 And I suppose anyone looking to maybe just continue this conversation or to go take it in any direction is more than welcome But maybe if they could and been asking their question or responding to what said maybe just give their name as well And sense of where their own background or interest It would be very useful. So if I'm to open, I think we can actually maybe use this occasion We don't often ever get someone with this expertise and level of experience in this area We should use it wisely by asking Maybe questions that I guess that benefit us Thank you Susan for a very interesting talk Do you value views in relation to the case of the WikiLeaks volunteers whose details been handed over to Twitter? recently Unforted of it being deemed necessary to the US government's investigation Investigation into WikiLeaks and the judgments that have found that people had a lessened sense of privacy Once they signed up to user agreements on Twitter Whether it's ever appropriate for an ISP to release personal information about their subscribers an ISP or a website Should be subject to judicial oversight That's what's happened in the WikiLeaks case Twitter came in and said no We don't want to tell you who our users are they had an opportunity to quite a quash the request for Information the judge says no we think this is necessary to the case that's going forward You know if I'm interested in seeing the rule of law operate with respect to these requests There are so many things that could happen without exposure this one We know about so if we want to change the procedures we can elect different people we can change the law There's a big effort going on in the United States right now to change the electronic communications privacy act to Require that police show for example probable cause Get a the most judicial oversight possible before getting this kind of information That's the road to go down So if we're all worried about privacy and it's good to see public Conversation about it Do you want to wait for a microphone so just we catch just so that your question is cut online as well these Jim divine and I work primarily around the sort of policy in the education sector Yeah, I was interested at the beginning you you you made reference to kind of unaccountable governments and unaccountable businesses and At the end you were talking about the need to articulate principles So I'm just wondering if you could say a little bit more about the kinds of principles that you would expect You to see in accountable businesses and governments, but also if I could turn it around I mean there you know when you look at the individuals who use the internet and there are Individuals who will always be honorable and accountable and there are individuals who won't be so and I suppose from an educational perspective and particularly around say and Media literacy and digital inclusion and how that works its way through the school system I mean could you say something about and and gendering accountability individuals? Okay terrific so on the first question when Russia asked recently that social networks voluntarily remove Critical content about the election from their sites Google Facebook Twitter or somebody else they all refused they said no They banded together and that is a moment where the businesses were trying to be accountable There have been nascent efforts around the world to build those sets of best practices so that businesses will be waiting for an appropriate kind of legal process to come to them before they give up personal information, right and Before they remove Information from their platforms So I'd like to see we'd all like to see I think more and more of that kind of thing where businesses feel strong enough To withstand requests from authoritarian or Democratic governments for information they they feel inappropriate and the way to make this possible is to make it visible So as is like the response to the question about the WikiLeaks people How do we what do we do to make businesses accountable? We make what they do more visible when it comes to giving up private information So that's I hope that's helpful that we it's very difficult to do as a Regulatory or legislative matter to tell businesses. They're not allowed to operate in China For example, I think is quite a reach to encourage them to feel strong enough on their own two feet to resist inappropriate requests Is a better direction now on as to the digital literacy? Point Teaching honor is difficult people will say the best softwares between the years, you know, it's it's what? Parents give to their children. It's the education in the home. That's always going to make the difference from my perspective I'm not a parent, but I'm sympathetic to parents and It very difficult to try to you could certainly have Curricula in schools that will encourage ethical thoughtful behavior by kids online and encourage them to think about their own privacy but to Mandate a curriculum sort of a one-size-fits-all Thing is probably doomed Just because kids are different towns are different. It would be better to have this kind of thing emerge from Communities where the kids live That's that's my does that answer your digital literacy honorable question. Yes. No. Yeah You know, I mean I completely completely appreciate the openness and on the internet but you and you've you know, you've Made the case very clearly, but you know irrespective of what we do in schools. I mean society Produces individuals who will do bad things. Yes on the end. You know on the internet whether it's incitement to hatred and violence or racism or or Child pornography, whatever it might be and and I'm just You know, I'm just interested in your thoughts about you know in real terms, you know What advice would you be offering? governments or telcos in terms of trying to sort of tread that path between openness on the one hand and and Meaningful protection of society from crazy stuff on the other People have been using telephones for terrible things for a long time People use highways to go off and murder people We don't then try to constrain the highway or the telephone system in the interest of prophylactically avoiding harm That's the risk to to make the the infrastructure itself Conditioned on avoiding harm what we should do and what we do do is when harm occurs find a way to figure out who did it and that's the Unfortunately, that's the wiki leeks example as well if we're looking to find out who did X or Y Police need to be able to go back and trace who that was But that's looking backward not trying to prevent it affirmatively and that's the line for me That where a court where some judicial authority has figured out that something illegal has happened or is it grave risk of happening? then appropriate for private actors to assist law enforcement, but Turning intermediaries and telcos into a kind of private police that are looking out affirmatively for harm is a bad step Not not good for our future. We wouldn't do with the telephone over the highway I Just wanted to come back to the principles there. Yeah to the EGA. I mean what I thought was interesting about the EGA It was that you had a lot of the big internet gurus attending as well Mm-hmm And while we were all a bit depressed about what the governments were saying, yeah and it was a forum that allowed people like vent surf to Elucidate the arguments in favor of openness and perhaps also to pitch one principle against another say privacy versus Innovation or security versus privacy, and I don't know what other fora there are Internationally for convening such debates. I just wonder what your feelings are about that well actually So on the EGA point absolutely right I think got a chance to talk there were a lot of civil society people there who felt You know, I didn't get a chance to say anything and others who felt they hadn't been invited So for what it's worth there was a sense that yes, Sarkozy had dragged all these enormous internet companies to Paris Just to show that he you know he could And that they got some great photos and that all seemed fine, but as a forum for actual discussion That really didn't happen. It was more speech making and not not so much policy making The OECD is emerging as a place where there will be real Discussion among the now we need to figure out how to bring more countries into that discussion But among the developed nations of the world they just a month after this EG 8 meeting released a set of principles That had been done with the cooperation of civil society and academia and business and government That would protect intermediaries from liability for example because they saw that as an important Role for speech in the internet to make sure platforms could make that speech possible So I have high hopes for the OECD as a sort of a new plate new kind of forum That has great dignity, but is also more open to many different actors and it is not just there for a precedent Just on that if I can because to a certain extent you see that Rather than the ITU in a location where you would actually formalize some of the operating principles as it were not just the high-level principles How do you do that when you don't have China or India or Russia in in the OECD? I mean, how do you how can you get a? the really large pop your areas population included and Developing with the areas where the internet is going to develop most in the next five ten years Right, how do you get them in the OECD? Well, when I'm speaking of principles for me, they are still right now high-level not fine-grained principles but principles about for example intermediary liability and Against filtering that kind of thing not dictating to the operators how they run their businesses. I think that will still be left to the national governments You would hope that as large economies India and Russia would see the benefit of being part of the that internet Rather than cutting themselves off from it. That's always the hope so that even if they're not formal members of the OECD They feel the need to be connected to the internet It's not a great answer because they're not there, but this is the best I can do It seems because it's the same in the energy area. They're not there right and they should be there They should be there. They should be there Role in time and I just want to ask this question me from a human rights perspective First of all, I want to congratulate you on packing so much into a short presentation All right, this question relates to Businesses and what they do when they're confronted by autocratic regimes in particular But I think you did a great job in highlighting the potential hypocrisy of the west or developed countries and lecturing China and so forth The Chinese are highly sensitive to hypocrisy in that kind of one can empathize with them to some extent So the question is really how are what type of instrument? Can and will do you foresee being developed that would allow companies some defense when they're asked to hand over Critical information life-threatening information. I remember for example the hearings in the US Congress Which I watch where Google yahoo and Microsoft were hauled in and I have a vivid memory of a quite a right wing Republican congressman who was chairman of that subcommittee Waving a book in the faces to the highly embarrassed Executives of that company about IBM's collaboration with the Nazis, you know going way back in the RV You know they collaborate my major one lecture the Nazis, which was a fascinating thing to observe, you know and the company's defense Kept coming back to the point We have to observe the laws of jurisdiction which we operate which of course when you consider the evolution of human rights law That's a pretty pathetic response. Yes, right, but there was one suggestion by the council for Google Which I looked into a little The notion of making Censorship a form of restraint of trade, you know a violation of free trade Which is rather it there would be a beautiful solution if one could bring human rights right into the transactional domain If it could be done, so I would really be fascinated by what? Thinking you could offer us or maybe hope in that area. Thanks very much. Oh, that's a wonderful question Thank you for that and there is There's a lot of talk about Putting this over into the trade regime. It's right now. It's still talk Maybe a page of bullet points now exists on this idea But it makes a lot of sense because you are raising barriers to the ability of a company to do business by holding up the threat the cloud of censorship and that You know a company will always its customers will always be worried that they'll be turned over to the police That's a barrier to trade So those companies Microsoft Yahoo and Google formed a group they call the global network initiative now The problem with the global network initiative is that it's not global It's only these three American companies and they weren't able to persuade telco so far to join But the idea was a good one that they would adopt a set of principles that against which they would be audited by human rights groups After you know experience in responding to foreign regimes that experiment is still marching forward If that could be expanded made it maybe a little less heavyweight so more Companies join it that would be a good way to again give them sort of the strength to stand on their own two feet and say We won't do it notice in Russia. They act as a body We're all not going to do it and you need that kind of group boycott if you're picked off as a single company Very difficult can you just have to leave that market? So both of these ideas both the quasi self-regulatory notion of having Principles that you sign up to and the human rights advocates take a look at and then the trade barrier idea Which would take years to implement are both powerful and interesting suggestions. Thank you for that Yes You touched on that Content industries yeah in terms of their attempts and stop online piracy act and I'm Well, I think we could sense that you're not a particular family act No, you seem to be at least aware that the problem exists in their industries Like a trash from the online Method of an online piracy in general is definitely a problem on some level And I'm wondering if you could perhaps outline what your ideal Relationship would be between the content industry and the technology industry and the telco industry in terms of trying to you know Trying to maintain as much as possible The content industry's ability to continue to produce high quality content while at the same time not all restricting The other aspects they come into play well, I think I've tried to express the idea that we shouldn't design the internet to favor any one industry and At this point Hollywood is powerful enough that they would like to see things designed to favor them Who else are we going to pick the next time? You know this aerospace want their own special internet? So That can't be the right direction on the other hand the intermediary liability Lack of you know safe harbor scheme we have in place in the United States is evidently unstable It's not going to survive something has to change And so the ideal relationship from my standpoint would be to have the You know to have everyone understand that it's in their best interest including the content industry's best interest to have an open Accessible internet that's widespread around the world that has to be in there ultimately in their long-term interest That it would be appropriate as I tried to indicate during the talk to stop American payment mechanisms from assisting True pirates how you figure out who a true pirate it is hard, but to use the ends of the networks the payments as places to You know intervene rather than to dig right into the hardware the internet and say we're going to mucking around with IP addresses and domain names Because that I don't think they quite appreciate how dangerous that is to the operation of the internet as a whole and It's sort of this benevolent like well of course you we should be blocking pirated sites. Well. Yes, but what's a pirated site? You know what kinds of Responses are the DNS resolvers going to give what does this do to our ability to hinder men in the middle attacks right now? This is whole idea. It's called DNS sec Which would allow a user or a website to know that the request that it's getting is coming from the source That says they're speaking so a way of Authenticating a request saying yes that that name is real called DNS sec if Sopa went into effect that entire Guaranteed channel wouldn't exist because the ISPs would be breaking off the communication in the middle and Refusing to let sites resolve that were on that list. That's a great danger to security So for technical lots of other reasons It's just a bad idea to to monkey with the technology in the middle And so the ideal relationship would be one where everybody understands their long-term interests rather than just digging into The short-term things will serve their particular business model How's that sound? That's very It shows the technical nature of this is critical That's what policy makers and find it so difficult to understand even that technologically effect the man in the middle Right measure you said why is it that when we're as I understand We're starting to see some instances of the end solution to content protection It'd be a restricting advertising or search capability our payment systems you say if I understand that's starting to happen Google are starting to do it and in some format or other under pressure probably Why is it that politically even though that's starting to evolve? That there's this such that there's not only in America, but in Ireland here We've been we're addressing this issue of three strikes and are some format of of internet service Intervention in France in a range of different countries Why is it when when there is starting to evolve an alternative approach as you say that it's not just theoretical It's it's starting to happen that politically The we are going into the middle of the word. We're doing heart surgery rather for a broken finger That's very good. Yeah, it's true. Well a lot of this has to do frankly with public servants Who are afraid to ask questions and don't really understand how this works and are told that? This is just like land. Look my property my land is being taken by somebody else You've got to stop them from taking it and that's a very simple argument to understand and the Technical complexity of how the internet functions is is still hard for people to grasp So I think one of our key roles has to be to educate ministers to understand how this whole thing works Right so it's a mission for me I that's one of I'm going to the Kennedy School and the Harvard Law School starting in January Initially for a year just because I have this mission to try to help Ministers understand the technology and appreciate what it can do for them in government to provide services less Expensively, you know reach people more easily get real citizen input all that a lot of goods that come with technology It's not all pirates and predators and all things that start with pee, you know there other things going on Can I just take you back to your last remark? Yeah and ask you to expand on the interaction between property rights and the technological nature of the internet because Obviously the counter-owners are and is that there isn't in your relationship that there are two separate things that you have to make one fit the other I forgot to ask I know your name, but can you give your name? Sorry, we didn't really Okay, well let's start with copyright so I teach copyright It's not the same thing as land because you can't even decide whether x-act infringes y Unless a court or some authority says no, no, that's a direct infringement It's very difficult to say that one act in the world is an infringement unless it's an absolute copy Okay, but then they say well Everything is these pirate sites are just handing off copies of movies. That's an infringement and you say fine But that site could be doing a lot of other things Maybe it has one infringing article on it that's short and it's got all kinds of other stuff by blocking and IP address You run the risk of having huge Unintended consequences for lots of innocent actors that have their stuff posted on that site So there's one sort of quasi technical response and the other is to engineer the internet in order to serve a very few companies Property interest let's just call them that has unintended consequences that would undermine the world economy that It is better for all of us to allow for a little piracy in exchange for having a world market that's that's a pretty big trade-off and That we shouldn't burn the village to save it the content industry will always say well people are afraid of Putting their stuff online because it might be stolen well on the offline world They assume a certain percentage of piracy that just happens It's part of their business and that may be the same online that trying to create a perfect Regulatory regime has consequences that would be far beyond far out of proportion to the benefits that would accrue to those few companies Am I on yeah Susan thanks so much for that we had if Kenny Mars off in here maybe a month ago Yeah, and he was saying almost exactly the opposite of most of the things you said and while I would have disagreed with them before he Into the room. He was very compelling. I agree to them once he left and now I agree with you So 10 out of 10 to you both but it leaves me wondering who's right and who's wrong and whether there's a gray area and Totally unrelated question to that statement is Why is it that lawyers have in a sense owned a lot of these these debates We could be debating a whole lot of stuff about what the internet is doing and yet it seems that the the law departments You know especially in the States have very very quickly dominated the discussion of where the technology is going I don't say that as a complaint but when you look at the the rounds of research happening the next round of research then is social scientists are getting in on the Act yeah, and There hasn't been a third wave So it's a broad question. Why law right from the beginning after the engineers got in there Why were the lawyers next well you saw this in the formation of I can actually the engineers came up with TCP IP came up with IP addresses and They're completely impatient with policy completely which is good I mean they're they're making things happen and making it work So the lawyers they just sit in their seats and work on the policy and though they end up showing up to the meetings And end up having a bigger say it's still true. So an engineer was yeah forget it I can I can route around you guys. I don't need to deal with Washington In my country that that turns out not to be true And we do need much more of a technical approach to these issues But the language of policy and the language of engineering do not work together the engineers say there's a right and a wrong answer Policy makers say well, there may be a compromise You know and this stakeholder got me a few votes last week and so so that these two worlds really don't intersect very neatly What we need are Policy makers are willing to show up to the meetings who have an engineering background and are able to bring it just a sprinkling of Reality into the talks that go on in the political realm. We don't have that right now So I'm sorry the lawyers have such a say it's just that they're ones who they're the ones who show up and talk What no, no, it's it's a it has been it's been a problem from the beginning no question So and the social scientists will come and then I hope that the engineers will too but MIT does not have a policy school The Institute in Delhi that which is far more sophisticated than MIT in many ways doesn't have a policy school They these two academic realms are also quite separate And it is not a ticket to being the top minister of communications in America to be an engineer You're always somebody else. You're a lawyer or someone's staffer. So until all of that cultural DNA changes So some people die off. This is the way it's going to work so Yeah Thank you, I'm just going back to your your comments about the international You know for where these discussions happen and going back to As a policy person who doesn't quite get all this, but I'm learning quickly the so much is expected of technology and communication for development the entire green economy discussion is based on technology for development if you're sitting in the UN and Talking about anything whether it's water or its energy There's a technology component whether it's banking and transactions and cross-border movement of money There's a technology component and that is all about development and sustainable development and lowering costs and leapfrogging What is what is your perspective on this because they're closely linked yet? They're occurring in rooms very separate from one another and everything you're discussing today Never comes across The the guidance and the talking points of those who are talking about the green economy you put in as appropriate You put in certain types of qualifying language that makes agreements somewhat neutral or somewhat acceptable to the countries around the table but it's It's there's a real disconnect That's fascinating and it's a disconnect personally for me because I've never been in the development conversations. So for me it's been all this sort of Hard-boiled big operator big nation kinds of talk and not about the possibility for development because I think it's sort of the hierarchy of needs for a country that has no Infrastructure the first thing they want is to have infrastructure that makes these other steps possible and They're not Thinking about the path dependencies of what kind of infrastructure they allow or what kind of political power Is exerted on that infrastructure and so they may in fact the way these two things are fitting together is that? leaders of the ITU are going to developing nations saying you're not being well-served by multi-stakeholder organizations like ICANN and you really should want not only UN funding for your operations, but also UN control and That's a very attractive argument to some developing nations So they're sort of trailing along behind and joining the ITU tent so it would be good to find a way to communicate to Nations that whose infrastructure is not yet well developed that these political questions about openness are really vital and will Create economic growth productivity opportunities that otherwise might not be available and that are that they're in their long-term interests But if the only people they're talking to are either the operators or International bodies that have their own interests and control they won't even hear those messages We haven't found a way to reach the 77 We don't have a dialogue on all this openness policy with them And that's a huge gap and I'm hoping that somebody comes forward to to reach that to provide the training and opportunity to learn Okay, I have any suggestions who that might be I don't Know I you know I maybe it should a great university should Oxford should Cambridge should somebody Trinity say all 77 nations Come here. Let's talk about the future of the Internet in your country. Maybe that's a way to do it She's in column line from Relics payments. I enjoyed your comment about stopping all the payments happening But I won't go for that one, but The I don't know if I actually understand this question myself, but I'll try the difference between and you know Regulation and bringing in regulation on an internet perspective are trying to bring a new legislation You know to control that what these people might or might not do but yet there is a already Loads of legislation out there to do lots of things So I take the gaming sector for example and the online gaming in the US where the US authorities Like you don't need any more legislation and they're actually very active already like in stopping online gaming when it when it operates No matter where it is in the world and they'll they'll go anywhere to stop it but because that legislation is already there and in many respects there's lots of legislation already there maybe but people don't see Tent to enforce it if it's online that's kind of this thing that it's kind of but if that was on TV We would do something about it if that was in the press we might do something about it But because it's online we tend to kind of not do some which are so quickly about it. So really just your thoughts on on that Not sure I understood the question, but I can I could throw out some facts see if that helps that so an online gaming It is true that the US although we provide I think more than 50% of the gambling population online We nonetheless are trying to outlaw internet gambling and we do it US government does it through the payment mechanism right now saying that we won't Government won't allow payment Companies to complete payments to online gambling gambling sites, but it's only done Domestically not we're not telling people gambling outside the United States that they can't use payment mechanisms Trying to sell into the US. That's right because they have an effect on the jurisdictional hook is they have an effect on a US citizen Went as far as the ISPs I think last time as well So they actually went to the ISPs to take down the sites, right? That's not such a great approach in my view So there there there are levers that governments look to to try to protect their citizens and For me the effects on speech are less by going after payment mechanisms Then the effect of going after the IP address as a whole So it's a compared to what question and that the burden of the payment lever is less on the overall structure of the internet I Know it's not not a great answer from your perspective, but it's a Yeah, comparative Just a comment Have we not been here before we had a UN world summit and information society to stage Summit and out of that came the internet governance forum So like it's been debated and debated about government involvement. What's different this time? Ah What's different this time is that the so the world seminar information society and the IGF were viewed as outlets for this kind of concern and Discussion that is no longer viewed as sufficient by the people who are Behind the ITU effort they would like to drive towards real Reification of government control So it's sort of giving up on the IGF as a forum is what's going on At this point your internet governance forum if you guys get addicted to this stuff You can spend months of your life going to meetings So I'm here to try to compress some of the information that happens there I'm sure there are lots of veterans here at those meetings Can I ask a real question to that because what I heard just saying is much anything else is a call to social Activism yeah as well as corporate activism for some people that'll be the relevant Where where does that exist? Where does that develop? How do you get people in Ireland to get agitated about what's happening in Moscow or what's happening in Washington or how? Until I suppose the point when it rides at your door Yeah, but but even then it's it's a it's a very technical issue. You have particularly you could very strong economic actors who can Spend a lot of money making it even more complex possibly are less easy to understand Where does the where does the social activism take place and how is it? How can it evolve if as you see we've already talked talked as high and dry up at the UN and elsewhere How'd you change the politics of it through social activism or who is doing that? Well like any social movement it starts with some committed individuals who are rational enough to be listened to by lots of people and Who are able to somehow? Encapsulate the issue we don't only care about people within our own borders as humans We're able to Empathize when there's a crisis when you see a tsunami happen something visible we're able to worry about that and with the Arab Spring I think you've seen people around the world Express concern about internet access being cut off and Communications being constrained now granted those were I get crises What we've got now is a slower moving crisis if there's a way to make that visible To the rest of the world so you see it you see a map of where things are getting censored It becomes for you a cause like doctors without frontiers or you know, we're able to worry about other amorphous Things why couldn't we make this one visible and actionable for for people within Ireland? starting with individuals leading groups Having an impact by Assisting activists may be in Syria or other countries where the things are really cut down and then seeing yourself as a global citizen This is what Ireland's economy is based on is serving people around the world not just not just right here And just on that you cited the Dutch government. Yeah as having taken a kind of stance. Yeah From what basis or for what is that that Nellie Grose is a Dutch woman and they speak a lot of languages You know, they're sophisticated people. I'm not I don't know the background there Maybe somebody else here does but they they've really taken this on as one of their leading causes and so as Secretary of State Clinton She was probably looking for bilateral relationships She talks about this all the time and maybe that's where this grew up from just a sort of an exchange of views where she found a kindred spirit Society You know part of the way We understand greatly Idea there of Maybe maybe this is another connection that the inability to you can make it economic ultimately is a barrier to trade the inability to find Markets in other countries is tied to the lack of an open and powerful internet infrastructure there And so it's it's both a human rights issue and a trade issue And maybe that's a way to make it have more vitality People there is a tremendous digital divide just to let you know what's going on in America We've got a very few cable monopolies who don't compete with each other They divided up the country back about ten years ago It's like you take Minneapolis all take Sacramento and they clustered their operations is very expensive to build a cable system That's why they did it this way and so right now only the cable operators are providing Truly high-speed wired access in America Verizon tried to have a fiber infrastructure It calls files. It only reaches about 10% of Americans. So the cable guys effectively have no competition So that's the wired side on the wireless side 18 team Verizon have a duopoly and Prices are high and they're not competing with the wired guys and just last week Verizon and Comcast Announced a joint venture where they will work together. It's dividing up the market So Verizon takes wireless Comcast takes wired and they market their operations together So it's amazing and it's quite quite a divided world at the moment So striking huh striking no competition and no regulatory oversight really at this point in America That this year is a really big year For the Internet I'm just wondering like what would be a home one for you in the coming year What do you really want to see happen? Right? Well, so we have a year to Convince the 77 that it's in their interest to have an open Internet That would be a home run to have some kind of a forum that draws them together linking Development interests and business and governments. That's very idealistic, but that would be terrific and then Even convincing developed nations that it's in their interest to keep this whole thing open and everybody turning their backs on Russia and China I guess is where where we end up, but that's not great But maybe that's the best we can do in a year. That would be home run Thank you very much for Speech and I'm pulled around from the Internet Service Provider Association of Ireland also on the board of the European ISPA Association and one of the concerns which you raise which is Really dear to our hearts is this whole area of blocking and that I'd like to comment that you know It's so simple for politicians to say block it But of course the technology the technological implications are just so such a nightmare And you know the Internet is actually so fragile the greatest miracle of it all is that it actually works Yeah, and yet most of these things are asking us to tamper with these but way of a question the new Catchphrase that I hear at European level all the time is non-legislative measures and this is what's coming out from Europe and As addressing many of the issues This has great kind of a seems have a catchphrase Value with politicians. What do you think to propose your kind of view? We need is a kind of catchphrase what is going to find traction with the European politicians So we don't go down the what we see is the rabbit hole of Blocking and so on You'd hope they'd be interested in enriching democracy. I know that's too big a phrase But if if you've got a public that's adequately connected and able to communicate and you have richer relationships with your government on many Layers that are ego of things that are made possible by internet infrastructure That's better for a democratic society than Serving a few You know interests of companies that doesn't grab as a catchphrase though I need something something but net neutrality is not the problem I mean it is a problem, but it's it's a phrase that only captures a tiny bit of the problem it's more about the importance of an of Widely spread infrastructure for everybody that we need to somehow convey Yeah, I know we have a real messaging and branding problem and the people on the other sides of these arguments are much better When if they're going from the elevator in 67th floor to the 30th floor They can say something in a second that grabs the attention of a legislator It takes us a few more seconds and so the guy gets off You've lost your opportunity to make the pitch and we're still talking and that's it's a terrible problem in this area So we need marketing experts as well Yeah I Presentation that there's no kind of document That's when I asked the question earlier that you could point to say oh well the crop We just all have to support the Crawford doctrine and principle one two three four five That is something then you could take to your politician You know what I mean for campaigns to work you've made the good point experience minister and government as well It's much much harder to deal with a pressure group But a simple message easy to mobilize the public and they just throw the document in the politicians face It's easy to tick off the card and they're going to do it or not and the simpler the actual Objective the easier I would suggest I think you might agree with me to campaign. Yeah, I do agree with you. I do I Started something in 2006 called one web day, which was an earth day for the internet each September 22nd and celebrated around the world I'm just a law professor. I didn't you know, I don't have money behind me or anything But it took off actually it's quite interesting and we need something like that doesn't have to be one web day, but some Moment when the public is self-conscious of itself as responsible for the internet the internet is not other It's not run by companies It's all the people who are using it and we haven't found a way to convey that message. Yeah, and visualizations always help pictures always help Okay, I am I'm going to draw to close wherever it belongs quarter past two. Can I just want closing one or two thoughts just Because I was very inspired by what you're saying in the sense of a number of things That we are only at the very start of this Yeah, and the sense we don't have the policy rules we the engineers have been probably a step ahead so it's not policy trying to catch up and It's It's such a fundamentally important project you I can't think of anything else that is as important in political life as Getting these rules right. It's like staying at the very start of the industrial revolution. Absolutely. Yeah, you know, whether you're gonna have whether it's They didn't have to do that much regulation, but you know How the railway system would work? We're at the design stage for not just the internal combustion engine system the whole industrial revolution is that equivalence and The the lack of understanding of that in a wide Context other than in a very narrow world of other people involved in in either the very techie people are the very Policy-orientated people the lack of understanding that is is phenomenal And I found what your contribution in your speech is that as I said at the start you said you've distilled a lot of down into very simple language That I think is hugely impressive One thought just you're asking that question you asked the question. Where is the For a to influence the G 70 one of the things that we're always looking at what we can do and maybe slightly blow ourselves up above Scale But one of the areas that Irish policy has certain influence is actually in the developed world for a whole range of historical reasons Where we have had a good have had a good Record in terms of development aid we have a long historical connection and as a non Former colony or itself a colonized country out in the imperial power We have a certain different relationship with some of those countries And I was taken with what you said one other thing you said in that of how this going to work is that the prize is a Global internet a global market a global industry a global not just industry a global democracy In a sense through through the communication system for an Irish government Which has very a lot of people working and can can trade in this international market very effectively We are good at that sort of business Both in other companies coming here and our own companies You would think it might be good opportunity for them to say to our foreign affairs policy people Listen, we should we should take a position on this and we should even talk to some of the countries That we don't want mix aid and trade, but but just in a general sense as a policy a broad policy approach Maybe use our influence or our friendship with a number of countries in the in that in that sector To to maybe try and tip the balance one way or the other. It's just one thought as to how we could do it and I find it the You could we can talk all day in terms of the principles when you get into the technology But I think what you've done by coming and just in the contribution, which is very useful that we have stored Is said some of the debate around the principles and I think it's been hugely beneficial and hugely interesting I'm very glad the fact that you're going on to talk to some other people in our City tomorrow that protection commissioner or universities because that level of expertise and that perspective I think it's gonna be very useful in the debate that we're doing