Tatiana_Intro+interviews_english

Editorial
by
Information
Society

(ИНФОРМАЦИОННОЕ
ОБЩЕСТВО)

Editor
in
Chief
and
Interviews
with
Three
Brazilian
Internet
Leaders

Table
of
Contents

Translation
to
English
of
Tatiana
Ershova’s
Editorial,
“A
Brazilian
Serial”
Information
Society

ОБЩЕСТВО),
1:2015,
first
page. ..........................................................................2

You
Have
to
Take
Advantage
of
Opportunities.
Exclusive
interview
with
Dr.
Michael
Stanton

by
Tatiana
Ershova,
ИНФОРМАЦИОННОЕ
ОБЩЕСТВО,
4:2014,
pp
4-‐13
(original
english

version)..........................................................................................................................................................................3

We
need
to
preserve
what
the
Internet
has
brought
us.
Exclusive
interview
with
Demi

Getschko
by
Tatiana
Ershova,
ОБЩЕСТВО,
5-‐6:2014,
4-‐7
(original

englsh
version) ........................................................................................................................................................ 11

It
is
important
to
preserve
what
the
Internet
has
brought
to
our
lives.
Exclusive
Interview

with
Hartmut
Glaeser
by
Tatiana
Ershova,
ОБЩЕСТВО,
1:2015,
4-‐6

(original
english
version).................................................................................................................................... 14

2

Translation
to
English
of
Tatiana
Ershova’s
Editorial,
“A
Brazilian
Serial”

Information
Society
ОБЩЕСТВО),
1:2015,
first
page.

For
a
long
time
no
Brazilian
dramatic
serials
have
appeared
on
our
television
screens.
So
we

decided
to
fill
this
gap
and
in
three
issues
of
our
journal
by
publishing
parts
of
the
new
book
by

Peter
Knight,
The
Internet
in
Brazil:
Origins,
strategy,
development
and
governance."
We
did
so

for
several
reasons.
Firstly,
he
is
one
of
the
world's
leading
experts
on
the
use
of
ICTs
for

development;
secondly,
Brazil
is
now
undoubtedly
one
of
the
most
active
and
influential
players

in
the
field
of
Internet
governance
at
the
international
level;
and
thirdly,
the
country
is
a

member
of
the
BRICS,
which
is
important
given
the
current
difficult
political
situation
in
Russia.

Complementing
the
articles
by
P.
Knight
are
exclusive
interviews
with
founders
and
very

influential
figures
of
the
Brazilian
segment
of
the
global
Internet
–
Michael
Stanton,
now

Director
of
Research
and
Development
of
the
Brazil’s
National
Education
and
Research
Network

(RNP);
Demi
Getschko,
Chairman
of
the
Brazilian
Network
Information
Center
(NIC.br),
and

Hartmut
Glaser,
Executive
Secretary
of
the
Brazilian
Internet
Steering
Committee
(CGI.br).
We

hope
that
this
Brazilian
serial
we
have
presented
to
our
dear
readers
will
be
evaluated
as
a

detailed
and
comprehensive
analysis
of
the
development
of
a
very
important
information
and

communication
technology,
the
Internet,
in
a
friendly
country.

Concluding
the
Brazilian
theme,
a
contribution
to
the
journal
that
has
acquainted
we
Russians

with
foreign
names,
I
cannot
but
remember
famous
Brazilian
writer
and
philosopher,
Paulo

Coelho.
In
his
book
Zaire
he
wrote:
"I
knew
news
from
that
country
from
childhood:
one
country

threatens
another,
someone
is
betrayed,
the
economy
is
in
decline...."
Indeed,
we
live
in
a
world

that
changes
little.
But
now
such
problems
are
affecting
us
directly,
so
we
felt
these
words
more

strongly.
Let's
hope
that
the
crisis
will
end
and
then,
so
like
a
nightmare,
fade
away.

In
the
meantime,
we
continue
to
do
our
job,
publishing
scientific
articles
and
research.
As
for

the
Russian
authors
in
this
issue
of
the
journal,
we
include
the
work
of
Doctor
of
Science,

Moscow
philosopher,
George
Smolyan,
on
key
concepts
of
computerization;
PhD
from
Kazan,

Rima
Elizarovi,
of
the
National
Library
of
Tatarstan;
two
PhDs
from
Ekaterinburg,
Helena

Dyakova
and
Anna
Trachtenberg,
on
the
problem
of
organizational
resistance
in
the
field
of

information
health;
as
well
as
specialists
from
Ufa
–
Tagira
Yakubov,
Almaza

Iskhakova,
and

Alberta
Mannapova
–
about
trusted
networks.
Thus,
opening
our
editorial
portfolio
in
2015,
we

have
tried,
as
promised,
to
provide
thematic
and
geographic
diversity
in
our
articles.

EDITOR
IN
CHIEF,
Tatiana
Ershova

3

You
Have
to
Take
Advantage
of
Opportunities.
Exclusive
interview
with
Dr.

Michael
Stanton
by
Tatiana
Ershova,
ОБЩЕСТВО,
4:2014,
pp
4-‐
13

Michael
Stanton,
Director
for
Research
and
Development,
(Brazilian)
National
Education
and

Research
Network
(RNP)

Tatiana
Ershova:
Michael,
I
know
that
you
participated
in
the
introduction
of
the
Internet
in

Brazil.
But
at
the
same
time
your
name
is
not
at
all
Brazilian.
How
did
you
come
to
this
country

and
what
was
your
mission
at
that
time?
And
how
did
it
relate
to
what
we
now
call
the
Internet?

What
was
going
on
in
those
early
years
in
Brazil?

Michael
Stanton:
I’m
originally
from
Britain,
and
came
to
Brazil
in
1971.
There
was
no
Internet

at
that
time.
It
was
only
invented
about
ten
years
later.
So,
I
came
for
a
completely
different

reason.
I
studied
mathematics
at
the
university.
I
had
just
finished
my
Ph.D.
and
I
had
spent
two

years
living
in
the
US
while
I
was
finishing
my
thesis.
I
needed
a
job,
and
I
thought
to
see
some

other
parts
of
the
world.
Brazil
was
on
my
list,
and
I
decided
to
look
for
a
job
here.
I
was
hired
to

teach
mathematics
at
a
place
called
ITA
(Instituto
Tecnológico
de
Aeronáutica,
or
the

Aeronautical
Engineering
Institute)
run
by
the
air
force
here,
in
a
town
an
hour
away
from
the

city
of
São
Paulo.

It
was
a
strange
time
to
arrive
in
Brazil
because
the
country
was
in
the
middle
of
a
military

dictatorship.
The
military
had
taken
over
the
government
seven
years
previously,
and
stayed
in

power
for
21
years.
It
was
part
of
a
series
of
similar
political
changes
that
took
place
at
that

time.
You
are
probably
well
aware
about
them:
there
was
considerable
tension
in
the
period

during
the
so-‐called
Cold
War,
and
Latin
America
was
a
region
where
United
States
wanted
to

make
sure
that
the
Soviet
Union
did
not
develop
many
friendships,
and
encouraged
the
military

overthrow
of
many
governments
in
the
region,
including
Brazil.
I
knew
about
that
before
I
came

to
Brazil,
but
I’d
never
lived
in
such
a
situation,
so
it
was
an
unusual
experience
for
me.
I
think
it

is
fair
to
say
that
the
militarism
here
was
not
so
extensive
as
maybe
in
some
other
neighboring

countries.

So
I
got
to
know
a
lot
of
people,
and
to
learn
about
the
culture
of
Brazil.
At
that
time,
Brazil
was

considered
a
developing
country.
Today
it
is
developing,
too,
but
it
has
progressed
a
lot
since
I

came
here,
forty-‐odd
years
ago.
Lots
of
energy,
lots
of
hopes….
People
were
mostly
very

enthusiastic
about
life
and
the
future.
However,
communications
were
very
bad
–
that
is
to
say,

communications
in
terms
of
anything
other
than
the
postal
service.
Long-‐distance
and

4

international
phone
calls
were
made
by
operators.
Telephones
were
difficult
to
come
by
–
I

waited
five
years
to
have
one
installed.
International
telephony
was
extremely
expensive,
so
I

was
rather
cut
off
from
where
I
had
come
from.
This
particular
problem
was
solved

spectacularly
more
than
twenty
years
later,
with
the
development
here
of
the
Internet.

Tatiana
Ershova:
What
was
the
first
large-‐scale
component
of
the
Brazilian
Internet?
What
was

most
special
in
its
development?

Michael
Stanton:
The
telecommunications
network
in
Brazil
was
completely
rebuilt
in
the

1970s,
with
the
adoption
of
digital
technology,
which
meant
that
you
could
do
things
like
direct

long-‐distance
dialing.
Communications
were
improved,
but
it
was
still
very
expensive.
There
was

very
little
in
the
way
of
support
for
data
communication,
except
for
remote
terminals
connected

to
mainframe
computers.
Machine-‐to-‐machine
communication
came
slowly,
based
on
old

telecommunications
standards
like
X.25
(from
CCITT,
now
known
as
ITU-‐T).
And
they
tried
to

introduce
e-‐mail
using
X.400,
and
so
on,
but
it
never
did
really
catch
on.
By
this
time
I
had

changed
jobs
and
moved
to
live
in
Rio
de
Janeiro,
got
married
to
my
Brazilian
wife,
Virgilia,
and

started
a
family.
It
seemed
my
future
would
be
in
Brazil.

In
the
new
job
I
was
working
from
the
beginning
in
the
computer
science
department,
and
we

had
a
period
when
there
was
government
control
of
imports
of
computers.
They
tried
to
create

a
local
minicomputer
industry
here.
So,
there
was
a
lot
of
involvement
of
universities
like
one
I

was
at,
which
was
the
Catholic
University
of
Rio
de
Janeiro,
and
things
progressed,
but
slowly.

In
1985
the
military
government
came
to
an
end,
and
things
began
to
open
up,
in
particular,
the

policy
of
a
“market
reserve”
for
small
computers
was
abandoned,
and
began
to
import
different

technologies
like
small
computers
and
local
area
networks.
In
particular,
this
was
the
period
of

the
adoption
of
networked
personal
computers.
Then,
suddenly
in
1986,
some
of
us,
who
were

attentive
to
what
was
going
on
in
the
United
States,
learned
about
developments
in
large-‐scale

networking,
in
particular,
the
introduction
by
NSF
(the
National
Science
Foundation)
of
the

NSFNET
in
1985.
This
served
as
a
great
example
for
us
of
the
things
that
we
didn’t
have
and
that

could
be
of
use,
particularly
for
the
universities.

As
I
mentioned,
the
postal
service
was
our
main
means
of
communication,
and
when
you

learned
that
you
could
do
instantaneous
communication
of
information
using
computer

networks,
then
it
became
very
clear
that
it
would
be
a
very
revolutionary
change
for
Brazil,
to

bring
this
kind
of
technology
here
and
to
aid
in
establishing
much
closer
collaboration,
not
only

within
the
country,
but
also
between
Brazil
and
rest
of
the
world,
which,
as
we
have
seen,
was

very
limited
at
that
time.
So
we
started
discussing
within
the
scientific
community
how
this

could
be
done,
and
some
government
bodies
also
became
involved.
Three
years
later
we
had
a

national
academic
network
project
underway,
financed
by
the
federal
government.
It
took

another
three
years
before
it
delivered
its
first
network,
but
by
then
we
already
had
gained

something
like
four
years
of
experience
with
the
BITNET
network,
which
was
essentially
an
e-‐
mail
network.

In
1992
we
launched
our
own
national
academic
network,
connected
to
the
global
Internet,

delivered
by
a
project
called
National
Research
Network
(Rede
Nacional
de
Pesquisa
–
RNP)
that

later
became
the
organization
I
currently
work
for.
Now
it
is
called
the
National
Education
and

Research
Network,
with
great
emphasis
on
higher
education.
It
is
usual
here,
and
most
likely

elsewhere
too,
that
you
have
to
take
advantage
of
opportunities,
and
we
did
so.
A
global
United

Nations
conference
on
ecology
and
development
was
to
be
held
in
in
Rio
de
Janeiro
in
1992,
and

this
was
chosen
as
the
opportunity
for
the
introduction
of
Internet
connectivity
to
Brazil.
This

5

connectivity
did
not
go
away
after
the
conference:
1992
was
year
zero
for
our
life
on
the

Internet.

You
asked
what
was
special
about
the
development
of
the
first
large-‐scale
component
of
the

Brazilian
Internet.
Well,
it
was
designed
after
studying
the
experiences
of
other
countries.
The

other
thing
was
that
planning
was
very
important.
There
was
a
very
effective
team
planning
the

development
of
this
network,
seeking
widespread
support
from
government
entities
all
over
the

country.
We
have
a
federal
structure
of
government
in
Brazil.
There
are
26
state
governments,

as
well
as
the
federal
government.
Considerable
effort
was
made
to
involve
all
of
these
different

governments
in
providing
support
for
our
network
project.
This
led
to
the
adoption
of
a
specific

architecture
for
the
national
network
with
just
one
point
of
presence
in
each
state
capital,
and
a

second-‐tier
network
to
be
built
in
each
state.
Unfortunately,
it
did
not
always
work
out
this
way

–
fewer
than
half
the
states
implemented
a
state
network.
Nevertheless,
this
architectural

model
has
been
maintained
till
today.
Obviously,
we
also
had
to
teach
people
what
they
could

do
with
the
network,
and
that
has
been
going
ever
since.

Tatiana
Ershova:
For
a
certain
period
of
time
you
had
little
involvement
in
RNP.
Why
did
this

happen
and
what
was
the
motivation
for
you
to
come
back
in
2001?

During
my
first
involvement
in
RNP,
I
helped
to
set
up
RNP
through
advocating
the
benefits
of

large-‐scale
networking
in
the
late
1980s.
In
1990
I
was
invited
to
become
part
of
the
national

coordination
group
of
three
people,
led
by
Tadao
Takahashi,
the
coordinator
of
the
RNP
project,

and
also
including
Demi
Getschko,
coordinator
of
network
operations,
who
was
then
employed

as
IT
manager
at
FAPESP
(the
São
Paulo
state
research
agency)
and
had
been
heavily
involved
in

bringing
BITNET
to
Brazil
starting
in
1988.
Demi
is
still
very
active
in
Internet
governance
both

nationally
and
internationally.
I
was
given
the
title
of
coordinator
of
research
and
development,

and
my
main
job
was
related
to
the
university
community
in
my
area
of
computer
science.
I

stayed
on
in
this
unpaid
role
until
1993,
one
year
after
the
network
was
launched,
when
Tadao

decided
to
make
it
more
professional.
He
invited
me
to
leave
the
university
and
work
full-‐time

for
RNP,
but
I
said
I
did
not
want
to
do
that.
So
we
parted,
I
stayed
with
the
university
and
I
left

RNP.
Obviously,
I
could
not
abandon
RNP
completely,
because
my
university
was
connected
and

used
RNP
for
communications.
That
was
why
I
participated
in
some
of
the
later
developments,

but
at
a
much
more
distant
level
than
before.

In
1995,
the
Brazilian
Internet
was
opened
up
to
the
whole
society,
with
the
introduction
of

commercial
services.
Between
1995
and
1999
the
RNP
network
was
also
used
to
provide

backbone
services
for
commercial
ISPs.
Tadao
left
RNP
at
the
end
of
1995
and
he
was
succeeded

as
coordinator
by
José
Luíz
Ribeiro
Filho.

This
was
a
period
of
significant
changes
in
public
policies,
with
large-‐scale
privatization
of

existing
state-‐run
activities,
particularly
telecommunications
in
1998.
This
led
to
the
emergence

of
a
small
number
of
large
commercial
telecommunications
providers,
which
since
then
have

dominated
the
sector.
This
had
strong
repercussions
for
the
growing
commercial
Internet,
which

no
longer
needed
support
from
RNP.
Thus
in
1999,
RNP
returned
to
its
original
role
as
an

academic
Internet
provider.

By
1999,
RNP’s
situation
had
changed
considerably.
Instead
of
being
merely
a
project
of
Ministry

of
Science
and
Technology
(MCT),
with
consequent
instability
and
insecurity
for
RNP
staff
and

objectives,
a
non-‐profit
private
company,
AsRNP
(Associação
Rede
Nacional
de
Ensino
e
Pesquisa

or
National
Education
and
Research
Network
Association),
was
formed
and
was
contracted
by

MCT
to
manage
the
national
network.
From
the
time
of
its
formation,
the
governing
body
of

6

AsRNP
included
representatives
of
the
government,
LARC
(the
National
Laboratory
for

Computer
Networks)
and
SBC
(the
Brazilian
Computing
Society).

In
August
2000,
José
Luíz
Ribeiro
Filho,
after
having
supervised
the
long
process
of
the
creation

of
AsRNP
and
of
securing
its
financial
stability,
resigned
from
the
post
of
its
Director
General.
So

there
was
a
vacancy,
and
somebody
suggested
my
name
as
a
candidate
to
fill
it.
I
went
along

with
this
to
see
where
it
would
lead.
I
did
not
get
the
job
–
that
went
to
Nelson
Simões
da
Silva,

who
had
worked
closely
with
his
predecessor
–
and
Nelson
invited
me
to
come
back
to
RNP
to

work
with
him.
Since
by
that
time,
I
had
changed
universities
again,
and
since
I
could
now

combine
this
new
activity
at
RNP
with
my
new
university
job,
I
was
quite
happy
with
this,
and
I

have
been
at
RNP
in
the
new
role
of
Director
for
Research
and
Development
since
2001.

Tatiana
Ershova:
How
has
RNP
been
working
since
that?

Michael
Stanton:
The
relationship
between
the
computing
and
communications
research

communities
has
broadened
and
deepened,
while
the
network
has
grown
and
its
uses

multiplied.
By
2002,
AsRNP
had
been
formally
recognized
as
a
Social
Organization
by
MCT,

which
legally
permitted
the
ministry
to
sign
long-‐term
contracts
without
a
tender
process,
and

to
administer
its
relations
with
AsRNP
in
a
similar
way
to
those
with
other
specialized
service-‐
providing
institutions
(in
scientific
computing,
astrophysics,
synchrotron
light,
and
so
on)
which

fell
in
the
general
category
of
national
laboratories.

Of
equal
importance
was
the
cofinancing
of
AsRNP
activities
by
Ministry
of
Education
(MEC),

which
provided
by
far
the
largest
contingent
of
clients
of
the
national
network.
In
addition,
the

national
network
had
been
restructured,
using
the
recently
introduced
ATM
and
Frame
Relay

technologies,
that
permitted
incremental
adjustment
of
available
bandwidth.
This
new
network,

launched
in
2000,
was
known
as
RNP2,
even
though
it
was
much
more
limited
than
the
Abilene

network
of
Internet2.
However,
it
did
represent
a
significant
improvement
over
the
network
it

replaced,
and
was
what
was
economically
feasible
at
that
time.

Between
September
2000
and
September
2001,
when
he
was
confirmed
as
director
general
of

AsRNP,
Nelson
Simões
exercised
this
post
in
an
interim
capacity.
At
the
request
of
MCT,
a

workshop
was
held
at
RNP
headquarters
in
Rio
de
Janeiro
on
April
18th
,
2001,
to
discuss
the

future
directions
that
RNP
should
follow.
The
participants
included
14
invitees
from
the
research

community,
with
ten
from
networks
and
communications
and
four
from
different
network
user

domains,
as
well
as
a
representative
from
MCT,
and
the
remaining
four
directors
of
AsRNP.
All

the
user
domains
represented
(high-‐energy
physics,
health,
bioinformatics,
climate/space

studies,
distance
education,
and
high-‐performance
computing)
explained
their
network

requirements
for
the
foreseeable
future.
The
network
specialists
from
RNP
and
the
research

community
presented
some
of
the
technological
alternatives
that
could
be
considered.

After
the
workshop,
a
partnership
was
formed
between
RNP
and
CPqD
(the
former
state

telecommunications
monopoly’s
R&D
centre
in
Campinas,
that
had
been
privatized
as
a
non-‐
profit
foundation)
to
build
an
optical
testbed
network
in
the
states
of
Rio
de
Janeiro
and
São

Paulo,
and
to
carry
out
and
promote
experimental
research
in
network
and
related
application

technologies
using
the
testbed
as
a
laboratory.
Project
GIGA,
as
the
initiative
became
known,

obtained
about
US$20M
in
funding
from
FUNTTEL
(Fund
for
the
Development
of

Telecommunications
Technology),
of
which
two
thirds
were
used
for
R&D
activities.
Using
dark

fibers
freely
lent
by
four
telcos,
the
project
lit
up
about
750
km
of
fiber,
including
the
use
of

DWDM
between
the
cities
of
Campinas,
São
Paulo,
São
José
dos
Campos,
in
São
Paulo
state,
and

the
city
of
Rio
de
Janeiro,
further
extensions
to
Cachoeira
Paulista,
in
São
Paulo
state,
and

7

Niterói
and
Petrópolis,
in
Rio
de
Janeiro
state,
and
metro
networks
in
Campinas,
São
Paulo
and

Rio
de
Janeiro.
Including
laboratories
belonging
to
the
collaborating
telcos,
around
25

institutions
were
directly
served
by
the
resulting
testbed
network,
that
used
1
and
10
Gigabit

Ethernet
technology
to
provide
network
transport
between
collaborating
institutions.

GIGA
received
funding
between
2003
and
2007,
and
involved
a
great
many
research
institutions

throughout
Brazil.
RNP
coordinated
its
own
research
program,
with
its
own
scientific
committee

of
four
well-‐known
researchers.
This
committee
received
and
evaluated
39
proposals,
with
the

assistance
of
19
ad-‐hoc
referees
from
the
LARC-‐SBC
community,
and
approved
33
for
support.

Due
to
continuity
problems
with
FUNTTEL
funding
in
2005
and
part
of
2006,
which
caused

interruptions
in
funding
of
all
supported
projects,
only
27
projects
were
effectively
concluded

after
funding
was
restored
in
2006.
These
included
five
in
advanced
network
technologies,
and

22
in
distributed
applications.

Tatiana
Ershova:
How
did
it
affect
the
scientific
community?

RNP’s
GIGA
research
program
effectively
involved
more
than
500
participants
from
35
Brazilian

and,
six
foreign
research
centers,
and
13
companies.
Academic
production
amounted
to
more

than
700
documents,
including
110
master’s
and
28
doctoral
theses,
180
articles
in
periodicals,

240
in
conferences,
two
books
and
16
book
chapters.
Technical
production
included
around
90

technical
reports
and
manuals,
54
products
(conceptual,
functional
and
product
prototypes)
and

10
services
(prototypes),
of
which
27
were
in
use
at
the
end
of
2008.
Twelve
technologies
were

effectively
transferred
to
companies,
and
transfer
of
technology
has
been
agreed
in
two
further

cases.

Apart
from
conducting
its
own
research
program,
RNP
also
participated
in
the
design
and

management
of
the
GIGA
testbed,
together
with
CPqD.
This
testbed
began
operation
in
May

2004,
and
is
still
active.
The
benefits
which
resulted
for
RNP
from
this
first
experience
in
Gbps

and
optical
networking
were
manifold,
and
were
later
put
to
good
use
in
the
design
of
the
next

generation
backbone
network,
and
the
metro
access
networks
begun
in
2005.

Going
back
to
2002,
RNP
launched
its
Working
Groups
(WGs)
initiative,
which
came
to
involve

the
academic
research
community
more
closely
in
the
development
of
new
network
services.

Although
the
first
five
WGs
were
the
result
of
invitations
to
selected
researchers,
from
2003

onwards,
the
WGs
were
selected
by
a
competitive
process
including
a
public
call
for
proposals,

with
participation
in
the
selection
committee
of
researchers
from
the
LARC-‐SBC
community.

Each
instance
of
a
WG
is
a
12-‐month
development
project,
financed
by
RNP,
involving
a
small

research
group
and
costing
about
US$
100,000.
If
progress
towards
the
prototype
after
one
year

is
judged
promising,
renewal
for
a
second
year
is
usually
granted,
in
order
to
demonstrate
the

feasibility
of
a
limited
service.
Since
2002,
RNP
has
supported
80
instances
of
WGs,
currently
at

the
rate
of
eight
per
year.
The
successful
demonstration
of
a
limited
service
by
the
end
of
the

second
year
means
the
resulting
product
becomes
a
candidate
to
become
an
experimental

service
the
following
year,
and
the
final
decision
to
deploy
a
service
experimentally
will
be
taken

by
the
board
of
directors
of
RNP.
Normally
a
successful
experimental
service
will
become
a

production
service.
The
management
of
the
program,
including
the
monitoring
of
the
working

groups,
has
been
carried
out
by
a
small
but
very
effective
team
at
RNP.

Tatiana
Ershova:
You
might
have
acquired
quite
a
lot
experience
of
building
networks!

Michael
Stanton:
Yes.
I
usually
would
also
study
how
other
academic
network
organizations

built
their
networks.
Many
of
these
ideas
were
discussed
at
RNP,
and
included
in
our
plans
for

8

the
way
we
should
go,
a
kind
of
roadmap
for
RNP.
And
we
managed,
fortunately,
to
adopt
and

adapt
these
ideas
to
Brazil.
We
learned
of
the
importance
of
gaining
access
to
optical

infrastructure.
With
lessons
learned
from
Project
GIGA,
we
began
tendering
for
optical

wavelengths
for
the
fifth
version
of
our
national
network.
At
the
same
time
we
began
to
build

our
own
metropolitan
optical
networks,
applying
lessons
learned
from
the
Canadian
CANARIE

network,
and
the
Dutch
SURFNET.
Combining
these
two
innovations,
we
now
deliver
1
and
10

Gbps
connectivity
to
over
300
sites
nationally,
and
our
national
backbone,
already
mostly
built

with
10
Gbps
links,
should
include
some
100
Gbps
links
by
2015.
These
developments

enormously
increase
capacity
for
communication
and
enable
development,
and
this
we
have

been
doing
continuously
since
about
2003.
Our
network
and
the
services
provided
are
radically

different
from
what
we
had
10
years
or
13
years
ago.

Another
thing
that
is
important
was
that,
with
my
roots
in
the
research
community,
we
had

involved
our
research
community
in
the
development
of
services
and
network
technologies

within
RNP.
We
also
had
the
money
to
be
able
to
support
this
kind
of
activity,
and
it
has
been

very
fruitful.
It
enabled
a
lot
of
development
of
what
we
can
offer
our
users
just
to
be
able
to

interact
and
collaborate
with
other
networks
in
other
countries,
to
be
able
to
collaborate
in
joint

projects.
Through
RNP,
Brazil
is
now
recognized
as
an
international
actor
in
this
area.

The
other
important
development
is
that
our
base
within
the
government
has
widened.
We
now

also
have
support
from
the
Ministries
of
Health
and
of
Culture.
Our
interaction
in
the
health

sphere
is
mainly
concentrated
in
telehealth
and
telemedicine,
where
we
have
a
large
program

of
support
for
communication
and
collaboration
with
educational
programs
in
teaching

hospitals.
In
this
area
we
have
pioneered
the
use
of
ultra
high-‐definition
(4K
=
8
Megapixels
per

frame)
live
imaging
of
surgical
procedures
to
remote
audiences
of
medical
students.
We
have
a

limited
amount
of
interaction
in
the
sphere
of
culture:
including
digital
cinema
(which
obviously

requires
networks
for
transmitting
content),
providing
connectivity
to
libraries
and
museums,

and
also
supporting
events
in
performing
arts.
We
would
like
that
to
improve
some
more.
An

unforeseen
collaboration
in
a
related
field
was
with
the
Japanese
public
TV
company,
NHK,
and

telco,
NTT.
We
recently
assisted

them
in
transmitting
live
images
to
Japan
in
“Super
Hi-‐Vision”

(8K
=
33
Megapixels
per
frame)
of
football
matches
played
during
the
recent
FIFA
World
Cup.

This
transmission
used
our
international
network
links
to
the
outside
world,
and
worked
without

problems.

Tatiana
Ershova:
RNP
was
cooperating
with
different
countries
all
the
time,
through
all
the
time

it
has
existed.
What
were
the
main
lines
of
cooperation
and
what
were
the
results
of
that

cooperation?

Michael
Stanton:
Well,
initially
the
main
objectives
were
merely
to
have
connectivity.
I
mean,

the
Internet
would
not
exist
in
Brazil
without
international
connectivity.
Collaboration
with
their

peers
in
other
countries
has
always
been
the
main
inspiration
for
researchers
in
the
academic

community.
There
is
a
considerable
involvement
of
Brazil
in
the
international
projects
related
to

high-‐energy
physics,
astronomy
and
astrophysics,
climate
(because
of
the
size
of
Brazil
and
its

geographical
position)
and
biodiversity
(because
of
the
richness
of
Brazil’s
fauna
and
flora).

There
are
a
lot
of
areas
in
which
international
cooperation
had
already
existed
but
all
links
have

strengthened
because
of
the
existence
of
international
communication
by
Internet.
It
seems
an

obvious
thing
to
do,
but
we
have
extended
collaboration
with
other
Latin
American
countries

over
the
past
ten
years.
In
2003
there
were
a
number
of
separate
academic
network
initiatives

within
Latin
America,
which
communicated
with
each
other
via
the
US,
and
so
we
created
our

regional
association,
with
the
support
of
the
European
Commission,
to
be
able
to
improve

9

intraregional
connectivity
and
collaboration,
and
this
is
ongoing.
At
the
moment
we
are

discussing
international
connections
to
Europe
by
a
future
submarine
cable,
which
should
be

built
by
2016,
and
academic
capacity
in
this
cable
will
be
essentially
shared
with
other
countries

in
Latin
America.

We
have
started
collaborating
to
a
limited
extent
with
some
countries
in
East
Asia,
particularly

Korea
and
Japan,
and
also
in
Africa.
Africa
is
still
starting
up.
We
have
made
some
contacts
with

Africa
through
attending
networking
conferences
since
2012.
In
addition,
there
are
some

cultural
relations
between
Brazil
and
several
African
countries,
because
they
use
Portuguese
like

we
do.
Both
the
government
and
the
culture
sector
in
Brazil
have
a
major
interest
in
maintaining

connections
with
other
countries
where
Portuguese
is
spoken.
These
include
countries
in
Africa,

especially
Angola
and
Mozambique,
which
are
the
most
populous.
There’s
also
Portugal,
in

Europe,
of
course.

Tatiana
Ershova:
What
about
Russia?

Michael
Stanton:
There
are
some
areas
of
contact.
These
will
probably
grow
as
a
consequence

of
one
of
the
joint
programs
agreed
in
a
meeting
between
our
governments
this
July,
where
the

Brazilian
program
“Scientists
without
Frontiers”
was
extended
to
Russia.
This
program
provides

scholarships
for
Brazilian
students
to
continue
their
studies
abroad,
and
also
includes
exchanges

of
researchers
and
professors.
There
are
some
international
collaborative
initiatives,
like
the

Gloriad
project
of
the
US
“International
Research
Network
Connections”
program,
which
involve

some
groups
from
Russia
but
none
from
Brazil.

Tatiana
Ershova:
After
the
BRICS
summit
2014
which
took
place
recently
in
Brazil,
I
really
hope

that
our
cooperation
will
receive
an
impetus.

Michael
Stanton:
BRICS
involves
mainly
cooperation
in
the
economic
sphere.
We
read
about

these
things.
These
are
big
countries,
very
populous,
and
big
economies.
It
is
very
important
but

it’s
not
easy
to
collaborate
with
each
other
at
the
government
level
at
the
moment,
and
it
would

be
nice
if
there
were
things
that
we
could
do.
I
have
heard
once
of
some
bright
idea
of

constructing
a
super
cable
which
started
off
in
Vladivostok
and
was
going
to
pass
through
China,

India
and
South
Africa
all
the
way
to
Brazil.
I
am
not
sure
if
it
is
economically
justified
but
it

sounded
really
very
good
as
an
idea.

Tatiana
Ershova:
The
time
and
the
future
will
show
what
is
possible.

Michael
Stanton:
We
hope
there
will
be
a
lot
of
visitors
from
Russia
in
Brazil.
It
would
be
nice
if

they
interact
with
our
academic
community.

Tatiana
Ershova:
Now
I
would
like
to
ask
you
not
as
a
professional
but
just
a
human,
a
citizen.

How
do
you
use
the
Internet?
What
is
most
important
for
you?
What
is
impossible
to
imagine

without
the
Internet
now
for
you?

Michael
Stanton:
I
have
a
computer
on
my
desk
all
day.
I
take
it
home
with
me
at
night.
I
am

using
it
just
now
while
talking
to
you.
I
mean,
it
is
sort
of
my
continual
companion,
and
I
cannot

imagine
how
I
would
work
and
communicate
with
people
without
it.
For
instance,
when
I
was
a

student
and
for
many
years
after
coming
to
Brazil,
I
used
to
seek
out
scientific
libraries
in
order

to
learn
about
what
was
going
on,
both
in
my
own
area
and
in
others.
Today,
I
cannot
recall

when
I
last
stepped
into
a
library,
because
I
have
access
to
almost
everything
I
need
to
read

online.
This
is
greatly
facilitated
by
the
Brazilian
government
which
provides
online
access
to
an

enormous
collection
of
scientific
journals
and
other
important
documents
for
students
and

researchers
.
There
are
other
things
I
need
to
read,
of
course,
and
I
now
buy
rather
than
borrow

10

the
books
I
might
need,
although
these
are
mostly
not
technical.
I
could
of
course
read
e-‐books,

but
I
haven’t
gone
so
far
yet.

The
Internet
also
mediates
personal
communication,
and
at
RNP
we
spend
much
of
our
time
in

virtual
meetings,
where
we
can
see
each
other
and
share
documents,
even
internationally.
This

interview
is
being
conducted
using
Skype.
At
RNP,
we
have
developed
our
own
low-‐cost

conferencing
system
that
can
integrate
professional
videoconferencing
stations
and

smartphones.

Good
communication
is
particularly
important
not
only
professionally
but
also
personally,

because
my
family
is
scattered.
I
come
from
Britain,
I
have
relatives
there.
I
have
three
children,

who
are
all
in
Europe
–
two
in
Germany,
one
in
England.
And
without
the
Internet
it
would
be

extremely
difficult
to
maintain
relations.
My
parents
were
not
Internet
users,
so
I
could
not

make
use
of
the
Internet
to
communicate
with
my
parents
even
after
we
actually
had

connectivity,
because
they
did
not.
The
only
thing
I
managed
to
do
with
them
was
to
start
using

fax
to
send
messages
after
a
certain
time,
but
nowadays,
especially
with
the
use
of
Internet

telephony,
like
Skype
and
Viber,
the
way
which
everybody
has
smartphones
and
so
on,
the

Internet
has
become
open
for
all
ways
of
communications.
This
morning
I
got
a
“WhatsApp?”

message
with
a
photograph
of
one
of
my
family
members
showing
what
he
saw
this
morning
on

his
way
to
work.
It
was
very
nice!
I
would
not
like
to
live
without
it,
I
am
now
used
to
knowing

what
is
going
on.
I
mean,
it
is
so
easy
to
do
so
because
of
the
Internet
that
created
a
new

communication
environment.

Tatiana
Ershova:
Thank
you
very
much,
Michael!

11

We
need
to
preserve
what
the
Internet
has
brought
us.
Exclusive
interview
with

Demi
Getschko
by
Tatiana
Ershova,
ОБЩЕСТВО,
5-‐6:2014,
4-‐7

Demi
Getschko,
Chairman
of
the
Executive
Committee
of
the
Brazilian
Network
Information

Center
(NIC.br)

Tatiana
Ershova:
Demi,
you
are
known
as
a
key
player
on
the
team
that
established
the
first

Internet
connection
to
Brazil.
Please
tell
us
about
that
team.
What
had
you
all
done
at
that
time

and
where
did
it
lead
Brazil?

Demi
Getschko:
Brazilian
academic
networks’
interconnection
was
prior
to
their
connection
to

the
Internet
itself.
In
September
1988
the
National
Laboratory
for
Scientific
Computing
(LNCC)

established
the
first
Bitnet
connection
via
the
University
of
Maryland
in
the
United
States.
In

October
of
that
year
the
São
Paulo
State
Research
Foundation
(FAPESP)
also
connected
to
Bitnet

via
FermiLan
in
Batavia,
Illinois
with
five
nodes
–
the
University
of
São
Paulo,
University
of

Campinas,
State
University
of
São
Paulo,
and
the
Institute
of
Technological
Research
at
the

University
of
São
Paulo.
This
was
accomplished
through
establishing
a
network
associated
with

Bitnet,
the
São
Paulo
Academic
Network
(ANSP).

At
the
same
time
ANSP
was
connected
to
the
High
Energy
Physics
Network
(HEPNet)
of
which

FermiLan
was
the
hub.
On
18
April
1989
the
domain
.br
was
obtained
by
the
group
that

operated
FAPESP.
Then
in
September
1989
the
National
Research
Network
(RNP,
now
National

Education
and
Research
Network)
was
officially
constituted.
In
January
1991,
when
FermiLan

was
already
part
of
the
Energy
Sciences
Network
(ESNet),
a
backbone
using
TCP/IP,
the
first

Internet
packets
began
to
flow.

Consolidation
was
achieved
through
RNP.
RNP
began
to
spread
TCP/IP
throughout
Brazil
and

enjoyed
important
support
during
the
United
Nations
Conference
on
the
Environment
and

Development
(UNCED
or
Eco-‐92).
During
that
conference
in
Rio
de
Janeiro
it
was
possible
to
use

international
links
to
keep
the
participants
connected
to
the
Internet.
The
network
grew
rapidly

and
in
1994
the
main
Brazilian
telecommunications
company
at
that
time,
Embratel,
announced

that
it
would
give
access
to
the
Internet.
Note
that
at
that
time
Brazil
was
committed
to
ISO/OSI

and
not
TCP/IP.
In
May
1995
the
Brazilian
Internet
Steering
Committee
(CGI.br)
was
established,

12

formalizing
academic
initiatives
and
with
a
view
to
the
Brazilian
Internet’s
expansion
into
the

private
sector.

Tatiana
Ershova:
You
have
been
a
member
of
the
Brazilian
Internet
Steering
Committee
(CGI.br)

almost
20
years.
You
could
observe
the
evolution
of
the
Brazilian
Internet
governance
policies
for

quite
a
while.
What
were
the
key
elements
of
these
policies?
What
were
the
main
achievements

in
different
periods?

Demi
Getschko:
I
believe
the
most
important
point
is
the
establishment
of
a
multistakeholder

institution
that,
together
with
the
General
Telecommunications
Law
that
recognized
the

Internet
as
a
“value
added”
service
not
to
be
confused
with
telecommunications
(and
therefore

not
subject
to
the
Telecommunations
Regulatory
Agency
–
Anatel).
This
led
to
a
broad
and

healthy
dissemination
of
the
network.
With
the
reorganization
of
CGI.br
in
2003,
including
direct

elections
of
representatives
of
academia,
civil
society
organizations
(known
as
the
“third
sector”

in
Brazil),
and
the
private
sector,
but
maintaining
an
important,
but
not
majority,
participation
of

the
government,
the
model
was
further
reinforced.
Then,
in
2009,
after
almost
two
years
of

debate,
CGI.br
approved
ten
principles
safeguarding
the
concept
of
the
Internet.
These

principles
were
eventually
incorporated
into
the
“Bill
of
Internet
Rights”
(Marco
Civil
da

Internet)
signed
into
law
by
President
Dilma
Rousseff
during
the
opening
ceremony
of

NETmundial
in
São
Paulo
on
23
April
2014.

Tatiana
Ershova:
Your
name
is
closely
associated
with
the
ICANN
Board.
As
I
recall,
you
served

two
terms
there.
What
was
your
mission
and
how
did
it
help
Brazil
and
other
developing

countries?

Demi
Getschko:
Yes,
I
had
two
terms
on
the
ICANN
Board,
elected
by
the
Country
Code
Names

Support
Organization
(ccNSO).
I
was
not
officially
a
representative
of
Brazil,
but
elected
by
the

country
Top
Level
Domains
(TLD)
community
and
continued
to
defend
the
principles
that
I

thought
were
proper

Tatiana
Ershova:
You
played
a
critical
role
defining
the
rules
that
govern
the
Brazilian
registry.

What
distinguishes
the
Brazilian
rules
from
those
of
other
countries?

Demi
Getschko:
The
Brazilian
registry,
within
NIC.br
(the
executive
arm
of
CGI.br)
has
always

remained
a
private
non-‐profit
organization.
The
success
of
the
.br
Top
Level
Domain
(TLD)

permitted
that
in
short
order
we
were
able
to
achieve
financial
independence
and,

subsequently,
a
surplus.
With
these
resources,
CGI.br
could
take
actions
in
favor
of
the
Internet

in
Brazil.
I
can
cite
the
creation
and
maintenance
of
the
Brazilian
Natonal
Computer
Emergency

Response
Team
(CERT.br),
and
of
the
Center
of
Studies
on
Information
and
Communication

Technologies
(CETIC.br).
CETIC.br
has
now
produced
ten
years
of
detailed
statistics
on
the

Internet,
available
free
of
charge
on
the
Internet,
courses
in
IPv6,
the
official
Brazilian
time

(NPT.br),
etc.
and
established
Traffic
Exchange
Points
(IXPs)
around
the
country,
with
an

aggregate
traffic
exceeding
600
Bbits/s.
This
places
Brazil
among
those
countries
with
the

greatest
exchange
of
local
traffic.
We
also
implemented
Domain
Name
System
Security

Extensions
(NNSSEC)
and
we
make
them
available
free
of
charge.
We
are
also
the
country
with

the
second
most
installed
copies
of
Internet
root
servers.

Tatiana
Ershova:
What
is
your
impression
on
the
Internet
Governance
Forum
(IGF)
that
has
met

since
2006.
Do
you
think
it
is
embodying
the
precept
of
the
Tunis
Commitment
and
Tunis

Agenda?
Are
its
deliberations
productive?
What
are
the
most
useful
outcomes
of
the
Forum?

Demi
Getschko:
I
think
that
the
Tunis
agenda
was
important.
Since
the
Tunis
conference
of
the

World
Summit
on
the
Information
Society
(WSIS),
ten
years
have
passed,
and
the
Internet
has

13

evolved
rapidly.
The
IGF
is
an
excellent
forum
for
discussion
of
general
topics
regarding
the

Internet
and
has
become
a
generator
of
topics
to
discuss
and
debate.
It
is
not
a
decision-‐making

forum,
but
one
for
dialogue
and
exchange
of
ideas.
I
think
it
should
continue
to
be
respected

and
supported
because
of
its
importance
for
the
Internet.

Tatiana
Ershova:
Brazil
hosted
the
NETmundial
conference
in
April
this
year.
You
were
Co-‐Chair

of
the
Executive
Multistakeholder
Committee
organizing
the
event.

What
were
the
objectives
of

this
gathering
and
how
did
they
differ
from
those
of
IGF?
What
were
the
key
points
of

discussion?
What
is
Brazil’s
vision
for
the
Future
of
Internet
Governance
in
national
and
global

perspective?

Demi
Getschko:
I
think
the
most
important
result
of
NETmundial,
perhaps
the
first
really

multistakeholder
international
conference,
was
to
have
generated
two
documents
that
can
be

the
basis
for
the
Internet’s
evolution:
a
Declaration
of
Principles
(more
or
less
following
the
line

of
the
Brazilian
Internet
Bill
of
Rights)
and
a
Road
Map
for
making
aspects
of
Internet

governance
more
cooperative
and
multistakeholder-‐oriented.

The
Internet,
because
of
its

geographic
expansion
and
independence
of
national
borders,
and
on
the
other
hand,
the
need

to
respect
the
national
legislation
of
each
country,
has
characteristics
that
are
not
easy
to

understand
and
that
go
beyond
earlier
paradigms.

Tatiana
Ershova:
My
traditional
question:
what
would
you
most
wish
our
readers
–
those
people

who
have
been
attentively
following
the
ICT
development
for
over
25
years

–

to
learn
from
this

interview?

Demi
Getschko:
I
think
that
the
fundamental
point
is
to
preserve
what
the
Internet
has
brought

us
at
the
same
time
we
create
structures
to
defend
it.
All
the
stakeholder
groups
should

participate
–
governments,
academia,
technical
experts,
the
third
sector,
and
the
private
sector

–
because
the
Internet
is
and
has
always
been
a
collective
construction.
Of
course
there
are

some
topics,
like
the
protection
of
privacy,
that
require
agreements
within
and
among

countries.
The
fact
is
that
the
current
environment
is
difficult
and
complicated.
The
future
of
the

Internet,
like
its
success,
should
support
its
“disappearance”
in
the
sense
that
it
will
be
a

ubiquitous
tool,
reliable
and
invisible.
Let
us
hope
that
we
can
assume
its
continuity
and
support

its
further
development.

14

It
is
important
to
preserve
what
the
Internet
has
brought
to
our
lives.
Exclusive

Interview
with
Hartmut
Glaeser
by
Tatiana
Ershova,

ОБЩЕСТВО,
1:2015,
4-‐6

Hartmut
Glaser,
Executive
Secretary
of
the
Brazilian
Internet
Steering
Committee
(CGI.br)

Tatiana
Ershova:
Hartmut,
in
the
Internet
Hall
of
the
Internet
Society
you
are
said
to
be
among

people
«who
bring
the
Internet
to
life».
What
does
it
mean
for
you?
What
is
the
main
thing
that

Internet
has
given
to
people
to
make
a
quantum
change
in
their
life?

Hartmut
Glaser:
To
be
clear,
I
am
not
an
inductee
of
the
Hall
of
Fame
established
by
the

Internet
Society,
but
I
am
a
member
of
the
Internet
Hall
of
Fame
Advisory
Board
and
a
select

group
of
past
inductees
are
responsible
for
the
final
selection
of
inductees.
(See
more

at:
http://www.internethalloffame.org/about
and

http://www.internethalloffame.org/about/advisory-‐board).

But
it's
a
great
honor
to
be
among

the
people
who
worked
on
connecting
Brazil
to
the
Internet.
Some
say
"building
the
Brazilian

Internet".
That
is
conceptually
wrong.
There
is
only
one
Internet,
a
global
network
of
networks.

Our
task
in
the
past
was
to
connect
Brazil
to
the
rest
of
the
World.
I
think
that
is
exactly
the

main
thing
that
the
Internet
has
given
people:
the
chance
of
being
in
touch
with
the
rest
of
the

connected
world.
Our
main
challenge
these
days
is
to
get
more
and
more
people
connected.

Tatiana
Ershova:
Along
with
other
members
of
the
board
of
CGI.br,
you
signed
the
Public

Declaration
on
the
NETmundial
Initiative.
What
is
the
main
idea
of
this
declaration,
what
is
its

purpose?

Hartmut
Glaser:
The
NETmundial
Statement
is
a
normative
document
that
adopts
a

foundational
framework
for
the
future
evolution
of
the
Internet
–
in
technical,
social,
political,

economic,
and
cultural
terms.
It
comprises
a
set
of
principles
(that
resembles
CGI.br's
Decalogue

of
Principles)
and
a
roadmap
to
guide
all
stakeholders
in
the
field
of
Internet
governance.

Tatiana
Ershova:
Brazil
is
to
host
the
IGF
for
the
second
time
in
2015.
How
has
Internet

governance
in
your
country
changed
since
2007
when
you
gathered
the
global
Internet

community
in
Rio?

15

Hartmut
Glaser:
The
Brazilian
multistakeholder
model
got
much
more
institutionalized
and

achieved
a
central
role
for
Internet-‐related
public
policies
in
the
country.
From
the
IGF
2007,
the

members
of
the
board
of
CGI.br
put
together
through
rough
consensus
–
after
two
years
of

intense
consultations
–
a
model
Decalogue
of
principles.
CGI.br
led
the
creation
and
adoption
of

the
Marco
Civil
(Internet
Bill
of
Rights).
The
executive
branch
of
CGI.br,
the
Network
Information

Center
for
.br
(NIC.br),
a
not-‐for-‐profit
legal
entity,
conducted
several
projects
in
the
fields
of

infrastructure
development,
capacity
building,
ICT
research,
network
security
and
stability,
etc.

The
Marco
Civil
finally
was
signed
into
law
during
the
NETmundial
event
(April2014),
which

represented
a
milestone
for
Internet
governance
at
the
global
level
and
put
CGI.br
under
the

spotlight,
not
only
as
one
of
the
most
active
stakeholders
involved
with
the
Internet,
but
also
as

a
model
of
bottom-‐up,
consensus-‐driven,
inclusive,
transparent
and
democratic
governance
of

the
network.

Tatiana
Ershova:
What
are
the
milestones
for
global
Internet
governance
since
2006
when
IGF

was
announced
and
launched?

Hartmut
Glaser:
I
believe
it
is
better
to
understand
the
process
inaugurated
with
the
IGF
as
an

incremental
one.
Since
the
IGF
track
was
opened,
the
notion
of
multistakeholderism
has
grown

stronger.
Multistakeholderism
is
not
new
(think
of
the
labor
rights
regime,
the

environmental
protection,
regime,
the
United
Nations’
Economic
and
Social
Council
-‐
ECOSOC

models
of
governance).
But
Internet
governance
contributed
to
the
need
of
having
this
model

for
public
deliberation
as
the
default.
The
notion
that
the
Internet
governance
cannot
be

understood
as
a
synonym
of
ICT
governance
is
another
accomplishment
worth
of
highlighting.

But
most
importantly,
the
IGF
has
been
year
after
year
creating
awareness
about
the
notion
of

equal
footing
among
different
stakeholders.
Not
just
in
formal
terms,
but
also
in
substantial

ones.

Tatiana
Ershova:
Brazil
has
proved
to
be
a
protagonist
of
multistakeholderism
in
Internet

governance.
What
are
the
main
reasons
for
that?
What
are
the
advantages
of
the

multistakeholder
approach
versus
top-‐down
decision-‐making
processes?

Hartmut
Glaser:
Part
of
that
results
from
the
practices
and
projects
developed
by
CGI.br
in
the

last
20
years,
which
I
described
above.
But
I
have
to
be
honest:
CGI.br
is
just
an
overarching

arena
for
the
engagement
of
all
stakeholders
in
Brazil
(government,
businesses,
civil

society,
technical
communities
and
academia).
Brazil
is
a
protagonist
due
to
the
maturity

reached
by
all
those
stakeholders
in
relation
to
the
importance
of
bottom-‐up
decision-‐making

processes
and
the
importance
of
their
participation
in
all
tracks
that
are
part
of
the

larger
Internet
governance
ecosystem.
Bottom-‐up,
dialogic
decision-‐making
processes
are

lengthier,
but
they
yield
long-‐term
and
solid
results.
Top-‐down
decision-‐making
processes
are

faster
to
yield
results,
but
they
generally
lack
legitimacy
and
are
doomed
to
be
overturned
as

fast
as
they
are
adopted.
That's
why
multi-‐stakeholder
approach
yield
better
fruits.

Tatiana
Ershova:
What
countries,
do
you
think,
are
the
most
mature
from
the
point
of
view
of

modern,
rational
Internet
governance?

Hartmut
Glaser:
I
am
not
in
a
position
to
make
explicit
reference
to
any
country.
I
would
just

reiterate
the
importance
of
the
NETmundial
Statement
as
a
pointer
for
answering
that
question.

The
Statement
is
a
benchmark.
Countries
that
abide
by
the
NETmundial
Principles
and

are
committed
to
the
roadmap
therein
can
certainly
be
placed
at
the
top
of
the
ranking.

16

Tatiana
Ershova:.
The
Internet
has
brought
more
sharing
in
our
life
–
the
strict
copyright

paradigm
is
being
challenged
quite
seriously.
What
do
you
personally
think
about
sharing
vs

copyrighting
in
cyberspace?
Where
is
the
world
moving
at
this
point?

Hartmut
Glaser:
Nobody
ever
said
that
Internet
governance
does
not
involve
tough
trade-‐offs.

No
matter
the
final
result
of
the
equation
sharing
vs
copyrighting,
it
is
important
that
the

calculus
be
made
through
open,
bottom-‐up,
and
multistakeholder
practices
that
level
the

playing
field
for
all
stakeholders,
not
behind
closed
doors
and
in
small
clubs.

Tatiana_Intro+interviews_english

More Related Content

Similar to Tatiana_Intro+interviews_english

More from Peter Knight

Tatiana_Intro+interviews_english