground for
\nthe technical community and all the answers to all the
\nproblems on the network were technical answers.<\/p>\n

They were only technical problems and technical
\nanswers.<\/p>\n

As the interfelt has grown through the 1970s, it
\ncame to a point where it was inevitable that other
\naspects of life would enter this internet. It was no
\nlonger the preserve of the technical community.<\/p>\n

Today, we see the collision of the many varied
\ninterested in the internet. There are the technical
\ncommunity who continue to develop the standards and
\nprotocols and the uses for this network.<\/p>\n

We have government, both at the highest political
\nlevel at the law making level and at the law ebb form
\nlevel, even in that or that having problems in the
\nbalance of privacy versus the rights of freedoms and so
\non.<\/p>\n

We have the educational and the advanced educational
\nand research communities using this thet work to do some
\ntruly extraordinary things.<\/p>\n

We have business seeking to make money or make
\na name or deploy new technology. We have civil society
\nthat has concerns about safety and protection and
\nfreedom.<\/p>\n

All of these people have brought together through
\nthe concept of an IGF into quite a unique situation,
\nwhere rather than being talked at, we are being talked
\nto constantly.<\/p>\n

Because it’s not a decision-making forum, because of
\nits nature, if you want to advance your thinking, you
\nneed to stand and talk to people and from that, I think
\nwe actually start to think and we start to think and
\nrationalise about the things that are important in our
\ncommunities and for us and reflect on other people’s
\nexperiences and knowledge.<\/p>\n

We actually start to get somewhere.<\/p>\n

I think the most valuable example of that came as
\na reminder to us during the AP IGF, where Prof Tan, the
\nassociate director for the extra of internet research,
\nreminded us about the work he was doing some 15 years
\nago on the internationalisation of domain names and here
\nwe stand, these weeks and days with actual deployment
\nwithin the country codes of internationalised domain
\nnames.<\/p>\n

He talked of, he and two other people developing the
\ntechnical solutions to make it work, but this issue has
\nbeen through the whole gamut of all the legislative
\neducational research and technical communities
\nexhaustively over the last 15 years, to finally now be
\ndeployed so we can deliver an internet in your own
\nlanguage, in your own script and I think that’s
\na fantastic effort.<\/p>\n

It is through the moves like these
\nmulti-stakeholders community that is that we will see
\nthe next levels of advancement of the network.<\/p>\n

My congratulations to the organise I came here with
\nreasonably high expectations and my expectations have
\nbeen exceeded if all regards. I think as a first
\nendeavour, it’s familiarised your local community with
\na lot of the issues that have been discussed in the
\nglobal IGF or that and I think you need to take this
\nforward and to future years and develop and actual put
\nsome con seven traited earth into some themes that are
\nof more important in your regeneral. My con
\ncongratulations to you. My organisation that
\nI represent here today, the APTLD is a sponsor and I’m
\nsure we would be happy to sponsor again in the future.<\/p>\n

Thank you.<\/p>\n

>> Charles Mok: Let me try to speak in Chinese again,
\nbecause after all, it’s local, but I’ll try to do it
\na little bit slower N.<\/p>\n

As you can see, what my requirement to show some
\nslides or pictures, because today we have been talking
\nabout IGF, but besides this mornmorning, Markus Kummer
\nhas explained to us, baseically what is IGF. But once
\nin a while, when we look at the pictures, we just see
\nwhat is the situation in the location, that’s what we
\nhave been doing.<\/p>\n

The last year in Egypt we have a forum, we have an
\nIGF meeting. There’s a lot of pictures, I would like to
\nshow you yesterday, I hosted partially of the human
\ncommunity. Is one of the very important emerging
\nissues, is a very new issue.<\/p>\n

Yesterday, a lo of speakers have spoke to us about
\na lot of inspiration to me. I would like to conclude
\nthis wrap up is what is the creation is very important
\nto our community. This is one of the speakers from
\nMalaysia. That’s what he told me. Yesterday, there is
\none local, she has talked to us that in the internet
\ncommunity, not only focused from the technical, but also
\nis policy making people, but I know all of you that is
\nnot very traditional technical sectors, but as Ms. Lock
\nsaid, when we are talking about governing of the
\ninternet, we have to look at the level of how we are
\ngoing to interface, what is going to share the power.<\/p>\n

As I’m going to promote tomorrow, do I have to speak
\nslower in tomorrow morning’s session, with I talk about
\nis the emerging issues, these are new issues.<\/p>\n

We are going to discuss the new media. We have
\nChina, Taiwan, Hong Kong, speakers going to share what
\nis their experience and what is the outlook for the
\nfuture, what can affect the governing of internet by our
\npast experiences.<\/p>\n

I think everybody has enjoyed the pictures,
\nnevertheless, didn’t listen to what I have been
\nspeaking.<\/p>\n

Some of the serious issues besides that is very
\nenjoyable event.<\/p>\n

A lot of workshop, we learn a lot and you can see
\na lot of examples, a lot of youngsters from Hong Kong.<\/p>\n

They come through by DotAsia, our global internet
\nassociation, a lot of youngsters to join. I hope in
\nyour community, in your association, that you can come
\nand youngsters can join, to participate, because it’s
\na change of knowledge and experience and sharing. It’s
\nvery important. Because participating is quite
\ndifficult in certain regards, because it is costly and
\nit is time consuming, because usually they host these
\nkind of forum in a very far away places, they won’t host
\nit in Macau or nearby, so to us, for the financial is
\nkind of pressure for not too many people can
\nparticipate, but I still encourage this September, when
\nthe next IGF host, what we can have a remote
\nparticipation.<\/p>\n

A way of remote participation to help more local
\nparticipant can come and be part of it.<\/p>\n

Because they might be interested in some of the
\nsections, I think to us, is in Hong Kong, we always say
\nwe are international city, a metropolitan city, because
\nwhen I was there, I saw a lot of participants from
\nTaiwan or China, not too many from Hong Kong. This is
\nsomething we have to focus. Doesn’t mean they have
\na sign of Hong Kong then we are international city. It
\nis not the case, because we need people to participate.<\/p>\n

That is my words.<\/p>\n

>> Edmon Chung: Anyone who participated before and want to
\nadd to what has been said or wanted to ask a question
\nabout what happened?<\/p>\n

>> : Ram buely<\/p>\n

First of all, I want to congratulate the organisers
\nfor really being very courageous to pick this theme.<\/p>\n

Openness, security and privacy.<\/p>\n

Rather than one can of worms, I think it’s three
\ncans of worm, because each one of them are really
\ntouchy. Earlier on, Charles make the point, saying that
\nprivacy and security are in Cantonese, like
\ntroublemakers. But, in fact, I think depends on whom
\nyou are talking to. I think they are interesting
\ntopics, questions.<\/p>\n

Because if there is no problem relating to security,
\npeople like Anthony Fung and the like, would not have
\nthat much business.<\/p>\n

If there’s nothing about privacy, copyright,
\nintellectual property, Michael Jackson would not be
\ntalking about us today, we don’t need a law professor to
\ntell us.<\/p>\n

Anyway, I think that there are three points are
\nimportant.<\/p>\n

But I feel that there is a pooling effect between
\nprivacy and openness.<\/p>\n

Openness we know about it. But privacy, copyright
\nand so on, they have closeness. They seem to go two
\ndifferent directions.<\/p>\n

Now the point is, how do we draw a balance?<\/p>\n

Also, the topic mentioned time and again in the last
\nsession, education.<\/p>\n

I think they are all necessarycloseness and Mr O
\nopenness. Ideally, 50:50.<\/p>\n

But how do you tell P and C to settle for 50:50?<\/p>\n

What about Mr P? I want 51. Can but go 49? What
\ncan we settle? What can we teach people in such a way
\nthat we agree?<\/p>\n

I feel that there is something missing here.<\/p>\n

We got law professors here talking to us about
\nintellectual property, privacy, we got former law
\nenforcement experts to talk about security.<\/p>\n

We got all these technical experts here, talking
\nabout the nitty-gritty of the technology and so on.<\/p>\n

But I feel that in terms of education, what do we
\nteach people? I feel that we should talk about ethics,
\ncomputer ethics. That’s a subject I have been teaching
\nfor the past 10 years.<\/p>\n

I feel that probably we may add this aspect when we
\ntalk about balancing, because some of the things we want
\nto settle is why do I do this? There must be a purpose.
\nThere must be consequence. There must be results.<\/p>\n

That’s why I do it.<\/p>\n

Or at the same time, what happens in what are the
\nconsequence if I don’t do it?<\/p>\n

It’s easy for us to say, but where do we draw
\ntheories? Where do we draw concepts which may be
\naccepted by a lot of people already, to back up our
\nargument. So we call to some theory in ethics to talk
\nabout the consequences of your action.<\/p>\n

>> Stephen Lau: I think we should, at this point about
\nethics, in firms of our future sort of forums and where
\nthe relevant sessions are, this ethics issue of I think
\nshould be included in all the relevant discussions.<\/p>\n

>> : I make the point. Thank you very much.<\/p>\n

>> Edmon Chung: I’ll will have Stephen for a wrap up of this
\nsession and for the day.<\/p>\n

>> Stephen Lau: First of all, just wrap up this particular
\nsession. I just want to add that this, as was
\nmentioned, this is our first attempt, it was a catalyst
\nand in fact the catalytic effect was felt in the last
\nsession yesterday, in the round table, was that already
\nwe understand that there are a number of countries and
\neconomies like, for example, Indonesia is going to run
\na national IGF next year, followed by regional forum,
\nthe year after, Bangladesh wants to run a regional one,
\nMalaysia wants to run a national one next year. So we
\ndo see hopefully as I say the spark has ignited people’s
\nwish and desire to maintain this momentum in Asia and
\nAsian Pacific. So that’s a really good thing and we
\nwill be working with these economies or countries in
\nterms of providing food for thought to ensure that we
\nwill have meaningful and successful IGF events in the
\nfuture.<\/p>\n

That’s my wrapping up comment.<\/p>\n

As far as today is concerned, I want to continue
\nwhat Charles was saying about tomorrow morning.<\/p>\n

We have a very interesting session on on merging
\nissues and the late morning we have a reporting back by
\nthe students themselves on the youth camp. They spent
\ntwo nights and three days discussing, role playing
\ninternet issues in the Sai Kung facilities and they were
\nreporting back on what their perceptions and what their
\nconclusion or at least their discussions have been,
\nI think that will be really good.<\/p>\n

Officially, in the afternoon, we have managing
\ncritical internet resources.<\/p>\n

Every time I hit about this one, it’s always very
\ntechnical. But the way we are going to position it is
\nthat it is going to be educational, it is going to be
\nawareness. It is in a sense that we will talk about
\nwhat are top level domain names, what are international
\ndomain name, what the IVP4 and 6 and their sort of role
\nin the entire infrastructure of internet.<\/p>\n

Therefore, it will be educational, rather than we
\nwill be talking about bits.<\/p>\n

The morning session, the youth camp reporting back,
\nthe critical resources, I know most of you are coming
\nback, but for those who are thinking tomorrow is Friday,
\nconsider the richness of tomorrow’s programme and we
\nlook forward to seeing you tomorrow.<\/p>\n

With that, have a good evening and thank you.<\/p>\n

I’m sure for those with tickets, there is a dinner
\ntonight here.<\/p>\n

>> : If people who wish to go to the gala dinner, please go
\noutside and to the open space in front of the
\nregistration counter and our volunteer will lead you to
\nthe restaurant.<\/p>\n

For those who wish to go back to your hotel room
\nbefore the dinner, you can do and our volunteer will
\nwait for you at the lobby of the hotel at 6.15. Then we
\nwill lead you to the restaurant.<\/p>\n

Thank you and see you tomorrow.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Report from Regional roundtable & IGF issues specific for Asia Pacific ________________________________________________________________________ REAL TIME TRANSCRIPT: Report from Regional roundtable & IGF issues specific for Asia Pacific Hong Kong IGF 17:00-17:30, Thursday 17 June 2010 Hong Kong DISCLAIMER: Due to the inherent difficulties in capturing a live speaker’s words, it is possible this realtime transcript may … <\/p>\n

Continue reading “Hong Kong IGF \u2013 June 17th, 2010: Session 4”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":"","_links_to":"","_links_to_target":""},"class_list":["post-369","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/event.rigf.asia\/2010\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/369","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/event.rigf.asia\/2010\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/event.rigf.asia\/2010\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/event.rigf.asia\/2010\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/event.rigf.asia\/2010\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=369"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/event.rigf.asia\/2010\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/369\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":561,"href":"https:\/\/event.rigf.asia\/2010\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/369\/revisions\/561"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/event.rigf.asia\/2010\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=369"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}