Raúl Echeberría: Okay I do many things on the Internet. I’m the CEO of LACNIC is the region­al reg­istry for Internet address­es for Latin America and part of the Caribbean. This is an impor­tant role because we have a bureau­crat­ic func­tion man­ag­ing IP address­es in the region, but at the same time the orga­ni­za­tion is a key play­er in the devel­op­ment of free Internet and infor­ma­tion soci­ety in the region. 

But besides that I have at least two oth­er roles. One is I’m a mem­ber of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group of IGF. I have been in that group since its cre­ation in 2006. The group has the respon­si­bil­i­ty of set­ting the agen­da of every IGF meet­ing every year and also to dis­cuss the for­mats and pri­or­i­ties for the meet­ings con­duct­ed, the open con­sul­ta­tions, and deal with the par­tic­i­pa­tion of the public—it’s a very impor­tant func­tion, too. 

And my—probably my third role is that I’m a mem­ber of the board of trustees of the Internet Society. I have been on the board since 2008. I served as chair of the board of trustees for three years between 2009 and 2012

Intertitle: Describe one of the break­through moments or move­ments of the Internet in which you have been a key participant.

Echeberría: Okay, this is dif­fi­cult to iden­ti­fy; just a few points. Probably respond­ing quick­ly, I think that one of the moments that I enjoyed par­tic­i­pat­ing in was the devel­op­ment of the Internet in Uruguay, my coun­try. I used to work at that time for a research insti­tute on agri­cul­tur­al issues. So we were one of the first orga­ni­za­tions con­nect­ing our­selves to the Internet. So I like to believe that I played an inter­est­ing role in devel­op­ing Internet in Uruguay. I was one of the main speak­ers, pro­mot­ers, of Internet at that time, more than twen­ty years ago. And this is prob­a­bly one of my per­fect moments. 

The cre­ation of LACNIC was also an impor­tant moment, espe­cial­ly for Latin America and the Caribbean. It was very nice expe­ri­ence because it was a group of peo­ple that just believed that we could have an orga­ni­za­tion in the region for man­ag­ing IP address­es but also for play­ing a role as cat­alyz­er of Internet devel­op­ment in the region. But we did­n’t have any­thing, so we start­ed from zero and so all the process for cre­at­ing LACNIC was very good, a very inter­est­ing expe­ri­ence and now we have evolved that orga­ni­za­tion to an orga­ni­za­tion that is well-recognized in the region as one of the most impor­tant actors in Internet and pub­lic pol­i­cy issues. It an orga­ni­za­tion of $6 mil­lion of bud­get. So I think that all those activ­i­ties [indis­tinct] with the cre­ation of LACNIC con­sti­tut­ed also a very inter­est­ing moment in my life…in the part of my life that is relat­ed with Internet things. 

The third thing prob­a­bly is my par­tic­i­pa­tion in the Working Group on Internet Governance and all the process of WSIS [pro­nounced eg. whizis”], the sum­mit on infor­ma­tion soci­ety. In 2004, the UN Secretary General formed a work­group that was known as WGIG [pro­nounced eg. whigig”], the Working Group on Internet Governance. And it was the first mul­ti­stake­hold­er expe­ri­ence in Internet gov­er­nance. The respon­si­bil­i­ty of that group was to pro­vide some infor­ma­tion on and rec­om­men­da­tions to the sec­ond part of the sum­mit that was held in 2005 in Tunis. 

All the work in the WGIG was very inno­v­a­tive, and all the par­tic­i­pants in the group learned very much about mul­ti­stake­holderism and how to inter­act with oth­er play­ers. We had very lit­tle expe­ri­ence in that sense before that. Now it seems that it’s very nor­mal­ly to work in a mul­ti­stake­hold­er envi­ron­ment, but it was a very keen expe­ri­ence, the cre­ation of that group and all the— And I think that it was an inflec­tion point in the sense that we could not— After the work it was impos­si­ble to go back in the evo­lu­tion of the Internet gov­er­nance mod­el. My par­tic­i­pa­tion in that group let also to my par­tic­i­pa­tion in the sum­mit, rep­re­sent­ing my coun­try as part of the offi­cial del­e­ga­tion. So I par­tic­i­pat­ed direct­ly in the nego­ti­a­tions that were cru­cial for get­ting an agree­ment in the sum­mit that includ­ed among oth­er things the cre­ation of the Internet Governance Forum and oth­er things. So all my par­tic­i­pa­tion since the Working Group on Internet Governance, the nego­ti­a­tions in the sum­mit was an intense expe­ri­ence and a real­ly impres­sive thing. 

Intertitle: Describe the state of the Internet today with a weath­er anal­o­gy and explain why.

Echeberría: It depends on what part of the Internet we see. If we see the impact of the Internet in the life of the peo­ple, so it’s right. Because real­ly the Internet is chang­ing every­thing in the world. Every human activ­i­ty is being impact­ed by devel­op­ment of the Internet. But if we look at the Internet gov­er­nance issues, I could say that it’s part­ly cloudy. And so I would choose this. If I have to choose only one, I think that it is part­ly cloudy. Because it’s nat­ur­al that since Internet has become real­ly extreme­ly impor­tant in the life of every­body in the world, even impor­tant for the peo­ple that don’t have access to the Internet because they are being impact­ed any­way. So the gov­ern­ments are more active in the dis­cus­sions. That’s nat­ur­al. Some gov­ern­ments have expressed some con­cerns about things. Many top­ics that are well-known, like cyber­crime, secu­ri­ty. So I think that we have a big chal­lenge in front of us that is to fit the expec­ta­tions of those gov­ern­ments and oth­er actors with­in the cur­rent mod­el of open­ness of the Internet. Because if we don’t demon­strate that it is pos­si­ble to address those con­cerns in a frame­work of an open and free Internet that is also a cat­alyz­er for the exer­cise of human rights— So if we can­not demon­strate that, the gov­ern­ments will look for oth­er ways to sat­is­fy their expec­ta­tions. So it’s part­ly cloudy not because some­thing bad is real­ly hap­pen­ing but because we have big chal­lenges in front of us.

Intertitle: What are your great­est hopes and fears for the future of the Internet?

Echeberría: It’s relat­ed with what I said right now. Some gov­ern­ments can think that the way to sat­is­fy their expec­ta­tions and address their con­cerns is through a wrong direc­tion. They could think that the right direc­tion for them to solve some issues could be prob­a­bly not direct action for most of the peo­ple. And so some­times we see for exam­ple that in order to improve the secu­ri­ty of their net­works or to reduce the impact of cyber­crime, some gov­ern­ments are tak­ing mea­sures that are reduc­ing the abil­i­ty of the peo­ple to exer­cise their rights. And some­times free­dom of expres­sion and right to pri­va­cy and oth­er rights are being impact­ed by gov­ern­men­tal mea­sures. Then in some cas­es those mea­sures are based in good faith. The gov­ern­ments real­ly are not try­ing, in some cas­es, to lim­it the rights but they think that this is the right path for solv­ing some problems.

In oth­er cas­es, we see that some gov­ern­ments take mea­sures that affect the human rights of their cit­i­zens. But it’s not sur­pris­ing because some­times they are the same coun­tries that are tak­ing the same kind of mea­sures in real life. So it is nor­mal to think that they would try to repli­cate on the Internet the view that they have about the soci­ety in general. 


I think that if we keep the Internet in the way that we think is good for the peo­ple, we will be impact­ing pos­i­tive­ly in the capac­i­ty of the peo­ple to exer­cise their rights. We can con­tin­ue cre­at­ing an Internet that is more open for some peo­ple than the life that they have today. We can help peo­ple to express them­selves, to access knowl­edge, to inter­act with more peo­ple around the world. So I think this Internet, if well-used, could bring humankind to a more open soci­ety and a more free soci­ety. Not free in the sense of not respect­ing rules. Free in the sense of free access to knowl­edge, free­dom to express them­selves, free­dom to com­mu­ni­cate with any oth­er per­son in the world. I see Internet as a plat­form for pro­mot­ing the devel­op­ment of the society—human, eco­nom­ic, and social devel­op­ment, and also as a cat­alyz­er for the exer­cise of human rights. 

And this is the bright part. When I see the chil­dren in the coun­try­side rid­ing hors­es with their small com­put­ers in with them, going to school, I think that this is a won­der­ful thing. This is how tech­nolo­gies is being used for bring­ing knowl­edge to peo­ple that before the Internet had more obsta­cles for com­pet­ing with the rest of the of the soci­ety. Competing in the sense of hav­ing the same rights or hav­ing access to the same con­tent, the same infor­ma­tion, knowl­edge, edu­ca­tion tools. And also for peo­ple liv­ing in— It’s an oppor­tu­ni­ty for many peo­ple for doing a new kind of busi­ness and selling…experiences like peo­ple in a small vil­lage prob­a­bly pro­mot­ing tourism in the area or sell­ing hand­i­crafts or pro­mot­ing their local prod­ucts in the world. Also per­mit­ting rela­tion­ship of stu­dents or researchers in devel­op­ing coun­tries to be in touch with col­league in uni­ver­si­ties in the devel­oped coun­tries, pres­ti­gious uni­ver­si­ties, and par­tic­i­pate in activ­i­ties togeth­er and being engaged in research that are con­duct­ed in oth­er parts of the world. 

So the pos­si­bil­i­ties of the Internet are infi­nite. It depends on us, how we can trans­form the Internet in what we think that it is pos­si­ble to be. 

Intertitle: Is there action that should be tak­en to ensure the best pos­si­ble future?

Echeberría: I think that it is impor­tant to con­tin­ue work­ing on increas­ing access. I think that when we used to speak about the dig­i­tal divide a few years ago, we spoke about the dif­fer­ences between devel­op­ing and devel­oped coun­tries. But the dig­i­tal divide has oth­er forms, too. Within the devel­op­ing regions, there are also dif­fer­ent sit­u­a­tions. And there are coun­tries that have indi­ca­tors that are almost com­pet­ing with the indi­ca­tors of devel­oped coun­tries. And there are oth­ers that have very low access. And so I think that we have to work not only in reduc­ing the dig­i­tal divide between regions but also try­ing to have a more homo­ge­neous devel­op­ment in devel­op­ing regions and also with­in the coun­tries, because it’s not the same sit­u­a­tion for some­body that lives in a big metrop­o­lis even in a devel­op­ing coun­try, the sit­u­a­tion of some­body who lives in the coun­try­side, or in the for­est, or moun­tains, or in some regions where the access is more com­pli­cat­ed. I think that it’s very impor­tant to work in edu­ca­tion and bring the tech­nolo­gies to all the chil­dren in the world. This is some­thing that we have to work on every day. Bringing the tech­nol­o­gy to the class­room, but at the same time try­ing to pro­mote a dif­fer­ent view about edu­ca­tion process­es in order to take advan­tage of the new tools that the chil­dren have access to. 

And I think the oth­er thing that we have to do is to work with gov­ern­ments, all actors around the world, try­ing to help them to devel­op poli­cies that are good for achiev­ing the goals that we are propos­ing. The Internet by itself is not valu­able for any­body. The Internet is valu­able if it impacts in the life of the peo­ple. So this is what we have to work on every day.


Help Support Open Transcripts

If you found this useful or interesting, please consider supporting the project monthly at Patreon or once via Cash App, or even just sharing the link. Thanks.