 Okay. Well, good afternoon, everybody, and welcome to CSIS, the America's Program here. My name is Carl Meacham, and I'm so happy that you are all able to join us today for our discussion of the latest trends in global internet governance and the role of Brazil or the role that Brazil is playing on the issue. Our event today is part of the CSIS America's Brazil initiative that we launched last month. This initiative addresses a series of specific issue areas in which bilateral cooperation and private sector collaboration can advance understanding between the United States and Brazil. But before we get started, I just want to thank our panelists for speaking with us today. I'm thrilled to have Beatriz Covasi, Carolina Rossini, and Natalia Faldic here with us today. It took a little bit, but we got all you guys, and I know you guys have a busy schedule, so I'm particularly thankful that we were able to do this. So why are we here today? Well, on April 23rd and 24th, the NetMundial Conference on Global Internet Governance was hosted in Sao Paulo, Brazil. The conference brought together international stakeholders to develop principles of internet governance and propose a roadmap for the future. At the conference, Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff signed Brazil's new internet law, the Marco Civil. This is really the highlight, in my view, of what took place at this conference. Among the provisions of the Marco Civil are protections for freedom of expression as well as for net neutrality. In my opinion, this is probably one of the most comprehensive attempts at dealing with internet regulation, which is an issue that, like it or not, most countries are going to have to address in the short term. So in this case, Brazil is really setting sort of the bar here on this issue going forward. It still remains to be seen what complementary laws might be implemented to this, to the Marco Civil and to this new internet framework, but the Marco Civil itself has been well received as a positive example of how government with active public participation can play a role on internet governance. I would also highlight that the issue matters right here in the United States. The recently proposed FCC regulations have brought net neutrality to the forefront, and we are seeing some of these conversations that took place in Brazil prior to the Marco Civil developing here in the United States as well. I would highlight that on May 15th, the FCC will be holding a public hearing to hear feedback on its proposed internet fast lane. This has been an ongoing debate here in the U.S. with previous regulations being overturned in the courts. Needless to say, these times are formative regarding what the internet will look like in the future. Our guests today will help us understand the implications of the Marco Civil, and I would probably be able to answer these larger issues as it relates to internet governance in the global context. I am excited about that. As the internet connects the world in unprecedented ways, what can users and businesses with internet-based business models expect of Brazil's internet reform, and is it a model for other nations to follow the Brazil case? I think these are some of the questions that we're going to see our panelists addressing today. I'm going to introduce our panelists. First, we're going to start with Natalia Fodich, who is a consultant specializing in public policy and regulation. She has worked at the Brookings Institution here in D.C. and at Brazil's Ministry of Culture and Cade, Brazil's antitrust agency. You guys have extended versions of everybody's bios, but I'll say that she's going to be setting the stage for the discussion today, answering what the Brazilian internet law is, and providing important insight. We have Beatriz Covasse, who is the digital agenda and ICT counselor at the EU delegation here in D.C. As well, you should look at her bio and the extended sheets that we have in Carolina Rossini, who is the project director for the Latin American Resource Center at the Internet Governance and Human Rights Program at the New America Foundation's Open Technology Institute. That's a long time. But it says she's very busy and she's very smart. Without further ado, I'm going to focus a little bit here on the logistics of what we're going to do. All of these folks here are the most qualified folks to talk about the topic. If we're having a topic about Brazil, the internet, medical and civil net neutrality issues as it relates to the topics that I've referenced, these are the people that you'd want. Each of the panelists are going to give opening remarks and then we'll move into a Q&A. We're on the record and we're webcasting this event as well. So greetings to everybody who's watching. We're going to be recording this and we're going to be offering you a link so you can show them to your friends and see, they can see as well how smart you are. So without further ado, I want to thank everybody for being here today and we move on to Natalia. Thank you so much, Carl. I would like also to thank Carlos and Jillian for the invitation. First, I would like to do a disclaimer, although I work for the Inter-American Development Bank, I'm not here representing them today. So whatever opinions I give are my own opinions. I guess that everyone can see the importance of this debate and it's very interesting to see how in one year the issue has developed so much. I remember a little over one year ago I was talking to Beatrice in Bolivia and we were saying, well, the Internet is more than an instrument, it's more than a means to something, it's actually a new society, it's actually basically an end in itself in many cases. So I guess that all the current debate is showing its importance even more than one year ago when we were talking about this. Today we were going to talk about Nat Mundial and also Marco Seville in Brazil. Let's start with Snowden Revelations last year. This helped the governance issue to come back to the agenda and also somehow the Marco Seville, which is a bill that has been debated in the Brazilian Congress for several years, actually I guess seven years. This also helped to accelerate the process. After we had this Snowden Revelations, President Rousseff came to the United Nations and she made a strong argument talking about freedom of expression, open, multilateral and democratic governance, universality and cultural diversity and non-neutrality. So I guess she set the stage for the debate and after that we received in Brazil the visit of Mr. Fari Shehari. They agreed to do a meeting and this is how Nat Mundial started. Well, at that time also we had the Montevideo statement, which also supported the whole debate. The statement was calling for the acceleration of the globalization of ICANN and INF functions toward the environment in which all stakeholders, including all governments, participate on an equal footing. Well, and then more recently in the end of last year, Germany and Brazil have passed a new unresolution related to privacy. So I guess this is like the general background and let's talk about the Marco Seville. What is Marco Seville? Marco Seville, as I said, has been a bill that has been debated for over seven years and it has passed the House of Representatives and the Senate and President Riosav, she has sanctioned during the event. One major issue that was causing a lot of controversy was not included in the final text of the bill, which is now a law, which relates to the data centers. So it's not included and the need for the companies to have data centers in the country has not been included in the final document. There is a really interesting provision on data retention and that's something that I'm sure Carolina and Beatriz will be able to talk further because there is a major difference between the European approach and the Brazilian approach and actually the debate has been similar as far as I understand some years ago in Europe. So basically the companies are now, it's mandatory to retain data from the users for a couple of months. And also another major issue relates to that neutrality and I know this is something that is really heated debate now in the U.S. again. It has been included in NoMarcos' view but there are a lot of issues to be regulated in the near future such as the definition of discrimination, what emergency services are, sponsor plans for mobile market. So for example we 800 broadband on your phone. Can you have apps that are free on your phone? Does that is this interfering with neutrality rules or not? You know there are a lot of issues and that's certainly the debate over now neutrality is going to be there for a long time at least I mean until it's not finally regulated. As next bill is in Brazil after this we will have a data protection bill and that's something that's going to come up soon and also the reform of the copyright law although it might, this might probably be debated next year only. So Natmondiel. So the two issues they're not the same but they're interrelated especially because some of the principles that have been inserted in Marcos' view are something that could serve as a reference to other countries policies too. Overall related to the results of the event I believe there is an overall consensus at least among the governments that it was a legitimate document. Russia, Cuba and India have expressed some discontentment on the legitimacy of the content and the process itself but other than that I guess there is an overall perception that it was a really important debate that is setting the bar for next debates in IGF and other fora. Natmondiel had two main objectives to set a set of principles for internet governance and also a road map for future developments. In regards to the principles he has been drawing from previous work in other forests especially the Tunis agenda and the main changes let's say can relate to some words that are really similar but might have different interpretations so multilateral and multistakeholder so generally when we talk about multilateral is you relate more to governments whereas multistakeholder is a broader approach in which you have the civil society and private sector and government and also the final version affirms that the role and responsibilities of stakeholders should be interpreted in a flexible manner so this you know with the rest of the document you might you relate to a more equal footing among all the stakeholders and related to the road map it's really interesting that you know the conference talked a lot about strengthening the role of the IGF which is a forum that has been there for many years and it's really important since it gathers you know the main experts in the field and another issue that was addressed but also had a so right before the conference ICANN has declared its intention to promote the transition of the so-called IANA functions which have been you know they have been through a contract with the Department of Commerce they have been responsible for it for many years but the idea was all has been always to transition that to a different scenario in which a more neutral private sector consortium will be responsible for so right before the meeting they have announced that they are already taking measures to promote this transition so this has helped the whole debate in Edmondielle and well I believe that that's you know a general framework of what has been happening and overall I believe it's a strong there's a strong symbolism attached to the debate of the importance of having more people engaged having countries having private sector having the civil society and it also shows that the internet is a global resource and that is everyone's right to be engaged and to to be considered everyone's right to be considered and well and also I believe it's really important to to strengthen the role of people that have been involved on this throughout the past years because they know a lot of Wolf you know who the main players are well and well Vint Cerf when he was reading his initial speech he said now I will finish because I don't have my last page here I forgot to print it that's not my case but I know my colleagues here have a lot to talk about and and I will pass the no if I were Vint Cerf I could do that for sure since I'm not I have printed my whole every topic that I wanted to address and I'm that's the microphone to battery I heard for the first time actually he was nervous to present so that was a first that's a really good sign I believe it means that the meeting was important I guess okay thanks I have a lot of paper because my smartphone died but I'm sure that Vint Cerf could have read it on his smartphone you need to be coherent with the internet age and we should all maybe come with the up tablets next time but well thank you so much to CSIS to Nathalia and organizers of this initiative it is the third time in one and a half days that I speak about internet governance so those who have attended some of the other events please forgive me if you will hear all over again from me some of the same themes but this is a very good thing because it tells you how much the recent announcement about the transition of Ayana functions and also Net Mundial event has parked a debate on on internet governance and this morning I was actually in doing a off-the-record briefing with Bloomberg and Hamad-Unture was there and Chris Painter was there so I cannot because it was off the record and this is on the record it would not be correct but I would repeat now exactly what was said but I would like to emphasize but what was striking to me is really that we are in a different era of of the talks about internet governance I mean when the commission in February some of you may remember has issued this communication on internet governance which set out for the first time our strategy in this field a European level and at that point in time we were looking at you know two things with great interest one was the call to globalization of Ayana functions which had not happened yet and we kept repeating every single meeting with our American counterparts you have to give a strong signal you have to give a strong signal ahead of Net Mundial and the second one was Net Mundial because we thought that it was one of a kind event but an event which was quite iconic and had the power to shape the debate further on and at this point in time the atmosphere surrounding the debate these two things have happened so the Department of Commerce as NTIA has announced the transition of Ayana functions Net Mundial has happened so I think overall from a European perspective I can say that we are you know positive and encouraged by these developments and the tone of many conversation has been softened up and eased up a bit in this in the light of these developments so this is the you know first big picture statement that I wanted to make on Net Mundial in particular unfortunately I was not there I was here in in DC but we were pleased also to see that there was a final communication final document you will remember that many were skeptical here before the event and not only here in general saying that a two-day conference could not achieve consensus so the fact that itself there was a final document with a large consensus which doesn't mean unanimity but it was it was a non-binding document so it proved a large consensus we think that in itself it was a great achievement if the conference was not able to come up with even half a pager then possibly you know it would have been a bit of a low in the in the debates but it was good and in the text itself there are a number of issues that we like as European Commission we like that there is some better determination in terms of timelines so there are some indications about Aikana Yan and IGF as Natalia mentioned which look at the timeline ahead we like that we there is the reference to the idea of developing principles for transparency accountability and inclusiveness and this applies both to organizations and stakeholders there is the call and this was also something we have repeatedly stressed the call to have a better interaction between the technical community and the public authorities and there is also reference to one point where we have inserted in our communication which is they need to explore jurisdiction issues which is of course one of the complicated points in this field and which needs to be addressed much more in the future so all in all on Net Mundial we have a very positive take Natalia of course has mentioned also many elements in the Marco Civil which are present in different proposals we don't have a Marco Civil we don't have a framework law for internet in Europe but then switching to what are the proposals in the pipeline at the moment I think that the european way to go is a combination of the moment of three major proposals that you're more or less familiar with one is the data protection revision under regulation the second one is the cyber security it's called network information security directive and the third one is the telecom single market and I will not enter now in details of these proposals but I would like to stress that this is a package you can see it as a package which shows our approach and our way of balancing different needs at the moment the need for security need for privacy the need for thriving internal marketing telecommunications as you know we have a net neutrality provision so this is something which in the european take exist and of course we are looking with very much interest at what the FCC and Tom Wheeler will do on the 15th of May I would say that at some point Natalia you mentioned you know that we will have an end point I don't think we will have an end point necessarily in these discussions or you know we will have final settlement probably we'll always have different approaches in the sense the brazilian law the european approach the us approach so we'll have complementary approaches but what is striking to me is that all governments have started asking the same or very similar questions that's the point and have started approaching though in slightly different ways but the same big question of how to balance different aspects of public policy and notably privacy versus security is one of the of a big dilemmas that we are all confronted with so it's interesting to see that in this debate in reality the debate around the internet or you could put it the other way around the debate about other things have become debate about the internet as well as our societies become more and more linked to the use of the internet so I will stop here I don't think it's in my you know it wouldn't be appropriate for me to comment on Marcos Seville so I'll pass on the floor to Carolina great Carolina yes thank you of course thank you again for the invitation and thank you everybody to be here in such a beautiful day in DC thank you for sticking together but I want to start I want to try to be a little provocative here with some of my affirmations and I would love them to discuss that with you later so who here knows how many internet governance meetings are happening in 2014 how many internet governance meetings are happening this year 2014 it's not in there but I can point to where it is but we have from the government traditional multilateral meetings 73 meetings this year net mungiao was one of those and actually was not counted when that counting was done I have a document mapping all those meetings if you guys want to be interested and also how they interrelate it's really interesting to see how documents coming out of one meeting can impact or not in some other tracks so that's really important to understand and also from a devocate point of view it's actually relevant for me to mention that I'm living in af and moving to a direct role at public knowledge should lead their international part so I'm speaking from a devocate side right it's really important for us to understand this and how they relate because then that will mold our strategy on how we we say governments you say you said a in a certain path and you are saying b in another path and not just for advocates but also for companies and other stakeholders right so I think the importance of net mungiao here is actually was the tension it created when it was announced it clearly marked Brazil emerging has a leader in the internet governance geopolitics and I think that's why it raises so much suspicions and so much tension from everybody around the world including the u.s. government right you had the state department us was actually one of the biggest delegations to net mungiao so you see the weight the u.s. and other countries have put in net mungiao and also seeing Brazil emerging has a leader when Dilma came to you and how like when Natalia mentioned saying now I am paying paying attention to that and to them it was not a matter of at our president level and that's why Marco Seville was not approved like for years like I joke that actually we are fighting for a Marco Seville since 99 when I was still a lawyer at Telefonica and we had to kill a commerce bill which was terrible for the internet in Brazil at that time right so that's a long fight in Brazil and different from Europe it does not come from a market necessity but actually has a reaction to a series of threats that would criminalize a lot of actions users developing the day-by-day in the internet which actually very similar to our analog live but they had a little more impact on our online life one thing I could also share with you I have translated the Marco Seville into English and revealed that a couple of times to ensure it has trustworth has possible so I'm happy to share that with you and I'm happy to go over some of the of the provisions of Marco Seville with you but but I do think it's important to stress and Beatriz mentioned that there was a lot of energy I'm almost my voice is actually changed because I actually don't have even the voice I had because there was so much so much energy and so much work done during that week you had a regional consultation for Frank LaRue you had another UNESCO consultation on internet index development you had math neutrality you had tons of academia meetings in Brazil so everybody really saw that as an extremely important symbolic moment to push things forward and if you guys say I don't like the outcome document which a lot of folks have said has specifically Russia and Cuba who actually have not engaged much in the process and also some civil society organizations that wanted to see some items throw through the document which in my personal opinion is is is is not how most takeholderism works or it's not like a how do you say that something reasonable to expect of such a process if you want to say I want to throw that document away that's Nat Mundial did serve up something and we approve Marco Seville so now the world has a success case to say that's possible such framework is possible and we have a major country in the world that's setting broadband and submarine cables to Africa to Europe to the Caribbean we are Brazil is a powerful infrastructure development internet we want to do that not just because we are nice to our neighbors in many cases but because we do feel the obligation to do that to also improve the experience in our country so I think that's what we need to look for and I actually thank to the world all the tension and excitement you guys had in Brazil because then that helped us to pass the Marco Seville that for so many years we fought for and and and and did gave us many days of happiness and sadness and and and and and caipirinhas and wines as we were discussing recently and I'm sorry I had to drink folks that has been like a year long many years long of of discussions and debates and actually training the legislative and also the judiciary to deal with that because Marco Seville is an incredible law in paper but we have so much to do in Brazil right but I think we don't we cannot separate the importance of that right Brazil is still is really bad in terms of take down notes as you guys see for example in all the transparency reports of companies like Google Twitter and now Microsoft has one too we are putting tons of content down both because of honor and personality rights but also because of copyright we we still have a lot of censorship issues journalists still get killed in Brazil so their reality is not so beautiful but again the Marco Seville is an incredible powerful document to actually change the narrative and hopefully change the practice in Brazil so if we want to say that Mundo was a success because of that it was a success because of that we would not have Marco Seville has a model for the world a good major mark for the world if that was not the case both the Ayanna announcement I will not comment on that I provide the testimony in the house I'm happy to share that with you from a public interest perspective so both the Ayanna which was a confidence vote right was a trust vote to restore trust internationally and the Marco Seville was another trust vote on internet governance and and human rights online and I think that brings a lot of positive expectations in a year that we're gonna have the itube plenipropane area in November right which again there are a lot of risks of has the media say in the US non-democratic governments taking over the internet so now you have both the net mongel document and Marco Seville and the UN resolution on privacy and a series of documents coming from this 73 meetings to go back to the ITU and say that's not the foreign we want to move forward with some regulations around the top layers content applications and social layers of the internet so again I agree with my colleagues that was iconic moment was a moment that everybody was so tense and I think that helped it to everybody be as sincere as they could be in that environment and also express very clearly what they wanted we saw a rupture within the business sector I had identified at least three sectors within the business sectors you had the copyright leading industries you had the telcos and you had the application service providers and they have very different positions so even to say that business has consensus it's not true and for us to understand that and map that and see who is who it's very important moving forward in in this next meetings in here I'm happy to talk about Marco Seville but maybe we can open for questions and I'm happy to later clarify how is data retention we don't have more requests for local servers we just have clear jurisdiction rules they were clear already based on international private law but the companies were refusing to collaborate with the court so the legislative felt the need to put clear jurisdiction rules in the Marco Seville net neutrality is there is enforced has two very restricted exceptions such as emergency rules and and some other prioritizations they our president will regulate that that's normal our president regulate laws in brazil through decrease and that's normal that's our tradition but thankfully the good news is that she's gonna be advised both by an hotel and our Brazilian internet steering committee and that's good so I think I'm gonna stop here and then open for questions to be sure that I'm answering specific questions and interest regarding the marcos great well all of you thank you for your super comprehensive presentations I'm gonna have a couple questions and before I open it up to to folks sitting in the audience could you talk a little bit about what makes the Marco Seville unique we've talked about how special it is and and you focused in particular Catalina on you know what the feeling was at at net Mundial and having to do with this but what makes it so unique I mean what why is it such a unique document are other countries doing something similar to that is there's something you can compare it with I make reference to what's happening here and you know you're getting a lot of folks interested concern showing their views on on this with the net neutrality discussion that that we're having here in the U.S. but but could you talk a little bit about that what makes it so different are there any other similar documents in other countries and all of you can participate I was asking to talk a little closer to the microphone so for the first time I thinking the world-based and I can comment a little bit on other legislations coming from other countries we do have a comprehensive law that deals with every issue you can think regarding internet if you think about the internet in layers like infrastructure application content and social so it does deal with all of them and why does not go into details on the content layer regarding take it down because we're going to take care of that in our copyright law reform which is also happening since 2003 and it does deal with the rest and it was a response with to really enforce human rights in Brazil and that also recognized has UN has recognized through its special reporters that what applies offline applies online and it was actually a pretty big challenge because folks when we I was in I was teaching in a law school in Brazil which actually hosted and developed the first draft of the bill and then went to public consultations and it was a huge taken because we wanted to deal with every possible civil issue that could come out of the practice of internet but also in a has open ended has possible to recognize the evolution of technologies right so that's why it's important here to not put tons of restrictions on net neutrality on on on how log rotation is dealt with because we don't know how this is going to evolve right and we are seeing this here regarding net neutrality right Wheeler is saying about non-commercialization issues and and maybe that's another issue that's going to come up in Brazil but one thing that's important is to understand that Brazil is a developing country and because of that thinking about the net neutrality rule it's even more important right to allow a social entrepreneurship that's happening in Brazil nowadays that didn't exist when I left Brazil seven years ago right it's a really interesting to see how that's happening right now there in terms of new business models and business models coming even from a grassroots experience right so I think it's really important to see and and and to consider it for example what would be the impact of deals like Netflix are doing here in Brazil at this moment where people are actually just now learning how to innovate and do business in the internet so I think it's it's really important to place this legislation within a cultural and regional architecture that's pretty different from developed countries right and another thing that we see too is a clear recognition of both privacy and freedom of expression online which was never our tradition in Brazil right if you go and review jurisprudence in Brazil like court decisions in Brazil regarding these issues in general the right to honor and personality rights won many more like much more than freedom of expression right freedom of expression it's a very American concept that it was not incorporated in brazil and recently and of course again we're gonna have a huge work at even training the judges and even changing some curricula in law schools to incorporate that right even intellectual property was not thought has obligatory courses ten years ago in Brazil so this law comes within a need to answer to some very specific regional context and needs but also in addition and you guys may have heard to chew cyber crime laws that came into congress around 2005 2006 criminalizing a series of activities which they are understandable but as you you may know is one of the origins of a lot of malware and a lot of frowning in online banking people in brazil are incredibly creative we do have amazing software developers so we did have a lot of trouble in that area so there were a legislative response to criminalize a series of activities right entering again the cyber security framework so the response to that was we are not ready yet to deal with that we need to understand better technology so let's first protect the good user uses and the user's right and freedom and human rights online and then we're gonna understand what is the cyber security threat what are the cyber security threats we need to deal with so i think it marcos of you comes within that context well i agree with carolina that well as a changing mindset in which you not only need responsibilities but also mainly you need rights so this change of mindset and not only have criminal laws related to the internet but civil rights because it's a new society oh and actually i i wasn't able to convey my point i guess you might i don't mean that we are coming to an end in the debate i mean that the internet itself is a new society that's what i meant well and coming back to marcos of you i also like uh the issue that carolina raised on the regional perspective because in order to understand was she raised you need to understand that a little bit about the infrastructure and the the railroads of the the internet so most of the traffic actually comes to the us and that's also when most of the data is hosted so whenever you need court needs an information or or also that increases cost the fact that the data comes you know so far away that also increases costs for the end users so it's also important to have local the development of the infrastructure locally and to invest in access actually access also has been something that was raised in that mondial is there to uh is important to have this um not only national but regional awareness of the infrastructure and and investing on that i think i'm going to open it up to some questions um because the answers have been very complete uh questions questions come back here and then we'll come up my name is pat grovesky from the boys and noise foundation i have here uh one question to carolina rosini because i saw that you worked on intellectual property rights and on this so i wonder what were the tensions in the meetings between the network internet and intellectual property rights and the other question i had is to all three of them in banking regulation they messed it up completely because only experts in banking regulation were working and it ended up in a very degenerated process how how have you guaranteed real diversity within these discussions is that is the normal little small user represented in any way let me get a couple questions and we'll answer them gentlemen up here if you could just wait for the microphone hi i'm my godwin with internews and my question has to do with a somewhat analogous development in the philippines just last couple of years with the philippines crowdsourced magna carta for philippines internet freedom what i'm wondering about in the context of international internet governance is what people's feelings are about exporting the you know the marco civil to to other countries because i think there there is a hunger among civil society actors to change the dialogue from worries about cyber crime or computers and digital technologies as threats and a desire to see all of cyber crime laws and as internet related laws placed in a framework of positive affirmations and guarantees of human rights which includes which could include freedom of expression and privacy and so on so i'm wondering about what the hopes are for generalizing from i think the great what we've seen in the great success in the passage of the marco civil in brazil and of the net mondial consensus statements we start off with those so on intellectual property and internet governance and i personally see those things related as i see internet governance i am what i am part of that group of people that's internet has a set of layers that interact so for me it's hard to disconnect both and i i work at wipo already i worked with trade agreements i've been doing all this work and everywhere you go companies are there and they need to be there that's their role right that doesn't mean we agree but that's their role and they were at net mondial and they were in in in in heavy weight on for example the us briefing just net mondial and in that briefing they said clearly and they their strategy to introduce copyright issues in the net mondial so that was expected i think people that were not expecting what were not actually paying attention and has soon has the document open for the online contributions in that participative platform that brazil put it up you could see like hundreds of comments trying to insert balance between the human rights of freedom of expression access to information access to knowledge in regard to copyright that that that battle we'll keep going for years and you're gonna always have fair use and exceptions and limitations in tension with the content driven company so that what happened there was a microcosm of what happens everywhere in this battle so we just need to be prepared and understand and and and see where we can compromise or not and see how we're gonna regulate that so for example in takedown we're gonna push and that happened in marcos review so we take down notice for example we wanted clear a clear statement in marcos review that any takedown should be preceded by a court order right and that didn't happen because there were so many pressures the telcos were pressuring the molon which was the house representative writing the view on a neutrality global our biggest media company was pressuring on takedown and content more paternalist politicians were pressured around takedown regarding nudity of teenagers and things like that so at least one thing they said okay let's give a step back and leave that for the copyright law right you can interpret in you can build the narrative that judicial order still needed to do on how the text of the the law is construed but still it's gonna be postponed right so i think it's it was just a attention that happens everywhere and i'm glad that for example at wypo now we have approved like in the public interest the marocache treaty for the blind now we are discussing exceptions a little bit actions for librarians and hopefully that's gonna expand for museums hopefully the broadcasting treaty which can limit even cases like the air case here in the us will not move forward the way it is limiting limiting distribution of content over the internet and we're gonna after that have exceptional limitations treaty are being discussed right now on education so that fight still is being played and 73 meetings is just internet governance if you add the ip ones it's more a hundred right and again and you have trade agreements which actually are binding documents if you compare to all the documents coming from the id world and it surprises me that a lot of people in the id world does not pay attention trade trade arguments downstairs they are discussing the transatlantic one and those are binding norms and you have isp liability there you have say server placement there you have tons of id issues being being negotiated both in the tpp the trans pacific partnership agreement and the transatlantic partnership agreement right so i think we have to have this holistic view to see where the battles and where the binding documents are coming from so we pay attention anyway so diversity why don't we give some yeah let's get and then because i know all of you can answer all of the questions but natalia and batiz well quickly also to your previous one i mean it's we have started examining of course similarities and differences between our internal market telecom single market proposal and marco civil of course the issue for us and i didn't mention it before but i'm i'm sure that you're all aware is that the telecom single market proposal is now making its way through legislation right so we don't have we have a commission initial proposal then the european parliament voted in april so we have a text of the european parliament but we have not yet a final text of legislation where we could make really one-to-one comparison but in a nutshell i think that especially neutrality there are many provisions which are similar you know not identical i mean we don't have some things that marco civil has like not creating harm to to users or other provisions but we have similar provisions the approach however as i said is different we don't have a framework legislation covering all aspects related to the internet and telecom we still consider the telecom market as more traditionally telecom and and then we have cyber as i mentioned and privacy in different pieces of legislation i love the question about how to to have more voices included because i could give you an answer which is the classical you know policymaker rule making answer saying that we have stakeholders consultation and we talk to the industry and we talk to the citizens but what is and this is my personal view here is not i'm not speaking i'm speaking on personal grounds but what i think it's really interesting nowadays and what has happened with the internet evolution is that there is an unprecedented request for transparency you see it you mentioned the TTIP negotiations i mean we saw it also in other trade agreements in the past people want to be part of it they want a transparency which is not just tell us what you're negotiating it's transparency more like open up your doors show us the negotiating sessions show us the text which of course it's very interesting development i think and it it tells how much this participatory model is evolving at the moment yeah can i just follow up on one thing is the marcos if you're going to have any impact on business in brazil or for folks interested in being involved in this sector it will have a positive impact or negative i mean how do you how do you view that atalia or carolina uh we should address the questions before either one but i mean uh well to your question i believe that there are a lot of things that were already in place so it's not that we didn't have any rules related to that neutrality before for example we did have um and atel had rules about it but um by the now it's gonna be again uh regulated and then you know it might it might interfere with business models but i don't see in the short run i don't see any differences i see maybe carolina has a different point of view but i i believe that you know the main rules on the neutrality were already in place and that you know we will see how again there are some issues pending you know what what are the exceptions in the rule how how is it gonna be regulated but in the short run i don't see major changes i i'm gonna comment on other aspects and then i can come back to that but i do think that actually does has impact for good and for the bad uh for the good because finally a lot of business that invest in brazil when when i do business in brazil they have more clear rules on how they have to treat data how they have to treat content and that was not clear if you see a judicial uh decisions from the north and from the south and then from the southeast they are completely different art school 90 team did they study of almost 200 uh decisions with uh it was a partnership between art school 90 team and uh our brazilian internet steering committee and hopefully that's gonna be soon published and it was like all over the place so that does generate a lot of legal risk which of course mirrors costs increasing costs for companies on how they deal with it and how many lawyers they have to hire in brazil so there are a lot of things that were clarified with marco civil so that's why it's for the good and the bad i say for example telcos you have to do log retention for six months uh application providers like google facebook twitter whatever sorry telcos for one year application service provider for six months now i'm i'm messing up the things but i have here for you later if you want to see but anyway there is log retention for up to one year uh which is different from europe which is different from colombia which is five years um so marco civil is better than colombia actually but it's still right so companies do have a series of costs they will have to deal with brazil and also the difference on how legislation gets interpreted and also there is a conflict of jurisdiction between us and brazil because now brazil is saying the jurisdiction is mine so you're gonna have to give me data even if the u.s law is telling you you cannot share this data uh whenever there is a person or a business implicated in brazil the the the application service provider or the telco will have to provide the information to the court so those are some things that in my opinion they generate more legal security but they also generate costs and complexity to manage business in brazil on on net neutrality uh the business did gain uh also because they say uh one of the principles of the law which is part of article three uh is saying that there should be freedom for business models in internet but at the same time they do submit they do constrict that principle to the other principles in law and net neutrality is another one so there's gonna be a balance there so i don't know what's gonna happen after that we're gonna have to wait for uh juman atel and cg figure out the specifics of the rules any other questions sir why don't we take these two last ones because we're running out of time unfortunately so we'll do it together sir hi my name is my cagea dudley and i'm with development finance international i had a specific question about the data centers i know that they were tabled um on in this bill but is that still an issue of contention um have people decided to table it for the long term and what's your feeling regionally um or i guess internationally on these type of provisions which would significantly affect business um within the countries and the gentleman in the back here there's a microphone great um thanks very much andrew mc am global and first of all congratulations to brazil because regardless of what happens over the long term whether this is good for the world or not it's absolutely a big victory for brazil the marco civil is something i know you guys wanted for a long time and it's tremendous tremendous feather in the cap of the government um my my question is really a very simple one though has someone who's been to a bunch of igf meetings and 25 some ican meetings there is already structured there and natalia you mentioned one of the i got you have a quote i loved it said you want to put everyone on a more equal footing which suggests to me right now that there's a disequal footing and so my question is how would things be different in a post net bundial world and if some people are less equal who should get more and who should get less and please if you'd be so kind don't be too diplomatic thanks the the provision of data centers was taking out of the bill that passed into law on april 23 when i was crying uh so the provision was taking out but what was said it is in article 10 and and articles after 10 i can share with you the the english version of it it says that uh telcos have to do log retention for one year and applications for service providers for six months and they have to obey court orders to share data and if one party or one services affect brazil so it's brazilian jurisdiction so that's it the juman understood that putting servers in brazil don't work right that's not how internet works she got that pretty fast so the chain the law was changed pretty fast and and and folks are pretty comfortable on on these companies are not so comfortable because they're gonna have to deal with giving data to the government and but uh that's not there anymore and um i think that's one of the questions right very quickly on localization i think you know that's reality but some localization requirements always existed and possibly you know we continue to exist you think about financial services or uh other specific sectors so i think what is uh key and quite crucial is to avoid to get to a situation where uh it becomes really a closed system right so where there is a generalized localization requirement which is um makes uh creates then uh what somebody referred to as the splinter net so an internet which is been split uh and i prefer this term than the usual one of balkanization for obvious reasons but i think it's it's an important point and the fact that we marco civil did not go in into that direction avoids the temptation maybe that many other countries could have gone completely in in that direction and leaves you know more openness to other solutions but in that direction i also curious to know more about how this debate on data retention had what had evolved because i know that some years ago you had a different approach and this has recently changed to you right well it was a sentence of a code of justice which struck down our data retention uh rules so i am not you know sure what will uh will come next but again is a question of um or finding a good balance you know between having actually a period of retention which is meaningful for law enforcement purposes and it does not become uh two birders home for uh for companies on the other hand um and in a different uh real me if you want but i would like to underline that in our cyber security legislation we had a provision which is very dear to the commission not everybody else thinks the same which is extending you know the uh data breach notification requirements also to the internet platforms uh so not just to the telcos not just to the telecom companies but in our original proposal we thought but also the digital platforms uh were required to notify uh breacher uh yeah to give a breach notification so uh this is still being debated we we have not you know we have not come to a conclusion but it's just to show you that you can always find uh different angles to this uh to this debate and the balance to be struck as legislators is indeed a very difficult one and natalia you have the opportunity to close the gentleman's answer back there and about uh i guess how the marcos civil or how this reform can help equal the playing field uh i i think that that that's what your question was who could be the winners and who would be the yeah well and also there's his question related to uh how to to generalize the i guess the really good question and and there's always things that are a matter of policy and countries will have to to adapt the the principles and their policies to their situation and context but uh i believe that we see as countries try to discuss on how to to get inspired let's say by marcos civil and also net mondial that we can actually have some common principles there applied across different countries and regions but your question is hard to reply because try um because of course there there was already a multi stakeholder approach uh but i guess that it's interesting to see how the the debate has shifted last year from itu and and let's take over the internet which in my opinion is not how our government has framed that we never said let's transfer to the itu we just said we need more diversity in the debate and actually for what i see i see i see more people now getting engaged in the debate whereas before you already have to society and product sector and everyone on i just but it's always not the same people but i mean i i see much more people getting involved on this now and that i i believe that all the the recent developments are helping to get more students aware you know more i i i even heard that there's many more phd students interested in doing their thesis in the topic and i guess raising the awareness of what the main issues are it's going to help having a better conversation great well i want to thank all of you for coming and i want to thank natalia batis and carolina your your answers have been super complete i really appreciate that you took the time to do that and out of your busy schedules to come up here so will you please all join me in the round of applause