IGF 2017 - Day 3 - Room IX - WS58 Internet Inclusion Solutions: Shaping the Digital Future


The following are the outputs of the real-time captioning taken during the Twelfth Annual Meeting of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in Geneva, Switzerland, from 17 to 21 December 2017. Although it is largely accurate, in some cases it may be incomplete or inaccurate due to inaudible passages or transcription errors. It is posted as an aid to understanding the proceedings at the event, but should not be treated as an authoritative record. 



>>> Good morning, everyone.  We're going to get started.  I know the 9:00 start time is a little difficult.  And we appreciate everyone being here and getting through security and coming to our session.  So I'm Karen McCabe, I'm with IEEE.  And today we have a great panel to talk about Internet inclusion: Shaping the digital future.  We know that there's so many great opportunities and work under way in how we can accelerate progress to connect those who are unconnected and underserved.  But today we also want to have a discussion not just about the challenges.  We really want to have a roll up the sleeves discussion, push the envelope a little bit about, you know, from your experiences and our panel experience you'll hear today of, you know, what's working, what may not be working.  They're all working in amazing spaces, doing amazing things and have a lot to share to help see how we can, you know, progress advancing solutions for the unconnected. 

So with that, I would like to introduce our moderator, Deepak who is also the IEEE initiative vice chair of the IEEE.  With us we have Jane Coffin from ISOC, Adrian Lovett from the web foundation, Samar Baba from IEEE site and Christopher Yoo from the University of Pennsylvania.  So with that I'll hand it over ‑‑ oops, I'm sorry.  I wanted to do a little bit of a warm‑up to get everyone kind of an icebreaker to get us thinking in a positive way. 

So fast forward, and we want to do a little bit of a rapid fire and just kind of shout out what you think.  But one word that describes Internet access ten years from now.  Everybody, just ‑‑ universal. 

>> AUDIENCE: I think it's invisible. 

>> AUDIENCE: Participation. 

>> KAREN McCABE: We can go around the room because there's not that many of us. 

>> AUDIENCE: Openness. 

>> AUDIENCE: Free. 

>> AUDIENCE: Easy. 

>> AUDIENCE: Sustainable. 

>> KAREN McCABE: So let's hear from the panelists, one word. 

[ No audio ]

  >> PANELIST: I have two.  Because I think there's two ‑‑ there's two routes here.  So I would say essential as one.  But perhaps provocatively, I would say broken, if I can put a question mark after it. 

>> PANELIST: Dynamic. 

>> KAREN McCABE: Okay.  Well, with that, I'll hand it over to Deepak to get into the dialogue. 

>> Thanks, Karen, and good morning, everybody.  I know the view from the window outside is perhaps better, but still thanks to all of you for being here. 

When we are looking at Internet inclusion, it can have multiple dimensions and multiple ways of looking at things.  So for example, somebody in a developed country may look at Internet inclusion, whether everybody has access or not in terms of having on a Smartphone or maybe even having a home PC, whereas a village in India or Africa, people may still be thinking about having some sort of kiosk, maybe running two hours or four hours a day on some level of electricity with some level of connectivity and is it still available or not available.  So the dimensions can vary a lot between different locations and different perspectives. 

But then we just heard an event about 2 1/2 months back in India in Delhi on the Internet inclusion and solutions.  And to the workshop there that day, they came up with a 5A framework, and I just want to touch upon those words a little bit.  One was about awareness.  Are people aware about the Internet, what it can do, what it cannot do, things like that.  Availability.  Which is basically having availability of the services and devices.  Affordability of services and devices and what price points.  Those things are available.  So maybe a $1,000 phone doesn't seem too much for some people.  At the same time for some people even paying $1 a month for a service may be just too much.  And then accessibility.  And when we are looking at accessibility, it's not just about physical.  Those aspects.  It's also about accessibility in terms of language and gender and other aspects of that.  And also assurance, which is about how do people have trust in the system, in the ecosystem, in terms of security, privacy, safety, protection, everything.  And resilience. 

So with that, let's start with the discussion today.  Karen has also introduced all the panelists.  My request would be for each of them to make about two minutes on each of these topics.  So we'll go in phases.  So initially we'll do availability and awareness.  These two things.  So I would request you to speak for about two minutes each.  And then, of course, we'll have comments and questions from all those present here. 

So we can start with Chris. 

>> CHRISTOPHER YOO: So we are very much dedicated to this idea, we cataloged 750 innovative ways people are attempting to connect people to the Internet.  And we discovered there is a complete lack of empirical information about what's working and what isn't.  We find that ministers faced with the obligation of connecting their people are being bombarded with different people, offering different solutions, and they don't really have any traction to be able ‑‑ to find out what actually works. 

Second, there's only half the 7 billion world citizens online.  What we're discovering is a lot of the models that are being supported right now are being done on grant or corporate social responsibility money.  And they do not have scalable models.  They actually have no revenue whatsoever.  And when the grant money runs out, they have to ability to continue to operate.  And so it's created a new emphasis in terms of creating accessibility, it's not just getting people connected, it's keeping them connected.  And that becomes a very different problem.  What we're discovering is that, in fact, to get 3.5 billion, it's not one solution, it's going to be different solutions for urban, rural, mountainous, island, different areas and we need to find, where possible, the ability to harness private company investment because public investment's not going to get us all the way there and charitable investment isn't going to get us all the way there to try to find that right balance where it's available and try to find ways that scale and sustain. 

Last thought.  Many ‑‑ the questions you gave us in advance said beyond accessibility and availability.  Is it enough to deploy?  There's an old line from a movie, they say if you build it, they will come.  We've discovered that's simply not true.  That if you measure the barriers to adoption, it includes things such as digital literacy and shockingly to the people who are here at the Internet Governance Forum is relevance.  Why do they need it?  And you discover this is robust across developing societies, India, China, Brazil, all the surveys have found the same thing.  And so even if you build cheap networks, if you don't intend to give people the digital literacy training and showing them the relevance of it, we still won't accomplish the goals that all of us here are committed to.  And that's why we're trying to do validation on the demand as well as the supply side to lay the empirical base that the finance community needs to make investments that governments need to learn how to make investments and to actually make this to achieve the goal that we've all set for connecting 1.5 billion more people by the year 2020. 

>> MODERATOR: Adrian? 

>> PANELIST: Thanks, Deepak.  I think if the question is around what does Internet access really mean, I agree with Chris, if you build it, they won't necessarily come, or they may come and not go or come and not really get into the game.  I agree, that's a central insight to help frame this discussion.  I do think maybe at this point it's worth taking a step back even in this room of extremely well‑versed colleagues.  Because Internet access actually cost does mean so much.  And it's worth, I think, banking that as we go into this discussion.  Otherwise why do we care about ensuring that everyone has that access, you know.  And the fact that today, you know, we're at this kind of, in the next year, this 50/50 moment where we will finally pass that mark of half the world having access to the web access to the Internet for the first time, you know, gives us a moment for pause and to recognize the extraordinary benefits that have arisen from that whether economic, whether people are being able to create businesses, to earn a living, build a livelihood, where there are more social benefits, political opportunities for people to engage and connect and organize together, which is so crucial to our democracies around the world, the chance for people to meet the love of their life, you know, everything has been possible ‑‑ many things have been possible through Internet access for those who have had it.  And even, you know, a week ago I was in a village in Indonesia about an hour and a half out from Jakarta where, as people will know, there's been a cyclone that has gone through that part of the world in the last couple of weeks.  And the place that people in the village who I was talking to were going to find out information about how the bridge a few kilometers away had been damaged and how long it was going to take to be fixed and that was a key route to market and school and so on.  The place they were going was to the village information portal which is a website.  And they were also, of course, in touch with their friends on whatsapp and Facebook and finding out what was happening in other parts of the district.  And actually, at the same time as I was there, I noticed that Google issued its top ten search terms of 2017 and, of course, there was stuff in there like the fidget spinner and so on which is all great.  But actually the number one search term globally was Hurricane Irma.  They were not searching it for fun.  They were doing it for all sorts of important reasons.  So Internet access is central and that's why it's great that we're talking in our view the absolute imperative that we push on from that 50/50 mark and get not just the next billion but that we design our approaches from here on to ensure that the web and the Internet really are for everyone as they were intended to be. 

>> MODERATOR: Samar? 

>> SAMAR BABA: Okay.  First of all, I want to talk about the availability of Internet, for example, because you can find countries suffering from from Internet like the U.S. and Japan and like mine, Tunisia, suffering from a lack of accessibility of Internet even in the schools.  And that comes (?) With IEEE site.  We are trying to provide Internet access to schools in rural areas.  For example, in my country, only 40% of the schools and universities have Internet access.  So it's really important to talk about availability because it can really be a mean of creating an opportunity of jobs and connect, and it's really essential now. 

About the awareness, yes, we can talk here about security and training, for example, kids and users about the inconvenience of getting adept from using Internet and the cybersecurity, for example, et cetera.  So, yes, I think that Internet access is essential, and everyone has to have Internet access nowadays. 

>> MODERATOR: Thanks, Samar.  So Jane, ISOC has been doing (?) So conversations of that.  Accessibility.  So what's been the ISOC experience in the space? 

>> JANE COFFIN: Thank you very much.  I work for the Internet Society.  If you don't know that organization, as Deepak said, we're 25 years old today.  Our mission is an affordable, available, open, accessibility Internet.  And it should be for everyone.  And I think Maylin is going to appreciate the next word I'm going to say is that it's about people.  We've had chapters around the world who work from the bottom up who are on the ground.  So I call this the local‑local issues.  You can't come into a local village ‑‑ Adrian was just in a village in Indonesia ‑‑ I can't go in and say we really know what's good for you.  There's so many old‑age projects that have come in around the world where people thought they knew what people needed.  Unless you ask people what they need and work with them from the local level, you'll never make a sustainable infrastructure stay.  You won't get that scale that you need because there's no one invested at that personal level. 

I'm going to say four things very briefly about that question you had with respect to availability and awareness.  One, if we want more available architecture infrastructure, technical infrastructure, we have to change the way we do policy and regulatory inclusion and change those policies.  The old communications policies from a telecom perspective will not help scale what we need from the Internet inclusion perspective, infrastructure itself.  And I've been a regulator, so I know this.  And I've been in a ministry.  People have to be allowed to be involved in that process.  Sometimes it's just regulators and policymakers talking to each other.  That doesn't help if you don't know what's needed at the local level. 

Funding vehicles.  The massive funding vehicles that come to $2 billion, $10 million range, while those are laudable for many big infrastructure projects, that doesn't work at the local level.  We've helped build Internet exchange points and community networks for as little as $10,000.  So we need to figure out as Christopher is saying, though, how to move from the volunteer‑funded model to the business model at that level. 

So it's also an awareness on the ground of what the local customs are from the indigenous perspective for those communities that are highly marginalized.  It's a very different ecosystem and you have to work with the village elders and the kids to make that stick.  And you can't assume you know how that's going to work because it's more of a collective mentality. 

And transparency.  If there's no transparency and regulatory, financing, how things work on the ground, you will be given certain answers that actually aren't those answers that will help you make the projects work or allow for that sustainability.  And from a regulatory perspective, if you don't know where to go to get a license, how much spectrum there is, you can't start your project.  You can't get very far. 

>> MODERATOR: Or you could also have a situation where, for example, things like Wi‑Fi, you can't even use. 

>> JANE COFFIN: Exactly. 

>> MODERATOR: Licensed fee, et cetera.  At this point in time I would like to invite comments or questions.  But please be brief in the interest of time.  Yeah.  Anybody.  Yeah, please.  And could you also introduce yourselves briefly. 

>> PANELIST: Yes, I'm from a German broadcaster and we also do media development projects.  So we are talking about digital inclusion and digital participation.  But what I have not heard is a definition, what inclusion or participation really means.  Do some of you have a definition?  Because we are also working on a project on digital participation, and we try to find ways to measure it from the ground, which factors to be research, but we are struggling to find a feasibility definition for participation. 

>> MODERATOR: Anybody else?  You can try the other mic. 

>> AUDIENCE: I'll speak up.  Thank you.  So Christopher, two questions.  One is where have you seen ‑‑ you know, what's been successful at improving the literacy?  How do you know when a community is ready and finally sees a need, or is it something you just have to synchronously teach as part of giving access?  I mean, in terms of projects that you've seen that have been successful. 

>> CHRISTOPHER YOO: So the results are preliminary.  We are just gathering them.  But I'll give you ‑‑ I'm not going to weasel out.  I'll give you the preliminary answer.  The more outcome‑oriented the training is the better.  What I mean, don't teach people how to use operating systems and Microsoft Word in the abstract.  Help them write a resume.  Help them put up a website for their business.  Help them apply for education online.  And also, domestic ‑‑ local trainers, local language content, contextualized for their perspective.  But the more on‑the‑ground ‑‑ we want to have these general skill packages.  We're discovering that that immediate impact makes an ‑‑ benefits clearer and making it locally tailored or essential ‑‑ or the hallmarks to successful literacy programs. 

>> MODERATOR: On the issue of digital participation that you mentioned, I would say that's definitely one of the major challenges that we have like on Sunday, we had an event and one of the discussion points that we had was that how do you define these things?  Let's say the number of ‑‑ you could say number of connections per 100 people.  You could say number of customers per 100 people.  You could say number of users.  And you could also say number of beneficiaries.  Each of these differs significantly.  I would say in terms of digital participation, I don't think there's any universally agreed‑upon definitional framework at this point of time.  But different people and different (?) Are working on this area like Chris on the foundation.  Maylin? 

>> PANELIST: I think we have somebody on the panel who's working on the ground.  And I would like to see if Samar has a response to the question. 

>> MODERATOR: On participation? 

>> PANELIST: The question was what is the definition of digital participation, in such a way that it could be useful for the funders.  So I look at the panel, and I see people who are kind of policy and doing it on the broad level.  But Samar is the one person who is actually doing it on the ground.  And so just from your experience in Tunisia, what makes a difference for people?  Why would they want to get onto the Internet? 

>> SAMAR BABA: Thank you for your question, Maylin.  From my experience, using Internet is really important for people that don't have resources to develop theirselves, for example.  By my experience working with the IEEE side, we are organizing, for example, workshops for the kids from different ages and to show them how to code using scratch, for example.  How to improve their technical skills.  Internet in Tunisia is almost about using Facebook and YouTube and doing some research through Google.  So yes, we are really empowering people in Tunisia, and we are trying to connect all the regions.  So we are seeing the real impact of digital participation through our workshops and through our work.  So yes. 

>> MODERATOR: And how are you measuring these things?  Is there any framework you have for measurement of these? 

>> SAMAR BABA: Yes.  In fact, we are working with a consultant that works with 100 million ‑‑ 100 healthier lives.  And we are trying to work on the measures.  For example, we will know that we are doing the right thing and we are approaching the project in the right terms by having, for example, 24 leaders that will ‑‑ that can answer all the questions about what we provided from our workshops.  And yes. 

>> MODERATOR: So these people are easily available for anybody who needs help in terms of accessing, using a device, things like that? 

>> SAMAR BABA: Yes. 

>> MODERATOR: All right.  That's good.  Yeah. 

>> CHRISTOPHER YOO: So I don't mean to speak out the turn in the sense that she's absolutely right.  One of our case studies, they're doing fantastic work on the ground.  And I cannot replace the voice with which they speak.  And I have to thank Jane.  ISOC have been very generous about giving us access to their project leaders.  So we're not the actual project executers but we have talked directly with 120 of them.  And what I would say is we, at the Internet Governance Community, have a certain near‑sightedness.  We fall in love with the Internet.  And the benefits of it are obvious to us.  What's funny is if you talk about broader policy‑making communities in terms of deliverables of what digital inclusion is, I think we need to get outside that.  The communication minister is behind connectivity for its own sake.  But if you're going to build broader coalitions and governments, you have to talk about digital inclusion in terms of development goals.  Such as economic empowerment, financial inclusion, improved healthcare outcomes, improved education.  And in the end, we don't get Internet connections for their own sake.  We get them because of the other things they do for us. 

So one thing I would like to encourage the Internet community to start to think about is to define digital inclusion not just in terms of getting people connected to the network but in terms of what it will do for them because particularly you meet countries where their needs are.  And they vary widely.  And so by framing it this way, it will create a slightly different answer in different places, but I think it's much more effective at achieving the goals we have ‑‑ the shared goals of global connectivity and participation. 

>> MODERATOR: So for example in India we have a program which is a (?) Mobile project.  It stands for financial inclusion program where people could have a zero balance account.  They are linked to mobile, and they are also linked to digital identity called (?) Which is based on biometrics.  It is online identity.  And having these, that's how it is working much better rather than if it would have been on a standalone basis. 

So at this point in time, I would just like to move on to the next segment of our discussion.  Yeah, you want to have a quick point?  Please. 

>> AUDIENCE: Yes.  Thank you.  Just ‑‑ do we really need to decide why they will use and for what they will use Internet?  The next billion users may use it for some other purposes than what we are thinking about.  We need to give them Internet connection.  The rest is how we can discuss with them, try to tell them that they could use it for this or that.  But at the end of the day, fortunately, if it's an open Internet, it will be used for maybe totally other purposes than what it's used today and what our thinking.  Freedom of the next billion users to use it as they want.  Thank you. 

>> MODERATOR: I think that's absolutely right, that people will figure out some ways to do different things.  But as Chris also mentioned, that when we are developing these type of projects on the ground, it is useful to engage with the local community.  What are their needs which may not be directly related to the Internet, per se, but how that we can actually facilitate that and encourage them on that aspect. 

Chris, we just need to move to the next segment now. 

>> CHRISTOPHER YOO: Okay.  The barrier is people don't believe it's relevant.  So you have to show them one use case to see its relevance.  And meeting them where they are is proving to be an essential thing for deploying.  The other thing we're finding on the cost side, 55% of the countries sell application‑specific plans on feature phones on 2G spectrum.  I mean it's very limited.  And being everything to everybody is going ‑‑ it's easier to bridge into full deployment sometimes by allowing them to focus on things which are most popular in the current environment. 

>> MODERATOR: Okay, thanks.  So now let's move to affordability and accessibility.  Now, affordability, obviously it's much easier to grasp.  But affordability, again, people need to look at what are the costs of the device.  What are the costs of service.  And the service is not just in terms of the service that you pay, let's say, in terms of a data plan or something like that.  But also service as the cost of applications or using a particular service.  For example, there are places where if you are making an ‑‑ in India, if you are making an online train booking, you are billed extra.  The factors must be costing less to do it online if people are going online rather than standing in a physical line and being served at the counter.  But that's how the structures are. 

So what are those types of incentives and other things that can be made?  And when people are talking about accessibility, one of the challenges that they have is one around languages.  I come from a country where we have 22 official languages recognized by our constitution apart from English.  And just for comparison, in EU, you've got 24 languages.  So there's a home page of EU, you see nothing but 24 language blocs to choose from.  And all of them are left to right.  We have left to right, right to left, one language, multiple languages, same script, multiple complexity around that. 

And obviously for some of these languages and scripts, the population size that is using or practicing that language is much smaller.  So what are the incentives and the ways to facilitate that?  Then people are looking at accessibility, for example, for people with differently‑abled people.  So people having motor challenges, people having hearing or visual or speech challenges.  And if you have a website that times out, let's say, within three seconds of not taking a particular action, what happens with a person with a motor disability?  Because that person may take a little bit longer to do that.  What happens if you are creating a capcha which is difficult for a normal person or with an impairment.  How do we make those things simpler.  On the one hand, we need to have assurance that you're doing a second‑factor authentication and making it simpler. 

And oftentimes people have this thinking that if I'm trying to make something more accessible, it will become more costly.  But people should also think about something else.  Something like a Kindle or other type of e‑book readers, they originally started with people with visual challenges because the Braille books were too heavy and people started looking at that.  And that's something which actually helped everybody.  So if we have a philosophy of universal design, that's something which could help a lot. 

So I just want to start with Adrian on this.  What the consortium has done a lot of things on accessibility standards and other things.  But how do you also see the angle about affordability and accessibility?  There's always a challenge and people find this tenuous relationship within these two concepts. 

>> PANELIST: Yeah.  First I agree with everything you said, Deepak.  I think you outlined it very clearly, the set of challenges there.  I mean, we start with the affordability question, and many of us in this room and in this discussion are working together as part of the alliance for affordable Internet, which seeks to drive down the costs of broadband working, bringing together the big tech firms and governments and Civil Society.  And there's been some progress on that in the last year or so with this notion that we've all put together of one for two, that one gigabyte of data should cost no more than 2% of average monthly income.  And through the alliance for affordable Internet, we've got now a good picture including just some updated figures a couple of weeks ago that show how we're doing against that target.  And, you, some countries have come now below that level now, that affordability measure.  But many, and in particular African countries, are still well above that.  And so for us, that's the first and most obvious barrier to access is affordability after the even more obvious kind of technical ability to connect and actually having coverage. 

But then access goes beyond that and exactly in the ways that you've outlined.  And this also relates to the first discussion, doesn't it, about demand.  Because, you know, if you build it but it doesn't work for everyone, then of course they won't come.  Because why would they?  And here I think that the sorts of things that are being explored in many areas including how community networks are being particularly used in this respect to try to really take account of particular barriers in particular communities and particular parts of those communities and how those community networks and public networks can be, if you like, given special opportunities, whether it's access to unlicensed spectrum or other ways in which we can build sustainability around those models of access.  I think that's part of the picture that we're building here. 

>> MODERATOR: So Jane, when ISOC is looking at these issues like community networks, you also have people like, for example, who was awarded on setting up remote Wi‑Fi networks in Nepal.  And you also have been propagating this whole idea of low‑cost Internet exchange points.  And I being a co‑founder in India, I understand the challenges in terms of having a neutral but something which works well in that space.  So what's been the experience there in terms of how do you ‑‑ so (?) Cost to some extent.  But only so much.  But beyond that, there are other challenges.  There are also challenges on the device side.  So how do you handle that? 

>> JANE COFFIN: Sure.  The device side is one of my favorite topics. 

>> MODERATOR: Yeah. 

>> JANE COFFIN: And for the record, I also help build communities, but I also help build the infrastructure, so I'm not just policy anymore.  I've changed hats.  The good news is we often have free equipment that we help donate.  If you start to think about community networks and Internet exchange points as very small joint venture JV projects from a very simple Internet perspective, it's a start‑up.  It's very simple.  But it's a community‑based start‑up.  So you have to start with the people, training people, building capacity, building a community.  And a neutral Technical Community.  If you don't have that neutrality at the Internet exchange point, you'll have nothing.  It won't be sustainable.  And people won't interconnect with you. 

But back to the equipment side.  Customs, taxes.  I can't tell you how many times we've sent equipment to a country, and it sits.  And unfortunately I'm not going to use any examples of a specific country.  But if I have free equipment and I'm sending you two very important pieces of equipment to help you run your local Internet and it sits in customs for three months and there's a 50% duty on free equipment, you kept your Internet in jail.  If you're a regulator or policymaker, those customs policies have to change. 

In the Caribbean, we've had the easiest time.  Regulators and policymakers help us.  The equipment comes in, they get it out of jail and it goes exactly where it needs to go.  But if you have equipment coming into your country and you cannot deploy it, it's ridiculous.  And it's ‑‑ I won't use ‑‑ the standards that are used and accepted around the world and the different marks of acceptance, those should be recognized.  The U.S., Europe, Japan, Canada, Brazil, we've all gone through these massive what are called homologation processes where the standards are there as well as UL for the electrical side.  So it's not as if we're sending equipment that's going to blow up the minute you input it into the system.  But you've got to not try and say you're going to retest the equipment.  That takes months of time.  And if you're someone trying to deploy a low‑cost network and you can't get that equipment out, it's a nonstarter. 

One other thing from the Internet exchange point side and/or the community network side, you have to stop thinking that this is a massive infrastructure project when you start.  It goes through phases.  There's the start‑up phase, a more sophisticated phase, and then an even more sophisticated phase.  We've worked through all those phases from the community building to the neutrality perspective and helping people get more funding in and cost base. 

There's a network in Mexico where people are paying $2 to $3 a month.  Peter Bloom here has helped start that network.  You're not looking at massive amounts of money.  This is voiceover IP, 2G network where they are able to deploy a network because they talked to the government and got the licenses.  So it's important if you're going to scale, you've got to have that sustainability and stability of the licensing there with you.  So that you're not illegal.  We're not talking pirate networks because if they are pirate, the big incumbents will try and shut them down because they see them as a threat.  So the key thing is to think about who you have to talk to and what network.  IEEE has a massive network of people.  We have a massive network of humans around the world who have done this.  So I think the key thing is that connecting the dots across the different projects and regions to see what hasn't worked and what has worked.  Because the what hasn't worked is just as important as the what has worked.  Yes. 

>> MODERATOR: So Samar, when you're looking at accessibility and affordability, one obviously is challenges like in any other developing country, you would have those challenges.  But also looking at it from cultural aspects of what type of challenge have you seen in terms of accessibility especially in these type of projects? 

>> SAMAR BABA: Yes.  In fact, talking about in terms of accessibility, I can tell that some studies made in different countries like Tunisia, for example, show that boys have more opportunities to access the Internet than girls.  I want to talk, for example, about my country.  Men have access to public places more than women in coffee shops and schools, at work.  Meanwhile, women are raising kids and having some other responsibilities.  So through my work with the (?) Project, for example, in some regions in Tunisia, because we work especially in the rural areas, we are trying to empower kids and teach them how to use Internet, and we are giving them opportunity that the government and the schools are not giving to them.  And you'll find more boys than girls attending the school. 

So yes, we have to think about the gender ‑‑ the gender equality. 

>> MODERATOR: Thank you. 

>> SAMAR BABA: In terms of accessibility of Internet. 

>> MODERATOR: But when it happens in terms of gender equality, you're saying, are you also seeing examples where using Internet itself, it has empowered the women? 

>> SAMAR BABA: Woman? 

>> MODERATOR: Yeah.  Getting access to the Internet itself was a challenge for them?  The first phase.  But once you facilitated that, what was the impact after that? 

>> SAMAR BABA: Yes.  For example, in Tunisia, we are very interested by entrepreneurship and creating your own start‑up.  So, for example, by giving Internet access to women, you can find a lot of women that are doing homemade work.  For example, selling homemade products.  So by giving them Internet access, they can create their own website and have larger clients and can get more money than she used to get.  Yes, it's very helpful. 

>> MODERATOR: So Chris ‑‑ okay, before Chris, Adrian wants to have something and then after that. 

>> PANELIST: I just quickly wanted to endorse and support what Samar said and to add that I think that from our point of view at the Web Foundation, the gender framing of this is absolutely critical.  We have a project, women's rights online, one of the things that that project has found in our research in the last year or so is that in the places where we looked, which were mainly urban developing country contexts, women were 50% less likely to be online than men.  And in a way more important than that top‑line number, which is probably no surprise to most of us, less likely ‑‑ women are less likely to be doing certain things such as applying for a job online or expressing a strong opinion online. 

Now, why is there that difference?  And as we try to understand the reasons, at least the expressed reasons talking to women in that survey, the first reason that they cite is cost.  The second is skills and a perceived lack of skills.  I say perceived because men in the same communities arguably were not more skilled and yet didn't perceive that so much as an obstacle which may be more about psychology than anything else.  But, you know, so we've got work going on at cost together with things like the affordable access work, the skills part as well equally important that we're focused on that. 

>> MODERATOR: Thanks.  So Chris, what's been your evaluation at this point of time?  I know it's still a work in progress.  But especially on aspects of affordability and accessibility in different communities around the world? 

>> CHRISTOPHER YOO: Thank you.  I think the examples that Jane gave is an excellent example.  They're making a go of it on less than $3 U.S.  To me, India, your country, the typical plan is $6 or less.  1.3 billion phone users and only 300 million Internet users.  We have a billion people that have phones who are not currently Internet users.  It's an enormous opportunity.  We're talking about legacy phones.  We're talking about feature phones, 2G technologies, web‑based apps, not separate apps on operating systems.  It's a very different world. 

     And so understanding how we have to adapt policies to make sense for that, a lot of sense.  And one of the key mechanisms I mentioned before is application‑centric plans where you buy an e‑mail plan or something that doesn't give you access to the whole Internet but gives you access to what you need. 

>> MODERATOR: YouTube plan. 

>> CHRISTOPHER YOO: The other thing that's quite interesting to me, Jane mentioned donated equipment.  And we've talked about capacity building.  An important part is recruiting volunteers and sometimes some projects are called barefoot engineers.  These are people who are going to ‑‑ you actually train the trainers who will get the people who are going to maintain the network.  There are some great projects we've seen which go up beautifully but 6 to 12 months later, they're off.  And forget just maintaining them.  Upgrades, new equipment, things that get a lot of support, it's just a constant problem. 

Two other thoughts to leave you with, I want to just point out, if you want to see someone else who's actually built networks, Ezekiel Tyree, we've invited actually 11 project groups to speak at our events.  Thursday at 10:30, we'll actually have them tell their stories.  It's wonderful we have them here.  That's an important part which I think is often missing. 

The last thing I have to say is I apologize, I have to leave for another session.  But my colleague who will join us and continue to speak for one world connected.  Thank you very much for the opportunity. 

>> MODERATOR: Thanks.  In fact, when Chris was talking about the barefoot, in India, there's a college called Barefoot College.  There's one requirement.  There's one eligibility for admission into that.  And that's you should have never gone to a formal education.  There's the only qualification for admission into that college.  Okay.  So there's a few open seats here.  Do we have any other comments or questions on these issues, affordability and accessibility?  And please be brief. 

>> AUDIENCE: Yes, my question is if some of you elaborated on the fact that if Internet comes to countries like ‑‑ I see it in Myanmar where we also have a project that Internet means Facebook in this context and how to (?) That. 

>> MODERATOR: Okay.  So I know of some examples where people have been polled.  So people had Internet access, and people were polled to ask, do you use Internet, and they said no.  But at the same time when they were asked do you use Facebook, they said yes.  Do you use whatsapp?  They said yes.  So there are different ways and means in which people may perceive this particular access.  And it was not that their access was limited only to whatsapp or Facebook.  The access was full blown, but these were the things that they were using.  So they were more familiar with whether they were using whatsapp or Facebook.  Vis‑a‑vis some of the other services or the Internet access, the name or concept they did not have.  Ma'am, you had something. 

>> AUDIENCE: Hello, I'm from Women with Disabilities Australia.  I'm glad you mentioned some examples of inclusion for people with disabilities.  And they were excellent examples.  We had two workshops yesterday about disability and accessibility.  And we talked about universal design.  We also talked about the future when it comes to Internet of things.  And the benefits that people with disability can derive from that.  And really, affordability comes into that, and now there's assistive technologies for smarthomes for people who have to have those type of applications to live independently.  But with the mainstreaming of Internet of things and starthomes, as long as you have interoperability, that's going to make a huge difference in bringing the prices down for people with disability. 

I just want to also make a comment about community networks.  And obviously infrastructure is vital.  But also people's perspective.  The main capacity building to ensure that everyone in that community can gain benefit and that certainly includes people with disability.  And we've done some work with specific countries in that regard.  So there is a lot of potential to bring on the 1 billion people with disability globally to ensure that we have good inclusion.  Thank you. 

>> MODERATOR: Thank you.  Yeah, please. 

>> AUDIENCE: Hi, I am ISOC.  My question is regarding affordability.  How to get rid of the ISPs monopoly and encourage the ISPs privatization.  And how then to get ensure the competition between ISPs are in the favor of the users in terms of getting affordable access and with the best quality. 

>> MODERATOR: Let me just add two things very quickly.  Number one in terms of affordability, you mentioned about accessible devices, et cetera, and services.  There are, of course, those standards, for example, WGC 2.0 and others.  And if people adopt those, they are not only useful for the so‑called disabled people.  Look at it this way.  If you are using a small screen and if you have an option of increasing the font size, it helps everybody.  If you are using any screen and if you have an option of reversing the contrast, and if you are outside in the sunshine, it helps everybody.  So there are things about universal design principles that if everybody uses, it's for the greater benefit to everybody. 

You mentioned about monopoly of ISPs.  So in most countries, I would say there's a competition there.  But in many countries, the competition may not be that robust.  In India, for example, the Internet services started traditionally with one government company way back in 1995.  In '98 the government announced a policy.  I filed a petition against that in less than 24 hours after that.  But with regard to the policy and within a year we had a few hundred ISPs.  Of course, many of them don't exist today because their business model was not very good.  But there's a huge number of ISPs in the country even today.  And I would say that's also been the experience elsewhere.  But ultimately when it comes to multiplicity of ISPs, this is something the policymakers have a major rule that they need to look at Internet ‑‑ that even if it is only an incumbent offering these things, not only you have less choice of service providers, you also have less choice in terms of service plans for that matter.  Because they may have only, let's say, one or two plans.  And take it or leave it.  Whereas the moment you introduce competition, there's going to be focus on efficiency.  There's going to be focus on developing different plans.  Jane, what's been your experience there? 

>> JANE COFFIN: The experience ‑‑ the question about the monopolies and bringing in some competition, it's just a fact that there are still some de facto duopolies, triopolies.  There's also a legacy mentality in both the regulatory and policy thinking in some places.  It can change and it has in many places, countries.  One thing I would say is that people are unconnected.  And if they're unconnected, certain business models and regulatory models are just not working, and funding models.  So we need to start thinking about changing that policy regulatory model for a more inclusive bottom‑up community‑based where people can come in and actually talk to the regulator, have their voices heard, participate in those hearings and the information coming in.  Because if you're running a community network in a small, isolated area, your costs on the ground are so much more.  The equipment getting in and bringing it in.  We have a project in Georgia, it's a high, high mountain range about 4,000 meters to 6,000 meters.  The horses that were bringing in the towers fell off one of the ‑‑ one of the horses fell off the mountain bringing in the equipment.  Now the horse survived.  We're happy about this.  But the equipment, of course, fell off the mountain.  It's a time factor, too.  If there's a license to deploy a network and it's, you know, a six‑month license to get the network deployed, that's crazy, right?  We're looking at different models that have to be accommodated for both geography, affordability, as Adrian was saying before, and the funding models.  Universal service, with all due respect to some regulators and policymakers, is broken in most countries.  The funds sit in these bank accounts for years.  And no one can get them out.  Or it takes a year to extract the money to fund the projects.  So let's talk to the banks, microfinance new ways to finance these projects with a longer return and ways that the regulator ‑‑ I think Adrian mentioned and Christopher earlier, it's not just the ministry of communications and the regulator.  You've got to start talking to the education ministry that may have a vested interest.  Or the ministry of economics. 

>> MODERATOR: (?) Maybe. 

>> JANE COFFIN: Absolutely.  Health, education, transportation, whatever it is where you can combine political interests.  Because if there's a political interest as well, that's what happened in Mexico.  The regulator said we're not providing service in a socially marginalized area.  We have social purpose licenses which are experimental.  So it's working.  The spectrum, there's no interference.  The project's been deployed.  It can be scaled.  Why not?  I mean, we've got to take a chance right now because we've been doing this for 20 years.  We keep talking about why people aren't connected.  It's pretty logical. 

>> MODERATOR: Any other comments or questions?  Yeah, please. 

>> AUDIENCE: Have there been any examples ‑‑ oh, I'm Shannon from Hong Kong.  I wanted to ask if there's been any examples of communities that have actually expressed opposition against technological penetration due to its inherent conflicts with maybe the local, cultural or religious beliefs.  And how have your projects taken into account the ethical considerations among stakeholder individuals that might not be in support of this innovation in spite of your obviously virtuous intentions? 

>> MODERATOR: So do you have any such examples where after deployment, the local community has actually protested against, let's say, the imposition of Internet access in that particular area?  The example of that? 

>> PANELIST: Yeah.  Actually, there is one example.  We have a case study based in Costa Rica.  It was an e‑government project.  It was very interesting for the government actually when ‑‑ so what they were providing was the digital healthcare system across the country.  And what they found out was that in Costa Rica, people were going to hospitals, you know, waiting in lines to see the doctor and to make an appointment.  And actually, one of the ‑‑ a couple of cases, they sued the government for changing the system where, like, you make the appointment online.  Because for them ‑‑ so these were, like, older adults.  It was a social gathering, meeting point, waiting in the line when they go to hospital to make an appointment because that's where they were meeting and talking to each other, especially older people.  And actually, they really didn't like that change.  They really found it difficult to make the online ‑‑ I mean to use the online system.  And instead, they said they would prefer just waiting in the line, going there, like showing up at 8:00 a.m. in the morning and meeting with other people who are in their age and discussing about their health conditions and just meeting, in general. 

Because when they were provided that system, so you basically go to hospital when it's your time to see the doctor, and you don't make that contact with other, you know, people that maybe you used to.  So this was very interesting.  So, again, like this is more of a top‑down approach that will be accepted and really found useful for the entire community.  But they had that kind of resistance from the certain groups of, you know, communities in society which was very interesting. 

>> MODERATOR: In some places, especially in patriarchies or different cultures, especially for girls getting even a phone, a Smartphone, or using Internet because it is being seen as a tool of empowerment.  So everybody realizes that this is a tool for empowerment for them.  But then at times when they see people stepping out, doing other things, it disturbs the traditional power structures.  It challenges them.  And that's, again, a reaction from some of these scenarios.  Yeah. 

>> JANE COFFIN: Just to quickly add, we've seen the same thing in some places.  This may surprise you, but in the United States and Canada and some tribal communities, First Nations in Canada, Native American in the United States, the elders in the villages and the towns have not really wanted the technology to come in, largely due to that the land is sacred to those communities.  But there are a lot of youth who want to see connectivity for social dynamic purposes and economic purposes.  So there's a new shift where children and the youth are talking to the elderly.  And some of the elders are realizing, okay, we won't put this on this piece of sacred land, but we'll come up with a solution.  And so it's good for education and other ‑‑ so we're seeing it in different vectors, if you could say that. 

>> MODERATOR: So let's move on to the last segment of our session time, which is about assurance.  So when we're talking about assurance, it's about things like security.  It's about privacy.  It's about safety, reliability of the system and everything else.  I mean, this year if you recall, we had a situation when Equifax happened.  We had a situation when Yahoo! Acknowledged that they had a huge number of breaches and, of course, there was ransom where, like, (?) During the year.  At the same time, this was also the year when we had other challenges in terms of privacy.  We have fake news, many other things.  I mean, to me being slightly older, one of the things to me, one of the major new themes this year is the fake news overall.  If I look at just (?) That's one thing which stands out for me. 

So what's been the type of situation in terms of when it comes to assurance or security, privacy or reliability, those type of things.  What has been the experience from the field research, if you could briefly mention that, and then we'll go around. 

>> PANELIST: (?)

>> MODERATOR: Are people having concerns around privacy?  Are people having any concerns around reliability of the basic Internet itself?  Are people having trust in using these services?  What's been the field experience? 

>> PANELIST: So I think inclusion, there are different steps in inclusion when we kind of think about it overall.  And so when you look at the unconnected communities, so these are up on the ladder.  So the first thing is what they do with the Internet or what they consider is right or wrong.  You know, it doesn't come right away when you connect them.  And most of the projects that we have ‑‑ we have in our project are the communities, unconnected communities, who are just introduced to the Internet.  So I think when you think about digital inclusion, there are different steps.  So you can't just focus on ‑‑ you should focus on one thing at a time.  So privacy, I think, comes a little later for these communities.  But you should ‑‑ as an Internet provider, I think you need to, you know, consider all these different levels of time. 

>> MODERATOR: Adrian? 

>> PANELIST: I think this is a really central question.  When Karen started the session to find a word for the Internet in ten years' time and I said broken, question mark, it was this I had in mind more so than the ‑‑ even than the affordability challenge because, you know, as we heard before, even if you have the technical ‑‑ the technological framework in place and you make access affordable, it's not yet clear that people will make use, make the most use of that ‑‑ of that facility.  So I guess here there are three components to the challenge.  It seems to me, you know, one is content.  And we talked a little bit about how content in a number of ways is less ‑‑ less appropriate, less usable to citizens than we want it to be.  Whether that's, you know, kind of a local or specific context because of content may not be in the right language, those kind of issues, or much more at a macro  level, all of the challenges that we see at the moment and in the last year or two of misinformation and hate speech and harassment.  You know, there was a great panel here yesterday that I sat in on on digital civility.  And I think there's a great concept there that needs a lot more mining and exploration and understanding that might provide a great framework for how we regard content and conduct online to be better organized. 

Secondly, there's the challenge, of course, of censorship and the ways in which large parts of the Internet are at different times for different people out of reach.  I think freedom house found that Internet freedom has declined for the sixth consecutive year.  Two‑thirds of Internet users live in countries where criticism of government, military‑ruling family is subject to censorship, and governments around the world shut down the Internet more than 50 times in 2016 alone, according to Access Now.  So many challenges around government action which I guess, in a way, is becoming more nuanced and more sophisticated, you know, shutting down for specific periods of time around an election or for specific communities or different language speakers.  And that becomes all the more important that we tackle it. 

And then the third one is around our personal data.  And if our ‑‑ if we don't understand that alone control how private companies are using, dealing with and monetizing our personal data, then we have a problem.  And I think the data shows that most Internet users don't feel fully aware of the types of personal information that is being collected about them.  And most people ‑‑ most of us don't understand how companies are using it.  So there's much work to be done there.  And I guess, you know, the bottom line is that the personal data of each of us should be considered as much our personal property as our ‑‑ as, you know, the hair on our head.  And if that is the case, if that is the understanding, then there has to be a way that we can overcome this challenge where our digital selves are split across different places, different companies that collected different pieces on us over different times.  If each and every one of those pieces were actually ours and were within some kind of repository that we could access, that we could control and we could decide how we would allow access on a controlled basis, then we would be in a much better place.  But I think just finally, and I'm sorry to go on, these three pieces add up to a real threat to the web and the Internet as a public good.  You know, we argue for the Internet as a basic human right such as water is a basic human right.  But, of course, it's clean water that is a basic human right.  Dirty water is no good to anybody.  In fact, it can really hurt you.  And perhaps similarly, there is an Internet that is fully understood as a public good that needs to be brought up to that true standard in order for us to really expect to get access to it for everybody and make that access really useful. 

>> MODERATOR: So, in fact, today is the 20th.  And we are just five months and five days away from the 25th of May, 2018, when the EU DGPR kicks in in that sense.  So Jane, what's been the experience in terms of ‑‑ are people having these things in terms of people should think about security and privacy by design at that level ‑‑ when designing a political project, or should it come as an afterthought? 

>> JANE COFFIN: That's a really good question. 

>> MODERATOR: And worry about it later? 

>> JANE COFFIN: Yeah, that's a good question.  I think it's an afterthought in some areas.  With Internet exchange points in the technical point, usually it's a thought that they're just trying to get started.  But the key thing is one thing I was thinking about when you were talking about security is not to overregulate in the name of security because what we see people trying to do as regulators potentially and policymakers look at an Internet exchange point as a monitoring facility.  We're not built for that.  It's technical infrastructure.  It's a switching platform.  Traffic goes over the platform.  It's not meant to spy.  After Snowden, this is a question that comes up everywhere we go.  And we often have to just answer it right away.  If that's a decision of the government, fine.  But don't try and impose certain technological difficulties on top of that architecture to make it harder. 

Same thing with border crossing.  We're hearing a lot of remonopolization discussions.  More infrastructure, cheaper, usually.  Cheaper, faster, better hopefully.  But if you start to remonopolize in the name of security.  No single failure whether it's technical or human, and what that means is training capacity, development and more.  And that's it.  I think I ‑‑ I think I'll just stop there, but I think it's the single points of failure you don't want to encourage. 

And watching this new trend of saying that in the name of security, we're going to help ‑‑ have only one company carry that traffic.  It's tricky.  Yeah. 

>> MODERATOR: So Samar, what's been the experience in your side project in Tunisia?  Are people concerned about privacy and security, reliability, resilience of the system, these things? 

>> SAMAR BABA: Yes, thank you.  Deepak, that's a good question.  In fact, the weird thing with our case is that they are really trusting the Internet and enjoying it when they get access.  They're not really caring that much about their privacy.  And it's not good.  Especially for the kids.  So that's why even though we want to create a new community‑oriented mindset where social connection and exchange across generations are key values, but we are organizing workshops for the parents to make them aware about the security of the cybersecurity and by making parents aware of about how to prevent themselves from getting hacked, for example, and how to protect their personal data and control their kids, the Internet access of their kids. 

And talking about my experience, but in general, people really have to be aware about how to protect your personal data because it's really dangerous. 

>> MODERATOR: I think the challenge always is that usually it is adults who go to the children about ‑‑ when they have a challenge in terms of Internet access, whether it was a device or a service.  So children know better how to control the parents' access to Internet rather than the other way.  So at this point of time, I would like to invite any other questions or comments from participants here.  Anybody have any questions or comments?  Yeah.  Please. 

>> AUDIENCE: So on Monday, when he said his greatest fear is that the Internet will be diverted in different parts.  So is there ‑‑ is there one idea of how to deal with fragmented Internet, or is it even possible in ten years to give people their Internet, or do we have to figure out which part of the Internet will we give to the people? 

>> MODERATOR: I think this is what Adrian mentioned in the beginning, broken with a question mark, and Jane also just mentioned in terms of fragmentation of Internet.  If everybody wants to localize everything.  So local context is fine.  Local language is fine.  Local relevance is fine.  And local community involvement and building services is also fine.  But at the same time, we try to do the physical localization of the Internet and trust in terms of the data storage and data flow, et cetera.  Then the fact is that it will start breaking.  And the moment it starts breaking, it is no more the Internet.  It will become perhaps a multitude of different networks working in different places, at times even without any interoperability across them.  And it is not about the technical.  It's basically about the interoperability of the data itself being able to go from one place to another place. 

So Jane, would you like to react to this? 

>> JANE COFFIN: Yeah.  And actually, I was in that session as well.  And it was a great session on various aspects.  The technical architecture wasn't designed from a networking perspective to go country to country.  It goes network to network.  And the protocols are not political.  And I think the key thing that many people would say in IEEE and the Internet engineering task force, the Internet architecture board, don't politicize the protocols and the standards and architecture.  However, governments are political.  So they're looking at solutions.  So we really have to strongly encourage at the Technical Community perspective the integrity of the technical architecture and how that works.  Versus politicizing standards to change the way architecture is.  But the vulcanization or fragmentation is a real potential. 

We have a futures report that came out this summer, well, September, sorry.  And this was one of the key things that we found is that there is this serious ‑‑ and Karen Rose who is a former colleague from the Internet Society is here.  She worked on that report for years, I think a year at least.  But we surveyed over 3,000 people at that time, I think more, maybe 10,000.  But lots of data came in.  And this was a huge concern for people.  So the question is, are we going to find little pieces of IP‑based infrastructure, or are we going to have something else?  I hope that people don't politicize the technical architecture more. 

>> MODERATOR: Yeah.  I think at the same time, we should also appreciate that we all need to work with the government.  We need to understand the perspectives of the policymakers also.  And provide certain solutions which may not be only technical.  Part of that could be policy.  Part of that could be technical.  In terms of addressing their real needs rather than just the perceived potential challenges at times to think about.  Adrian. 

>> PANELIST: I just want to add one thought maybe around the creation of content because it seems to me that, I mean, the worldwide web foundation that I lead was founded by Sir Tim who created the web.  And built the web, as people know, as sort of a flat structure on top of the existing flat structure of the Internet.  And, you know, he has always said that the reason for ‑‑ the first reason for trying to create that permissionless space was so that enterprise and creativity could thrive, and that was the only way it would thrive.  And so maybe another part of the answer to this question about how do we ensure that the Internet is maintained as that open public permissionless space is to really look for ways to drive content creation.  You know, the web was meant to be a network of creators and collaborators, not just consumers.  And indeed, it has been.  And arguably still is to some extent.  But not in the way it was a few years ago, perhaps. 

And that's why things like ‑‑ to take a topical and perhaps controversial point, net neutrality are so important because maintaining that permissionless space is the way in which the next Twitter or the next great idea will surface.  And hopefully, you know, not just the stuff that works globally and becomes sort of the mega apps that many, many of us use, but are sort of generic for everybody, but also the kind of applications and the kind of uses of the website that are just as impactful and useful but for particular communities. 

I sat a few weeks ago with 200 young women and girls who were coding and the dynamic in that room was tangible.  And I have no doubt that those women and men, too, around the world will create the reasons for the Internet to continue to have value as long as we don't put obstacles in their way including some of the kind of things that are on the agenda in some capitals at the moment. 

>> MODERATOR: On Sunday, two of the things that he mentioned was these.  One was that on one hand, yes, we need to continue to do this permissionless innovation.  But at the same time also have very strong deterrence to do away with the harm, because, yes, there are some people who are doing certain level of harm, and there may be others, so the high level of deterrence is enforceable and that's something we should do. 

The second thing, as you mentioned, people are not just consumers, which is absolutely right because in terms of the ecosystem enables us to become consumers as he mentioned in his book.  So that's a concept that we are looking at right now again that people are not only consuming content, people are also producing content including what is the content, whether it's a picture, a video, you are writing something, you are sending a message or something like that. 

So is there any other comment or question?  Otherwise I'll hand it over to Karen for the wrap‑up.  Yeah. 

>> AUDIENCE: Actually, I wanted just to give a comment concerning the kids, we are giving them workshops.  Some of them are actually aware about the privacy and some security steps.  We once had a workshop, and we were, like, asking them to connect, because we are going to use an align tool.  And they need to connect through Facebook or a Google account.  So like some of them asked us to ‑‑ they are going to write their passwords.  And then before, like, getting out from the room, they were, like, connecting from their account.  So yeah, we just know that they are actually aware about the privacy and security steps.  So we are now focusing on this, and we want to focus on the privacy and the security on the Internet on the parents as well.  Because we want them to feel secure when their kids are using tablets and they are connecting on the Internet.  So actually ‑‑ yeah. 

>> MODERATOR: Thank you.  Karen. 

>> KAREN McCABE: Well, I think that was a really great dialogue, and I thank all the panelists.  So in conclusion, we want to take a few minutes just to reflect quickly on the panel and ask first to our participants, we'll go to the audience first, if you have one takeaway from the session today, what is it?  Just speak up. 

>> AUDIENCE: Bonjour.  I'm from the Internet Society.  Mine is more of a comment in regard to the topics that have been discussed.  So firstly, when we are talking about digital inclusion for communities, for me I'd say access, obviously, is the first thing that comes into mind.  But also there's the issue of (?) Because it's also spoken about because when we look at in terms of the use or the language on the Internet, we find that the two most languages, they represent close to 45% of Internet users.  So in developing regions like Africa, you find that access is the most important.  And then the issues of security and safety, then they follow after. 

And then furthermore, I think in order to actually enable this digital inclusivity, the forecast is to take place, especially in regard to young people, young men and women.  Because when you look at the education system, you find that teachers are pretty uncomfortable learning about the Internet.  But when you go to a household environment, you are able to actually find a young child teaching their parents in terms of how to use the Internet.  So I think it is more of a strategic way of ensuring that there is that digital inclusion in terms of communities.  Thanks. 

>> KAREN McCABE: Thank you.  Anyone have a key takeaway?  Please. 

>> AUDIENCE: Digital inclusion is not only about getting connected and having an e‑mail address or social media account.  It's about how to shape your life using the Internet and to be empowered. 

>> KAREN McCABE: Thank you.  Would anyone else like to share a key takeaway?  So we'll go ‑‑ we'll ask our panelists.  Jane. 

>> JANE COFFIN: It's the content issue.  Actually, it was coming into my mind that, you know, as Adrian was saying, if people don't see themselves and what they're using and see their own culture, they're not going to use the Internet as much and create.  I think it's the creative ‑‑ I can't take credit for this, but it was Karen again, I think you go from being a user to a consumer to a creator.  And that was a mantra that was embedded when I first started at the Internet Society, and it still matters. 

>> SAMAR BABA: Yes.  I share the same point of view as Jane.  And I think that we should start using the Internet with the appropriate way because it's not only about doing some research and getting connected to social media and that's it.  Thank you. 

>> KAREN McCABE: Adrian? 

>> PANELIST: I agree with what my fellow panelists have already said.  I think one other takeout, I was just listening to what you were saying about the example of people in a particular community who have sort of rejected or at least initially rejected some of the connectivity on offer because it took away an opportunity and a habit that people had of social interaction of, you know, standing in line to make an appointment.  And when you were saying that, actually, I was realizing this is not ‑‑ this is not a sort of a challenge of one place.  It's a challenge of everywhere. 

My own doctor surgery in rural Oxford, England, I went in there a few weeks ago.  Now everybody taps on a screen and sits down instead of going up to the desk and saying "morning, I'm coming here for the 8:00.  Is Dr. So and so here?"

Number one, there are societal challenges that we should recognize as such and as we all ‑‑ I know we all do recognize that not all this is going to be fixed by technical or technological approaches alone by any means.  And also that these are challenges that affect us all wherever we are in the world.  They're not a problem of a particular part of the world.  They're there for us all. 

>> PANELIST: Yeah, so related to that, my takeaway would be including the communities into the innovative models just as the beginning and asking them, you know, what their needs are.  So over 100 project case studies that we have conducted actually, 70% of the projects are either failed or not sustainable.  And the reason for that is, you know, those ‑‑ some of them are ‑‑ because (?) Projects.  So when it's more, like, top down, they come from the innovators or donors or, you know, international organizations.  They have certain intentions.  But it's not ‑‑ it doesn't necessarily address the real needs of the communities.  So one of which actually comes specifically in the health sector, which is very complicated and complex.  And healthcare providers don't see the need, for instance, for them it's a burden when you introduce a technology in a hospital and to healthcare providers, when you say, okay, this is what you need to do right now for all this work that you have been doing in the past.  So it's really important to make them a part of this innovative project at the beginning and explain to them how introducing technology might help them at the beginning so that, you know, those are ‑‑ you will not kind of face those kind of challenges along the way. 

>> KAREN McCABE: Well, thank you.  I think we're at our time and there's probably another session coming right behind us.  So I want to thank our panelists and more so thank our audience and participants and folks online.  Great discussion.  Thank you all and have a great day. 

[ Applause ]

>> PANELIST: Thank you. 

(The session concluded at 10:30.)