Trade Agreements and the Internet

8 December 2016 - A Main Session on Other in Guadalajara, Mexico

Also available in:
Full Session Transcript

>> Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats.  We'll be starting this session in a couple of minutes.

So I've just got something to read out to you before the session starts.  This workshop will be translated in six languages.  You can grab your translation radios outside in the foyer.

Also, we remind you that all sessions are being live‑streamed and translated.  We invite you to go to the IGF web site and IGF YouTube Channel to watch and share.  Thank you.

>> Good afternoon, all.  In the name of the Government of Mexico and the Office for Digital Strategy, we welcome you.  It is an honor to ‑‑ for us to be your host for this great event.  What an important topic:  Trade Agreements:  Commercial and Internet jointly.  Something that is of great relevance and currently vital.  I'm going to give the position of the Mexican Government.  I will open the floor for all participants.

The IGF is identified as a World Forum that allows foreign interaction of different actors, Governments, experts, industries, and Civil Society.  We know today that the Internet represents several key concepts which will be tackled during this panel, such as the Resolution of disputes regarding domains, data of registration, encryption, source code problems, as well as border matters.  These things, as well as international topics along with the OAS, TISA, the TPP, and the different associations are key to these matters.  It is why this is important to discuss matters regarding Internet Governance.  When it comes to trade agreements, Mexico has a network of 12 treaties of free trade, with 43 countries.  30 agreements for from motion and protection of investments, 9 agreements of limited cope, regarding economic complementarity.  Additionally thanks to the fact we have signed agreements in all continents, Mexico becomes an access door to a potential market of over one billion consumers.

Now, considering Mexico is a source and promoter of Internet Governance in the case of the TPP, for example, I'm happy to say we're happy with the results, as wells as with the results of the agreement of TISA.  We're still working to achieve a complete and ambitious agreement through which we have included our disposition to be dynamic, and when it comes to source code matters, we included an important disposition.  No part will require the transference of access of the source code of the informatic code property of a person on the other part as a condition for importing, distributing, sale, or use of that information data that will contain that program in their territory.

When it comes to cross‑border commerce, regarding the TPP, we include a strong disposition against the following redaction.  Each part will allow for transporter transfers of information by electronic means, including personal information when the activity will be for business matters only.

Basically, this is the position of our country regarding the 12 treaties that we have signed, and they are very varied.  I would like to thank the coordination of the National Digital Strategy, who invited us to be part of this panel, as well as Renata for the carrying out of this panel.  Our countries have an active part in these discussions.  I congratulate all the Moderators, participants and public in general and without further ado I would like to pass the floor to our Chair.

>> EMILY TAYLOR:  Could I just say as a first‑time visitor to Mexico what a wonderful event this is and to congratulate you on the hospitality and the amazing organization and logistics here and thanks to all the MAG Members who put together this panel.  As you heard from Señor Rendon, this issue is dealing with an issue that is new to the IGF but is very topical and very much at the heart of a lot of debates at the moment and I hope we will be able to expose some of those divisions and to have a reasoned and polite discussion which accepts the different points of view.

And, of course, that includes you, the audience.  Very pleased to see you all here.

What I'd like to do before we kick off the actual discussions is to introduce our wonderful panel to you.  We have a really amazing panel.  Sorry, I always forget to introduce myself, my name is Emily Taylor.  I'm from the United Kingdom, and I've been working in this space in the naming and addressing sphere, and lately in cybersecurity and all sorts of other things, for the last 15 or 20 years or so, so that's me.  Got that done.

So let me introduce our panel without further ado.  I'm going to read out in no particular order, to keep it exciting.  First of all, we have BurcuBURCU KILIC, the legal and policy Director at Public Citizen, Civil Society organization and Burcu works in the access to medicines, innovation, and information group.  And as part of many degrees and qualifications that she has, she has a Ph.D. from Queen Mayor University of London in my home country.

David Snead, General Counsel for cPanel, a lawyer with more than 20 years of experience in the tech Sector, negotiating agreements although not trade agreements, that's all right but agreements for the companies that he's represented.  He's worked both in law firms and in‑house.  He founded the Internet infrastructure Coalition in 2011, and was one of the earliest opponents of the Stop Online Piracy Act, or SOPA as it's known.

Jeremy Malcolm, yes with your hand up there.  Electronic Frontier Foundation, international team, and before working at the EFF, Jeremy was at Consumers International.  He's both an intellectual property lawyer and an IT consultant, and lists his ‑‑ what he enjoys as acting, writing, coding, not law, I noticed, but I suppose code is law.  Steering Committee, he's on the Steering Committee of the OECD Civil Society, Information Society Advisory Council.  Did I get that right?  Quite a mouth full.

So next we have Marcela Paiva, which is one of our trade negotiators on the panel.  She is a lawyer and is at the Permanent Mission of Chile to the WTO, world trade organization as well as other numerous other International Organizations.  She has experience in both bilateral and multinatural trade negotiations and has been an Advisor to the Director‑General of international economic relations, I think.

Joseph Alhadeff of Oracle is the VP of global Public Policy, and Chief privacy strategist.  He Chairs numerous influential Committees, including, he's the Chair to the OECD digital economy policy Committee, and is also I think relevant here, Chair to the international Chamber of Commerce digital economy Committee.

Last, but definitely not least, Juan Antonio Dorantes, who is a former trade negotiator for the Mexican Government and is now in private practice as a partner at the law firm Aguilar and Loera.  Thank you to our panelists.  Thank you very much.

So we heard from Señor Rendon a brief sort of overview of the issue, but I think that the reason, if I'm correct, the reason why it's on the agenda of the IGF is this sort of concern that we're hearing increasingly that whether it's at the World Trade Organization, the Trans‑Pacific Partnership, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, TPP, TTIP, that these are including more and more Internet matters whether it's Domain Name dispute resolution or Whois or use of encryption standards, just to name a few and there seems to be some concern that these interpret issues which have always been discussed in multistakeholder fora such as this are being reflected in trade negotiations and trade agreements in a very much a black box, it's felt to be quite a private and secretive, some would say, negotiation.

So we've got a few policy questions, but what I'd like to do is just to have some opening remarks from the panelists about where you see the tensions.  How can multistakeholder Internet Governance support digital trade?  And what should be done to, you know, whether it should be limiting the number of trade Internet policy issues that are included in trade agreements, or trying to get some more transparency into trade negotiations.

So why don't we start with our trade negotiators, and let you ‑‑ also, could you help us understand something about the status quo and how it works, and why it is how it is?  Could I start with you, Marcela?  And then we'll come to you, Juan Antonio.

>> MARCELA PAIVA VÉLIZ:  Thank you for that fantastic introduction, and thank you to our Chair for the words.  First I have to thank the Civil Society organizations, EFF, and public citizens that invited me, and they were open to have this debate in this setting so thank you very much.

And second, I just want to clarify that despite of my position and what was described by our Moderator, I will be speaking in my personal capacity, just to keep this in record.

So I think that it's important first to start and thanks for giving me the floor initially because I had this conceptual analysis:  What are we talking about when we talk about Internet?  I know that here for you it's something obvious, but I tried to do some philosophical research, because I also think it's important go back a little bit one step behind when we're talking about regulating something, and probably this is the initial different views that probably we might have, and how the trade world sees Internet comes here, because if you analyze, well, I just check one important philosopher at least that I thought was very interesting.  He talks about the fourth revolution and how the concept of the self has changed, and even we experience this every day, and this implies that Internet is affecting all the dimensions of our life, beyond the trade aspects.

Obviously when we come to trade, for the trade world, and then we have the WEF, the world economic Forum that has conceptualized the idea of the fourth industrial revolution, they see Internet as this tool that it's also true that it's going to be a tool as much as it's going to change and impact our lives so this is the first thing, that Internet is going to be looked at from different approaches regarding who's looking at it and all of them are right.

The thing is that probably we need to sit down and have this conversation.

In terms of trade, so normally, trade is the transfer of goods and services from one person to another.  And the concept particularly of free trade means that as an economic policy, we, countries, decide that we will not discriminate between imported forms and ‑‑ importing goods and exported goods from other countries.  This is the basic concept.  This idea of free trade that is basically lowering tariffs, so you remove the walls that you have to protect your economy ‑‑ can be done unilaterally and this was the way forward for a lot of our countries including Chile.  We started unilaterally lowering our tariffs.  Then the time come when countries realize and especially in the post‑second world era, that more was needed and trust, it was also important to keep the commitments, and so the institutions with the WTO emerged.

This implied that not only tariffs were going to be included, but also some disciplines and specific regulations that would warrant that the investors from one country will go to another country and will have certain, like, environment fix or sort of guarantee, similar as the one I will have for your investors.  So this will give certainty and this will go in favor of free trade.  So even though it is a contradiction because initially free trade is more like Governments don't do anything and we just let everything flow, this implies that we will do something, but we will do something to give certainty to investment, to be easier to come.

Now, if Internet is an additional layer of our reality and an additional dimension for relationships, it's almost obvious that Internet will be part of trade, or that trade will be part of Internet, as well.  This is here and this is here to stay.  It's part of the origin, the fact that everything happens in the Internet as much as it happens in the material world, or analog world, it means that trade also will have a say on trade issues and there will be a normal relationship there.

Now, those agreements started in a moment where Internet was starting to be something spread, so it's more ‑‑ it's through bilateral agreements that this regulation spread in the world, or it's been moving forward in the world.

So this would be like the initial basic concepts.  I hope that this gives, like, a good frame for the rest of the panelists and we can get then to the discussion of the issues in the next intervention.

>> EMILY TAYLOR:  Thank you.  That's a very helpful introduction.  Could I turn to you Juan Antonio, and ask, so we've heard a sort of general overview of what trade agreements involve, and the different negotiations, but why is it that they don't involve Civil Society, multistakeholders?  Why is it that they are perceived in this way as closed and secret?  And should there be more transparency in the process, do you think?

>> JUAN ANTONIO DORANTES SÁNCHEZ:  I plan to address that point later during the discussion but I think it's a good starting point.  I think that traditionally, Governments had created a system to consult companies and private sector organizations as part of their normal dialogue when they decide to launch a trade negotiation.  Why?  Because mainly, the interest involved in those discussions are those of the companies that are exporting or that will be affected by imports as a part of the trade negotiations.

And in that regard, I think that that's why, for example, in the case of Mexico, when we negotiated back in the '90s the free trade, the North American Free Trade Agreement, the notion of [ Speaking Spanish], which is translated as side room, was created to have permanently representatives from the private sector as side room, that the Mexican officials and the negotiators both in Mexico and the U.S. will consult and then they will go back, taking that input, and present the National positions of the respective country.

I think that one of the critics right now of the TPP ‑‑ and I have been hearing that for long times ‑‑ is that the only interest that were considered when we negotiated TPP were those of the private sector and the companies and the multinational companies, and that's completely untruth.  I mean, to think that the trade negotiators would only take those views and go and present those as the National interest, that's to me, at least, naive.  Trade negotiators are officials paid by Governments to do a job, which is to identify the National interest as an important interest.  And in that consultation, in the formation or re‑creation of that position, they do take into account the private sector views, but they also consider the National domestic legislation, the views of the regulators, and in many times when that's possible, and that's something new, the views of the Civil Society.

Now, I think that the issue of how the trade negotiations take place and the way the discussions and the texts are developed has created a challenge on how to consult those to the private sector, and the Civil Society, without creating or compromising the negotiating position of each Government.

So what I can explain is basically when Mexico put forward a position, for example, that may be the highest or the starting point for the negotiation.  And that may be contains issues that are not strictly related to, for example, the National domestic, or the domestic regulation and in that regard, a National company, or Civil Society organization, may say:  Well, look, the Mexican Government is lying in their initial position, and that will maybe compromise the position of the Government, but also there is the issue of when you're negotiating you have in the text the views of your Government but the other Government also.  So how can you as a trade negotiator, as a Government, put to the other ‑‑ or release to the public in general the position of the other Government?  I think that's an issue that will need to be addressed.

Now, I think that TPP and ACTA, but in particular TPP, were positive even ‑‑ and I know many people here will not think like that ‑‑ but they were positive in the way that they created, or they produced, a clear reflection in Government on the need for having Civil Society representatives consulted as a part of the process, when negotiating an international trade agreement.  And I think that's something that is a challenge that will need to be taken into account in the future, and I think that that's the way forward, at least in my view, to consider the views of others, not only companies in the development of trade agreements, because they're becoming more complex and they're actually touching upon different issues that are not strictly related to trade.

>> EMILY TAYLOR:  So as almost a case of ‑‑ you've explained that public officials will naturally take into account the National interests, the views of business that they've been consulting with, but also Civil Society.  But perhaps they also need to be seen to be doing so, as well, a little bit more in the future.

I'd like to, before going to our next panelist, I'd just lake to open up the floor to any questions.  Does anybody want to raise any questions at this point?  Or have we got anything on the ‑‑ from the remote Moderators at this time?

Just raise your hand and we will get you a microphone.  I know it's late in the afternoon.  Sir, would you like one?  Could we get a microphone down to this gentleman here, please?

Anybody else?

>> Yes, Steve Zeltzer, LaborNet, United States, San Francisco.  I think one of the things we have to confront with these trade agreements was that in fact, a majority of people particularly in the United States are very, very angry about these trade agreements, and that includes NAFTA, as well.  People feel that they have not been consulted, and these trade agreements have basically been decided and written by multinational corporations and part of the backlash going on today with the election of Trump is precisely that so I think we have to confront the reality after these trade agreements and the fact that there hasn't been transparency.  They were kept secret.  The American people were not told, even Senators were not told what these agreements consisted of, and what it has meant for the mass of working people in the United States and around the world.  Thank you.

>> EMILY TAYLOR:  Thank you very much.  Would anybody from the panel like to comment on that?  Burcu?

>> BURCU KILIC:  Actually, before this comment, I wanted to pose this question:  Can you negotiate ‑‑ can you negotiate an open Internet behind closed doors, according to United States trade representative?  Yes, you can, because the TPP, the Trans‑Pacific partnership agreement, has been promoted as the ‑‑ as promoting protecting open Internet, but it has been negotiated behind closed doors.

And that's why, like the TPP, one of the most serious concerns about the TPP was transparency and that's why TPP was defeated in the U.S., and probably in other countries, as well, because of the way it has negotiated, and the negotiation process raised really serious concerns.

>> EMILY TAYLOR:  Juan Antonio?

>> JUAN ANTONIO DORANTES SÁNCHEZ:  Thank you.  I think you need to separate two things.  One thing is that transparency can be improved, of course, always, and I favor pretty much, when I was a trade negotiator to consult this.  Burcu here is one evidence, very clear evidence, that the TPP was not negotiated in secret.  She was approaching every negotiator in every round, and she was actually promoting and putting forward all trade negotiators papers and documents.  And parted of what we have in the TPP, as positive outcomes, are responsibility of this person.

>> EMILY TAYLOR:  She's laughing so I think she knows it's true.

>> JUAN ANTONIO DORANTES SÁNCHEZ:  So I think we need to move ahead of that discussion.  We had opportunities to hear the private, civil organizations, and that was actually part of the way the TPP was negotiated.

Of course, to negotiate with the text in front of everybody and having a camera on negotiators hearing their statements when they were negotiating with other 11 parties, that's to me not possible, but maybe in the future it will be possible.  I don't know.

But in any case, you need to separate that thing.

Now, the other thing is that:  Let's just ‑‑ .

>> EMILY TAYLOR:  Very, very quickly because I have two panelists and someone in the audience.

>> JUAN ANTONIO DORANTES SÁNCHEZ:  Trade is not responsible for the loss of jobs.  I just want to be very clear about that.  I heard a gentleman saying that NAFTA is criticized in the U.S. because of the effects that that had in the past.  I don't think so.  I think that there are many other reasons like automizations and I have to say that clearly because to blame the trade agreements for the loss of jobs is just ‑‑ .

>> EMILY TAYLOR:  I'm going to go to this gentleman in the audience and I'm going to come back to David Snead and Joseph Alhadeff because I'd like to move on to sort of corporate if you like point of view and legal point of view.  Sir.  Can you introduce yourself and then give your question.

>> Andrew from Australia.  Is there any prospect that future trade negotiations might take into the 2016 from the European Union considering trade principles taken ‑‑

>> EMILY TAYLOR:  Did everybody get that question?

>> The memo Declaration of the 5th of December.

>> Jeremy Malcolm from the –

I've read it myself.  It's a very good document.  There's another one which is called the Brussels Declaration on Trade and the Internet which you might want to Google and read, as well.  These are two declarations which I think should inform the way that Trade Ministries approach future negotiations, if they want to avoid these agreements collapsing due to public dissent about being excluded.

>> EMILY TAYLOR:  Thank you very much.  I'm going to just ask David Snead for some comments here, either some reflections on the questions and what you've heard from the other panelists or just your perspective from cPanel, General Counsel, and also your experience in the Internet Infrastructure Coalition.

>> DAVID SNEAD:  Sure.  So my comments are on behalf of the Internet Infrastructure Coalition.  So I'm going to respond to a couple of points that were brought up rather than kind of going on with some prepared remarks.

The first is the comment about Burcu being at the trade negotiations and her input being considered there.  That's the worst‑case scenario, right?  The worst‑case scenario is people having to go to trade negotiations and sit in the lobby and wait for the negotiators to come down the elevator, and then buttonhole them and give their viewpoint.  That's the worst‑case scenario and I don't think that that's effective communication, and it's not effective dissemination of information either for disseminating Burcu's viewpoint, or for the negotiators to understand her viewpoint.

I really believe that for the trade agreement process to be successful, there need to be multiple opportunities and multiple effective opportunities for various voices to give input into the trade agreement process, and have those processes be somewhat institutionalized.  Now, that doesn't mean that you kind of create this system that's just open all the time, but it does mean that opportunities need to be established in the trade system which was set up initially for businesses.  And it's kind of out of whack.  It tends to ‑‑ it tends to institutionalize the methods that businesses tend to use to work with negotiators.

The second thing I want to talk about is secrecy, and the secrecy around trade negotiations.  I think if you look at the recent history of trade negotiations, we have this long string of failed trade agreements, and trade agreements that have been really vehemently opposed by a number of people, the last of which is TPP.  What does that indicate to me?  It indicates to me that as someone who believes very deeply in the potential for free trade, and the fact that free trade is good, that the system isn't working.

If we can't get people behind the trade agreements, if we have people in the streets opposing the trade agreements, we need to find a better way to address their concerns, and for me, the primary issue is one of secrecy.  I think we've gone way overboard in classifying trade agreements and trade agreement texts, and there need to be methods for opening those up.

>> EMILY TAYLOR:  Thank you very much, David Snead.  Can I turn to you, Joseph Alhadeff?  I guess from a Corporation like Oracle or with your experience sitting on international Chamber of Commerce Committees, that you would be the sort of people that other panelists have been talking about, who are consulted by Governments during trade negotiations.  Is that correct?  How does it work?

>> JOSEPH ALHADEFF:  It would be wonderful to actually have the access that we've been thought to have.

>> EMILY TAYLOR:  Well, it sounds fantastic from the way it's been described.

>> JOSEPH ALHADEFF:  That does not actually occur in that fashion.  There are specified advisors who do have access, it's usually conceptual access rather than contextual access and then there are consultations that go on, and she would not have been alone in the lobby trying to find the negotiator.  There would have been lots of business people in the lobby trying to find the negotiator, too, so the improvements that David's talking about are improvements that I think would be welcome across all the stakeholder groups.

I do want to distinguish, though, we have three topics that somehow get coalesced into one topic.  We have trade, which is that movement of goods and services among parties, because it's not always across borders.  You have trades within a state, trades within countries, trades across borders, trades that would are global.  And those have created substantial potential for economic growth, have driven societal benefit in many cases.

You then have trade agreements, which are these negotiated texts that place conditions on trade, sometimes in the reduction of tariffs and barriers.  Sometimes in the quality of labor and other standards that are applied to trade.  And you have the process related to how those agreements are negotiated, which has become a significant issue of trust.  That trust is because people don't find them to be inclusive.  People don't find there to be sufficient visibility, and then you have the outcome of the process, which is the agreement itself.

And unfortunately, we're convoluting all of those things into one topic so all of a sudden now trade is bad also, not just trade agreements and that's an unfortunate consequence, because trade has been tremendously beneficial in many cases and sometimes the outcome agreement is not a bad agreement, but the process that was apertinent to it was considered deficient, and therefore we're not even going to take a look at the words because we're so upset with the process, and so I think we need to understand how to allocate those issues across themselves to make sure that we are actually focusing on the part that is causing the harm and creating the problem of trust, and not actually take all of these things apart.

And then I think a lot of times we need to actually create an evidence base for this discussion which doesn't really exist, because this is also an emotional discussion.  Without evidence, it allows the emotions to be flamed in a way that is understandable, but may not reflect the actual impact of what's happening.  So I think we need to bring more facts, but we also need to recognize I think as David said, that this could do so much better than it's doing.  The potential and the opportunity is huge, and we're leaving a lot of it on the table because we're not understanding how to develop the mechanisms that allow us to have trust, and to promote these agreements rather than to be afraid of them.

>> EMILY TAYLOR:  Are there any reactions or questions from the audience or the remote Moderators at this point?  Just raise your hand and someone will get you a microphone.  I don't see any.  I do believe though we have a remote intervention from Marietje Schake.  I think we have a video we'll try to queue up.  I probably have time for a quick question or comments, because, Burcu you were looking for the microphone.

>> BURCU KILIC:  I became a super‑hero.

[ Laughter ]

So, yeah.  I followed the TPP negotiations last four years.  I've been to almost every negotiation round, and I was spending most of my time at the hotel lobbies waiting for the negotiators and trying to get hold of them, and I mean, as Joseph said, it was not Civil Society.  It was mostly businesses, but the Civil Society ‑‑ as representing the Civil Society, there were a couple of us there.

And we ‑‑ .

>> EMILY TAYLOR:  Is that bad though?  Woody Allen said, 80% of life is just turning up.  So turning up is part of the whole process.

>> BURCU KILIC:  It's not easy.  It's not easy to go to all these negotiation rounds.  As civil society, we have very limited funding.  We have very limited resources.  My organization made a choice and that was our decision that we have to be there, we have to be present, so that we could make a difference.

But not every Civil Society organization could afford to go to every negotiation round, because at the end of the day, we depend on the funding and there is no funding for Civil Society organizations to go to trade negotiations.  And it's one of the issues we discussed in our Brussels Declaration because as Civil Society, we know that we have to be present.  We have to be there.  We have to talk to the negotiators.  Otherwise, no one will raise our issues.  No one will raise the Human Rights issues, or no one will raise the public interest issues.

>> EMILY TAYLOR:  What you seem to be saying ‑‑ do you feel like you were able to influence?

>> BURCU KILIC:  I don't know ‑‑ .

>> EMILY TAYLOR:  Because if you or I ‑‑ yes, please.

>> MARCELA PAIVA VÉLIZ:  Yes, thank you, I would like to touch some points that have been said.

>> EMILY TAYLOR:  Sorry to interrupt you, I'm not sure if the video is ready or not, oh, it is, so should we just get a quick point from you and then go to the video.

>> MARCELA PAIVA VÉLIZ:  Two things:  The first one, with respect to this idea of secrecy, to be honest the way Governments interact with each other has always been the same in different areas, not only in trade.  It's not that it's secret it's just that we meet in one country, invite the other.  If you follow other negotiations that have been done in different Ministries it's going to be the same.

The fact that there's been more interest from Civil Society on this particular negotiation that Governments take place, it's been changing things.  And I have to say, being a negotiator first in my capital and now in Geneva in multilateral organizations that the inputs from Civil Society are very important, and that it's very important that the countries have their own processes of participation in the territories, because one of the issues that you just were talking about, the difficulties of traveling and funding, that can be solved if you have your own process of consultations within each country.

>> EMILY TAYLOR:  And do you in Chile?

>> MARCELA PAIVA VÉLIZ:  Yeah, exactly, we have a side room that was established for TPP.  This was in 2014 when the current Government took the position, they started with this mechanism, and for the first time, it included a lot of Civil Society organizations.  In the past, it only included business.  Now we have ‑‑ it had sent 100 organizations, 50 for meetings with the head of the trade Agency and all the experts that are actually negotiating the trade agreement so this possibility of dialogue and influence, it happens in the bottom, in the roots.  So I think it's also very important.

>> EMILY TAYLOR:  So if there is that consultation, why are people so angry?

>> MARCELA PAIVA VÉLIZ:  Well, I think first of all, this is not necessarily a procedure in all the countries that are negotiating and I think this is important.  In our case, every stakeholder is treated the same way, so we will have business stakeholders, we have Civil Society stakeholders in the same room, hearing the same information.  There's not going to be, like, different kind of procedures for business than Civil Society.

And this is new.  I think that we're changing and there's a lot of things going on, and probably this kind of conversation helps to be more established around the world.

>> EMILY TAYLOR:  I can see some panelists want to respond to that, but let's go to the video, breathe deeply, and see where this takes us.  Thank you.

>> MARIETJE SCHAKE:  Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.  My name is Marietje Schake, a member of the D66.  We're with the alliance of liberals and Democrats for Europe.  I've been a longtime visitor of the IGF, and I'm a fan, so I'm really sad that I cannot attend in person this year.

Trade and technology are both key areas of my work here in the European Parliament so I thank you for letting me share some of my thoughts with you through this recording.

Trade agreements can play a crucial role in constructing a global rules‑based framework for digital trade, but they cannot change fundamental law, at least not in the EU.  This is a perception though that many people hold, and it can lead to confusion.  I see both a lot of unjust hopes and unfounded fears.  If we want trade rules to strengthen the open Internet and Human Rights online they must take as a baseline strong protection of Human Rights as well as inclusiveness.

By being clear on the need to protect access to information, non‑discrimination, net neutrality and the freedom of expression, open societies can leverage the opening up of markets against the need to protect rights.  If we want to improve Human Rights and inclusion, we should stop focusing narrowly on removing trade barriers as the primary goal of trade rules.

So this takes us into the territory of non‑tariff barriers.  A win‑win between Economic Development and raising the Bar of standards should be sought.  Enabling consumer protection and digital rights such as free speech and access to information go hand in hand with challenging excessive cybersecurity demands or National requirements to hand over the source code or encryption keys of products.

Caving into such demands hurt both rights protection and economic opportunity.  Given the interplay between economic opportunities and digital right benefits, the more coordination, the better.  We need to work together more.  Currently, trade negotiators, Civil Society organizations legislators and tech experts try to address the opportunities of the digital economy or Internet Governance or the protection of digital rights in very different fora, without necessarily having a clear overview of who is doing what.

Some actors have raised concerns about the potential dangers of trade agreements such as the cementing of outdated copyright rules or the circumvention of privacy standards, while yet others have focused on the opportunities to safeguard and strengthen the open Internet, for example by banning unjustified forced data localization or prohibiting online censorship, but what must be clear first and foremost is that trade rules are not in a zero sum relation with economic interests on the one side and digital rights on the other.

As the European Union, we need to use trade agreements to try to improve and strengthen digital rights worldwide.  The approach would be similar to how we promote values such as the respect for the environment, labor rights, animal welfare, and Human Rights as an integral part of our foreign policy.  I believe opportunities lie in removing forced data localization requirements, which would help digital services, and can be beneficial for people's freedom of speech.

Clear provisions that specify which traffic management practices are prohibited under any circumstance can prevent anti‑competitive behavior and strengthen net neutrality.  This should be done globally.

Trade agreements can in that way improve privacy and security by allowing the unrestricted import, use, and sale in commercial markets of products with cryptographic capabilities.  If well done, rules‑based trade can help the respect for Human Rights and inclusiveness.  And I would like to see the EU leading in setting such norms globally, but as always, we are only able to lead if we lead by example.

While it is our duty to invest time and energy in the creation of the best possible agreements, we have to remember that perfect deals risk being the enemy of good deals.  While we deliberate, Governments worldwide and even private companies don't wait.  They are already creating new norms.

And instead of a perfect agreement, we risk ending up with norms that are fundamentally detrimental to the open Internet and Human Rights online.  They're also often unchecked democratically or judicially.

So let us work together to use the opportunity of trade agreements to improve online rights, to close the gap between the technical community and trade experts.  Based on the values of openness, we can work across disciplines and ensure economies, societies, and the Internet remain open.

Thank you very much for your attention.  I wish you a great Forum and discussion, and I look forward to hearing back about the solutions you find and the thoughts that you have.  Thank you.

[ Applause ]

>> EMILY TAYLOR:  Thank you very much to Marietje Schake who has been a very involved member of the European Parliament in this space for many years and was one of the commissioners on the Global Commission for Internet Governance.

Jeremy, you've been uncharacteristically quiet during this session so far.  And actually I think that there were a lot of substantive issues in Marietje's comments and also what you've heard before about, she seems to be making the case that:  Well done trade agreements don't necessarily have to be a zero sum game and they don't necessarily have to lower Human Rights standards.

Can I have your reaction to Marietje's rosy view of trade agreements?

I don't think we've got your mic just yet.

>> JEREMY MALCOLM:  I actually agree with the potential for trade agreements to promote a free and open Internet.  One of the misconceptions that I heard earlier on the panel is that where this panel is against trade.  That's certainly not the case.  There are certainly some of the Internet Governance deliberations that take place here and elsewhere that should be informed by the need for ‑‑ or by the benefits of trade, because trade certainly can bring enormous benefits, and nowadays we can't separate the Internet and trade.  I agree with that point that I believe Marcela made earlier.

However, by the same token, there are also some trade issues that need to be informed by Internet Governance stakeholders, and so change is certainly needed.  We've heard I think it suggested that it's impossible or difficult to make these changes because of the way that trade negotiators need to have a bit of separation and privacy in their negotiations, yet there are similar negotiations that take place elsewhere, such as at the World Intellectual Property Organization that are open to public involvement and scrutiny.  And we have also seen similar major developments in Internet Governance happen without the world collapsing.  Look at the NTIA IANA transition, look at the NETmundial meeting which many people said in advance was impossible.  We could never have a meeting like this that generated outcomes agreed between such a broad group of stakeholders and yet we did so there are some practical steps we could take to open up trade agreements or trade negotiations.

Firstly, we shouldn't assume that every Internet issue needs to be dealt with in a trade agreement.  There may be some rules, such as Domain Name rules, spam rules, net neutrality, that are better dealt with elsewhere so we shouldn't default to including these things in trade agreements.

But secondly, for the issues that are included in trade agreements, we need to work out are countries serious when they talk about multistakeholder Internet Governance?  They've made commitments at WSIS, at NETmundial, at the G20 to use the multistakeholder model of Internet Governance and that includes some issues that are now decided behind closed doors in trade agreements.

So what we really need is to make some changes.  These can include releasing the textual proposals that each country puts forward, releasing draft consolidated texts after each negotiating round.  Perhaps the country names can be removed from those consolidated texts but that would be a step forward.

Opening up the trade advisory Committees which are currently dominated by industry and are secretive and maybe also linking up with the IGF and other Internet Governance bodies to actually hear from the experts to actually take in some of the expertise that we have into those closed‑door discussions so I think there are definitely changes that we can make, and we, some of the stakeholders here at the IGF decided we'd like to create a Dynamic Coalition on trade and the Internet to take this forward.  So once that gets on the road we'd like you to join us.  Thank you.

>> EMILY TAYLOR:  Okay, I think there will be some reactions from the panel to Jeremy's proposals, some very concrete, practical proposals that are being made but first I'd like to turn to you in the audience.  Would anybody like to make an intervention at this stage?  Or to disagree?  Susan, are you fidgeting?  Or would you like to ask a question?  Anything on the remote?  There is no yeah, please go ahead.

Are we getting through?

>> We have a question from Dave in Mauritius, who says:  How can we have contractual agreements being made between two businesses in two different countries, especially if there has not been a bilateral agreement enforced between the Governments of the two countries?

>> EMILY TAYLOR:  Anybody like to have a crack at that question?  Please, Juan Antonio.  David, we haven't heard from you in a while.

>> J.A.D. SANCHEZ:  I can just answer as a contractual lawyer:  It doesn't require a trade agreement to have a contract.  It's something that would be governed by the contract laws that are in the two countries.

>> EMILY TAYLOR:  Thank you, Marcela?

>> MARCELA PAIVA VÉLIZ:  Just to add to that, that would be part of the private international law so that it regulates relationships between private parties, and the thing is that multilateral context or public international law, what it does is make it easier with some commitments we both agree, both countries and then make these contractual relationships within the private sector easily.

>> EMILY TAYLOR:  So there's nothing preventing private companies from contracting with one another even if there is no agreement in place, and the agreements operate sort of on a different level at sort of the macro‑level if you like to make trading conditions a little easier.  Anything else?  Yes, please go ahead.

>> Hola.  Hello, I just wanted to say that it is true that names and domain issues are discussed in the governance model.  Definitely the rules of the game are different in terms of bilateral agreements and country to country agreements.  I believe that there is a lot to learn in the governance model for other models as well, but the rules are different.

>> EMILY TAYLOR:  Anybody like to respond to that intervention?

Burcu?

>> BURCU KILIC:  And I also want to follow up on Jeremy's comment.  So, yeah, one thing is clear with all these discussions and what's happening in the U.S. with the TPP, the current trade model is not working, so we are in the 21st century, and when they were ‑‑ when the parties were negotiating the TPP, they were saying that we were negotiating high standard rules for the 21st century by using 20th century trade model, trade negotiation model, so one thing is clear, this trade model is not working.  And in the post‑TPP era, because now we're in the post‑TPP era with the transition of the U.S. administrations, the policies will change.  The trade agreements, the way the countries negotiate trade agreements will change.

So I always say this, like, trade negotiations, or the trade negotiators, have lots to learn from the IGF community because these multistakeholder discussions we take here, they shouldn't stay here.  We should reach out to these people and tell them why we care, why these issues are not only the trade issues, but also the Human Rights issues, but also the social issues, social and economic issues.  Because if we can't do that, we won't be able to ‑‑ if we can't do that, it would be impossible for us to expect them to speak our own language.

>> EMILY TAYLOR:  Burcu, can I ask you, as somebody who has operated both in the lobbies of the trade agreement fora and in this Forum, how could we take Jeremy's suggestion to bring the two together in some way?  What would that look like?  How would that happen?

>> BURCU KILIC:  I mean, there are, like, when I first started to work on the trade agreements it was 2011, and from 2011 to 2016, lots of change in terms of, like, Governments becoming more and more transparent.  I mean, Chile's side rooms were really interesting and it was an interesting experience for Chile, being in the side room with other stakeholders and listening from the trade negotiators but it wasn't enough.  It's not enough.  And it became more open, at least they started to post these blogs about what's happening in the negotiations.  So it's an interesting question.

I don't have an answer for that.  When we draft, when we were drafting the Brussels Declaration, those were the issues, and it was almost a multistakeholder discussion we had in Brussels because industry, businesses were also there, and we were, like, yeah, we should be able to see the text.  At least we should be ‑‑ we should be kept informed about what's happening in the negotiations.

I was able to comment on the texts or analyze the texts because the texts were leaked many, many times but the text which was leaked was the intellectual property Chapter, not the e‑Commerce Chapter so when you look at the intellectual property Chapter of the TPP, it has changed a lot from 2011 to 2015.  But e‑Commerce Chapter, we never seen that, so we don't know what kind of discussions had taken place in that room, and what were the positions of countries.  We had no idea.

>> EMILY TAYLOR:  I can see that other panelists want to come in on this and I'm probably going to come to all of you.  But I just want to go out to the audience, and particularly the women in the audience.  Can we have some questions from you, please?  This is an interactive session, and the panel are here, these experts are here, in front of you to interact with you.  So it would be great to hear from you.  Yes, sir.  Can we get a microphone down here, please?  When you get the microphone, please introduce yourself and then make your point.  Do you want to use my microphone?  Come to the front and just use my microphone.

>> Yeah.  Thank you very much.  I'm from Nigeria, and the discussion here has been focusing on the trade partnership agreement in the U.S. and how it impacts the free world and all that.  I really want to bring the perspective of Africa to it.  We have African groups, which was signed into law in 20 ‑‑ the year 2000.

Then we have seen that becoming one of the subject matters of debate during the U.S. presidential election, but now I really want to ask the question that:  How can the Internet Governance, how can it help to improve the review of African groups and opportunities, rather than to repeat it?  Thank you.

>> EMILY TAYLOR:  Should we take your question while we're down here?  Okay, we've got a whole ‑‑ oh, good.  Let's have you, Madam.  And Juan Antonio is desperate to take the microphone and to take ‑‑ I've got one here.  Can we get a working microphone to this gentleman here?  And then we'll take a series of questions, because it's like buses.  Three have come together now.

>> I am Anna.  I come from Haiti.  My question goes as follows:  What do you think that trade agreements could reinforce security online?  I do understand that trade agreements could reinforce the openness of Internet worldwide.  I would like to hear from you, your take.

>> EMILY TAYLOR:  Have you got a microphone?  While you're waiting, we'll go to you.  We a seem to be struggling with some of the microphones working.  Please go ahead, Sir.

>> Thank you.  I come from Chad.  This is the first IGF that I participate in.  Thank you very much.  I would like to thank the panelists.  You have talked about trade, you have talked about the Internet, you have talked about agreements, but I do understand how trade works.

Could you give us specific examples, like three tangible examples, that could describe?  Because I do understand how trade works, but how can I relate to what you are discussing?  Because could you define why the articles or why those agreements have not worked?  I would appreciate if you could explain for the participants of this session.

>> EMILY TAYLOR:  ‑‑ about improving cybersecurity or the interaction between cybersecurity and trade agreements I think, and also we have the gentleman here who raised the questions about Africa.  Can I come to the panel and then we'll come back to the audience.

Juan Antonio I feel duty‑bound to go to you next as you've been waiting for so long, and Joseph, you were asking for the microphone, as well, and Jeremy.

>> JUAN ANTONIO DORANTES SÁNCHEZ:  Thank you for that.  I'm sorry for being so insistent, but I just want to reiterate one thing I said at the beginning of this conversation is that we do think, or I do think, that the way Governments consult the text on the trade negotiation has to be improved and that's a fact.  And I think we should all go back and think how to do that.

But to say that the trade negotiations, or the trade structure, system, is not working, is completely unfair and untruth.  There are 160 trade FTA agreements, FTA ‑‑ sorry, negotiating and on the side of the WTO.  The WTO just recently negotiated plurilateral agreement on trade facilitation, that it's about to become in force.  Mexico is currently negotiating with Jordan, Turkey, Brazil.  They just have to conclude the Pacific Alliance.  We're negotiating an improvement of an agreement with Europe, and with the EFTA countries, so trade is there and it's going to still be there regardless of what we discuss here.

I think that the issue is how to be bringing the information and the views from other stakeholders to those negotiations.  And I think that one point about the consultations with the Civil Society, you mentioned why people is so anger.

I think there is a philosophical ‑‑ .

>> EMILY TAYLOR:  And also perhaps to this gentleman's point, as well:  Can you help to bring it into a concrete level that people who aren't involved in trade negotiations, why this ‑‑ what difference these make to people's lives, or to trade, if I've understood your question correctly.

I think it was the trade agreements, yes?

>> JUAN ANTONIO DORANTES SÁNCHEZ:  I think it's trade and perhaps Marcela can explain that just to finalize this very quickly.  So I think that Civil Society would needles to improve the relation to trade Ministries and regulators when they're discussing trade rules, and I think that's a fact that Burcu mentioned, of course the Governments need to put forward better systems to react, but the vice versa should be applied there.  One last thing, the interaction between the International Organizations has been there, WHO interacts with other organizations because they're overlapping all around trade issues.

For example, tobacco.  When you discuss about how to regulate tobacco, WHO rules apply, and sometimes those rules actually harm trade interests, and there has to be dialogue.  So that's something that should be done in this context.

>> EMILY TAYLOR:  I've got Jeremy, Marcela, Joseph.  Or shall we go to you first, Joseph?  Because you've been waiting for a while?  Very, very brief because we're into the last 15 minutes and we've got some questions from the audience, so thank you.

>> JOSEPH ALHADEFF:  Just to say I didn't actually find anything tremendously surprising in Jeremy's intervention which was the most surprising part of the intervention.  To the question that was on security, I think part of one of the things that Jeremy said is that not everything is fit for a trade agreement.  While very top‑line concepts on security may be in a trade agreement, operational concepts of security don't belong in trade agreements.  We need to find other places.  Budapest Cybercrime conventions, there are lots of other places where the detail work is going on so I wouldn't look for that on a trade agreement, though it might be a framework concept.  In a trade agreement, for example, where trade has been beneficial, if you think of data processing in India, it was trade between some of the developed countries and India add a very low level of quality.  Data processing at the call center level, very low‑tech, not really very high‑quality jobs, not really high‑paying.

Over time, knowledge transfer occurred.  Over time, Indian companies moved up the value chain, and today they are global players and exporters of services.  So that ability to enable trade between economies was tremendously beneficial.  There would, of course, have not had that happened had there been a trade impediment or had it not been facilitated by certain incentives and other things.  There is also the opportunity that you don't always have a happy ending just because you have trade but there are a lot of positive examples where it is beneficial.

>> EMILY TAYLOR:  Thank you very much.  Jeremy, Marcela.

>> JEREMY MALCOLM:  I think I can make a few remarks that respond in a way to all three of those questions, and also to Juan Antonio and Joseph.  So ‑‑ .

>> EMILY TAYLOR:  Can we also pick up this gentleman's point about Africa, as well?  Because I didn't hear anyone addressing it.

>> JEREMY MALCOLM:  Indeed.  I mean, there has been ‑‑ African countries, in fact all three of the questions came from developing countries, which is wonderful.  These countries have been left out of the latest round of plurilateral trade agreements.  Although Juan Antonio said the trade is working, the WTO has become deeply dysfunctional, because developing countries are asking for agricultural reforms and yet the developed countries are saying no we need e‑Commerce rules and they're at loggerheads so the question about security online, how can trade agreements promote that?  The TPP had a rule which prohibited countries from requiring the review of source code of products, and I think this goes to Joseph's point that that's kind of operational.  That is a very detailed rule.

And the result of that rule is that actually, products that may have bugs or flaws or back doors in them can't be reviewed for those security flaws if a rule like that is adopted so this is really problematic.  And so the other problem I think for developing countries is that once these plural lateral agreements are in place other countries can join on later but by the time they join on the terms are already set.  So it's a big problem.

>> EMILY TAYLOR:  Marcela quickly.

>> MARCELA PAIVA VÉLIZ:  Yes, thank you, I would like to make a few points.  The first is joining voices to the failed trade agreements, coming from the country that the basis of the economy of our growth has been trade, actually, the portion of trade that is exchange of goods and services with the rest of the world, within our GDP, it's higher than the average in the world and the average of Latin America, that's our truth so for us saying that free trades are failure or not working is really not like an accurate picture itself.

And the second thing is that we also have other initiatives, like TPP is the main focus right now but Chile and Mexico are part of the Pacific alliance and currently Pacific alliance not necessarily the only platform but it's been used to promote the Regional digital market, ELAC, that actually some colleagues were meeting in this parallel so this same IGF with private sector as well, so I think that there's more to just in trade agreements to just TPP.  The other thing is we have different spaces to influence.  There is a negotiation process.  The implementation process that is very important because it's not directly applied.  You have to go to Congress and there's also another opportunity to balance rate norms and have a more robust policy, and then it's enforcement moment with the judicial system that's also very important to have educated judges so there is a three process in this ‑‑ and it's not only about negotiations.  Trade is not only about the negotiations.  I think this is very important to highlight.

And finally ‑‑ .

>> EMILY TAYLOR:  I'm going to, I'm sorry to stop you with your, and finally because I know I have someone on the Remote Moderator and I've got at least three, I think, people who want to come in in the last 10 minutes.  I need to go to the Remote Moderator.  Are we ready?

>> Yes, we are.  We have a contribution, a comment from Switzerland, someone with the Digital Society of Switzerland and the Just Net Coalition, his name is Norbert Bollow, and he says one issue that particularly needs in‑depth discussion today is how privacy can effectively be protected in today's world, where online activities leave a lot of digital traces or footprints, and how the needed legislative innovation can be achieved.  Then he goes on to say:  The currently proposed trade agreements like the TICA would prevent such innovation.  We need to create real in‑depth conversations and discourse to figure out how protecting privacy while as far as possible avoiding thereby creating barriers to international trade in goods and services.

And he goes on to say, he supports the formation of a Dynamic Coalition on Trade.

>> EMILY TAYLOR:  I'm seeing a lot of nods from the people on the panel to that intervention.  Thank you very much for that.  Can I come to you, Sir?  And then you.  What we'll do is just take the questions from the audience in a group.

>> Hello.  How are you doing, Manuel from Mexico.  I would like to add to who was next to me.  I believe that the feeling that certain communities show to TPP, they're not happy with it, and in terms of the potential trade exchanges that could trigger that, we trust that that will happen if TPP happens.  I believe we should see the process itself, and going back to what she just mentioned that different sectors have different rules in the negotiation table, all of us are here, we know that the negotiation rules go through multistakeholder processes that result in outcomes and at least one very tangible example that took place in parallel to TPP negotiations is the IANA transition, which was publicly negotiated with a very transparent process.

But on the other hand, we can't be naive to think that some issues should not be solved with multinational treaties because some treaties have to happen.  I believe that both processes can work very well with each other and I just wanted to add that to the discussion.

>> Hi.  Krishna from governance ‑‑ the way I look at trade organizations is I feel trade organizations over a period of time have become heavily path dependent, rigid and institutionalized structures, and I would like to know if there are proposals to fundamentally alter the core structure to reflect 21st century values?  And by restructuring, I mean not just including Civil Society voices.  I feel that it's an add‑on, what I would be interested is creation of newer institutions that reflect 21st century values.  Thank you.

>> EMILY TAYLOR:  I've got one at the back, one at the middle and then one at the end, please.

>> So hello, my name is Marianne Fernández.  I work for an NGO based in Brussels.  I wanted to comment on philosophy and emotions.  I was actually particularly baffled because our organization actually takes a look at the text and we have evidence that shows that there are a lot of concerns for digital rights so I wonder what's the view specifically from the Civil Society Members of the panel whether you think that it's just a matter of the process or whether you think that the substance also matters?  And I guess that's why we're here today to talk about trade and the Internet.

And just briefly, a comment as well, however when it comes to emotions, it's very interesting to note that what I've noticed is that when it comes to the ISDS, I however have seen an emotional debate about the need of having ISDS even to the detriment of concluding a trade agreement and I wonder whether that is really based in emotions and not on evidence.

>> EMILY TAYLOR:  Sorry to just interrupt you.  Could you spell out the acronym?

>> ISDS.

>> EMILY TAYLOR:  What does it mean?

>> Investor to state dispute settlement.

>> EMILY TAYLOR:  Thank you.

>> Hello, good afternoon.  I would like to thank the Members of the panel.  I would like to ask you something very succinctly.  In any of the treaties, and agreements, that you're aware of, do you know if consumers are protected?  Is consumer protection mentioned?  That is, if there are scams, let's say that foreign companies make scams because through the Internet you can buy from Mexico, you can buy from a Chinese company, I would like to know if in this agreement scams are included to protect consumers and to compensate consumers in case of damages when they use e‑Commerce.  That would be my questions.

>> EMILY TAYLOR:  I'm just going to take your question, and then I'm going to come back in the last four minutes, because we have a hard stop at 6:00.  Okay.

>> Thank you very much.  Arnold van Rhijn, the Netherlands Government on Cybersecurity and Trade Agreements.  I fully agree with Mr. Alhadeff on his statement that we have to watch out that cybersecurity shouldn't be included in multilateral trade agreements.  Multilateral trade agreements are strengthening digital rights like Marietje Schake said and also would contribute to e‑Commerce but we have to as I said watch out that cybersecurity issues are not dealt with in trade agreements.  We all know what happened in December 2012 where we had negotiations on a new UN Telecom Treaty, the so‑called WCIT, and this ended up in a Treaty, new Treaty, but which was not signed by lots of countries in the world.  So the world was split because of two issues in that Treaty.

The word "spam" was included in the Telecom Treaty as the security of networks.  If we do that in new trade agreements then we could end up with a situation where the world again is split and that is what I would not like to see happen.  The only issue where these kind of things can be dealt with is in my opinion the Budapest Convention, the Global Forum of cyberexpertise, and a wonderful Forum like this in the IGF.  Thank you very much.

>> EMILY TAYLOR:  Thank you very much, Arnold.  Right, in the last three minutes I'd like no more than one sentence from each of the panelists.  I'm going to start with you, Burcu.

>> BURCU KILIC:  Okay.  I just want to clarify something.  I'm not against free trade or I am not an anti‑trade person.  I come from Turkey.  I can't be anti‑trade person so that's the clarification and that is the reaction we always receive as soon as we start to criticize the trade agreements and the model it is negotiated or concerns the process and the substance.

And if you want to read about our concerns like both EFF and public citizen has information on our web site.  We couldn't speak about those now.

>> EMILY TAYLOR:  Thank you.  Juan Antonio?

>> JUAN ANTONIO DORANTES SÁNCHEZ:  I would just simply say that we must create new ways to coordinate the provisions that are contained in trade agreements with other international agreements, specifically the ones that are discussed here in this Forum, and I would like to give an answer to our Mexican colleague.  Article 14.1 of the TPP addresses what you've asked, the protection of consumers online.

>> JOSEPH ALHADEFF:  Thank you.  A quick clarification, I suggested that security framework concepts may be something you address in trade but not detail operational issues.  I think just reiterating trade, the process of trade agreements, and the resulting agreements are three different things that should be considered on their own merits.

>> EMILY TAYLOR:  Thank you very much, Jeremy.

>> JEREMY MALCOLM:  I can answer in 20 seconds about the question about whether consumer protection is included, generally no, with weak provision on spam control and provision on electronic signatures.  This is one case where UNCTAD and OECD are better left to deal with consumer protection issues.

>> EMILY TAYLOR:  David Snead.

>> DAVID SNEAD:  I'll respond to the question about new norms or new ways to deal with trade.  I think the multistakeholder model provides a very interesting and useful example to people who argue that trade agreements and trade texts and trade negotiations must be insanely secret all the time.  It provides an example of how those issues can be resolved, how some of those issues can be resolved in an open, transparent, and very robust manner.

>> EMILY TAYLOR:  Thank you very much, Marcela?

>> MARCELA PAIVA VÉLIZ:  Thanks.  Now, it's ‑‑ okay, so two points.  First, access and infrastructure is also very important and we haven't talked about these now and I think that at least I'm going to leave it there.

Competition law, consumer protection and thanks for bringing that question are also relevant topics as Jeremy mentioned, UNCTAD has lots of work.  There was a Revision of the consumer protection guidelines last year and I will invite you to search in the other organizations what's going on out there in terms of trade that complement what's been done in free trade agreements.  And finally how to bring this approach to regions.  The region IGFs are very important, something I got informed now.  I'm happy to be informed my country Chile has been applying to be the next Regional IGF LAC and the last thing constructive is speech because we need all the views.  Thank you.

>> EMILY TAYLOR:  Very well done.  I'd like to leave the last word to our Chair, Senor Randon.

>> R. RENDON:  Just a comment:  We have to avoid the romantic view of the trade.  What I'm saying is even though if we improve very good transparent making decision, prioritization, there is the trade agreement, there's winners and there's losers.  There's always going to be.  So with that in fact, the thing is the transition cost inside the countries are the winners to the losers but we have to keep that in mind in order to be very clear.  That doesn't mean that we don't have to improve our transparency and all the issues.  It's very, very important but there's always winners and losers.

There's no country that go to a free trade or a trade agreement thinking that they are going to lose more than they are going to win.  But they are going to lose.  So it's just my point of view, and it's the same discussion in terms of Internet, what are we going to win?  What are we going to lose?

So sorry for this pragmatic issue.

>> EMILY TAYLOR:  Thank you.  I think that's a very helpful pragmatic note to end our conversation today.  I would like to thank our panelists, who have done an absolutely tremendous job of sharing their expertise with us, and sharing the different points of view.  I'd like to thank you, the audience, but I'm sure we'd all like to show our appreciation of the panel.  Thank you.

[ Applause ]

So that brings our discussions to a close.  I think we're just on 6:00, so I think that's the time for us all to go home before we turn into pumpkins.

[ End of session ]