there is a strong aim to foster dialogue with space industry and the private sector in this regard. dear colleagues, you will likely have noticed the close connections between the guidelines for the long-term sustainability of outer space activities and the unispace plus 50 thematic priorities. the guideline on the safety of space operations, to highlight an example, are fundamentally linked to the thematic priorities on enhanced information exchange on space objects an on an international framework for space weather services. the fact that guidelines on sharing orbital information on space objects, debris monitoring and space weather forecasts have already been -- reached consensus demonstrates a clear acknowledgment and international community of the importance of enhancing information exchange on space objects and events and on building up an international framework for space weather

services. regarding long-term work on other space activities, the thematic priority of legal regime of outer space and global space government current and future perspective, that's the title of the thematic priority number two, in combination with the thematic priority on enhanced information exchange on space objects and events, number three, is particularly interesting. allow me, therefore, to make an assessment of certain critical interlinkages. thematic priority number two on the legal regime strives to promote the universality of the five united nations treaties on outer space and assess the state of affairs of those treaties and their relationship with related non-legally binding instruments. the thematic priority aims to analyze the effectiveness of the legal regime of outer space and to identify areas that may require additional

consideration, there is a close connection between the work undertaken by relevant working groups of both the scientific and technical subcommittee and the legal subcommittee of copuos. in the avoidance of duplication of work, they are central pillars in this structure. the goal of thematic priority number three on enhanced information exchange on space objects and events is to define and develop requirements for enhanced information exchange and notification procedures, particularly on risk reduction efforts for safety of space operations cooperation mechanisms to support this objective should be identified and outreach activities on transparency and building measures encouraged. let me reiterate the importance of building a robust and cost efficient information system that in the end must serve all relevant actors.

i wish to recall for your information a report by the united nations information coordination, better known as u.n. space, which is under the leadership of the office for outer space affairs. this report was prepared by them close coordination with the united nations office for affairs and issues for copuos this june and you can find it as document a/ac 105/1116. the reported a dresses among other matters the current information exchange mechanisms and notification procedures under the local regime of outer space for which they discharge the responsibilities of the secretary general. among those are the register on space objects and operational mechanisms under the outer space treaty, rescue agreement and outer space principles. the united nations register is

the most important global treaty based transparency and confidence building mechanism in the space arena. given that they have the formal responsibility to discharge the authorities under the legal regime of outer space, there is increasing attention paid by copuos to study ways of gaining efficiency and avoiding duplication in fundamental registration and notification procedure at a governmental level. any efforts to support robust transparency and confidence build i building measures call for policy motivated requirements. the operational needs must not be underestimated and this is why there is a call by copuos to study those existing long standing mechanisms as a basis for enhanced risk reduction communication. i would like to recall the importance of the extensive

rescrew done ten years ago on enhancing registration practice. as you are aware, this work resulted in the successful general assembly 2007 resolution number 62/101. the resolution gives room for additional registration reporting on, for example, the change in status of space objects. it may be appropriate to look into the application and scope of this wrez electrocution in forming additional guidance for risk reduction notification. dear colleagues, let me turn to another but closely related area of sustainability that is also covered by dedicated unispace plus 50 thematic priority, namely on international framework for space weather services. it's becoming increasingly evident that there is a need to strengthen the reliability of space systems and their ability to respond to the impact of outer space weather and to

develop a space weather road map for information exchange on space weather events and their met separation. space weather is rised as a global challenge and increasing awareness of this issue will help to identify govern chance and corporation mechanisms. globally there is better understanding of space interactions. reliable of ground space-based assets and critical infrastructures are increasingly dependent on their ability to withstand the detrimental effects of space weather therefore the global community needs to be prepared. unoosa has been involved for many years, especially through dedicated scientific and technical activities with national space agencies including long-standing collaboration with nasa and through capacity programs on

space weather. we're working closely with the international civilization organization through a series of symposiums areas of concern to the aviation and space communities, including space weather. copuos is presently focusing attention on space weather through a dedicated expert group on space weather under its scientific and technical subcommittee. this work is closely connected to yuan space plus 50 and it serves with thematic priority number four. in conclusion, i trust that we show that while we as an international community have achieved already something significant in this area, a lot remains to be done to enhance the sustainability of outer space activities. unoosa is ready to do everything it can to collaborate with stakeholders to achieve the objectives set out by copuos for unispace plus 50 and beyond. leading towards 2018, unoosa

will raise awareness to present the work of the office and the committee and our efforts to foster peaceful cooperation in outer space. the office will be organizing a series of three high-level fora, space as a driver for socioeconomic sustainable development. the forum is being organized by the office for outer space affairs in collaboration with the government of the united arab emirates. the forum will be convened from the 20th to the 24th of november, 2016, in dubai. the high-level forum in november this year will facilitate a constructive dialogue between policymakers and key stakeholders in the broader space community to address the impact of economic, environmental social policy and regulatory dimensions of space. the forum will produce a declaration with a set of recommendations to shape and position space activities as drivers for innovation, socioeconomic development and diplomacy for a sustainable

future. the safety, security and sustainability of outer space activities have a fundamental impact on this process. working with all relevant stakeholders in addressing overarching long-term development concerns, a road map towards space 2030 will give us the tool to define concrete deliverables of unispace plus 50 and beyond based on the four pillars of space economy, space society, space accessibility and space i want issy space 2030 should help us, the space community, to address the importance of space activities to fulfill the sustainable development goals and to be sure that while space research, technology, and applications are drivers for socioeconomic development, no one is left behind. thank you very much. [ applause ] >> let's move along to david kendall, the chair on the uses of peaceful outer space.

>> certainly it's a privilege to be here with you today and to be invited to this event and i want to commend very much the u.s. state department and secure world for bringing us together to discuss this very important topic and to -- i don't like the word socialize but i will use it, socialize these long-term sustainability guidelines. as chair i hope this is the first of many such forums that i'm invited to by different countries. as many of you probably know, copuos has 83 member states, we'll have 84 hopefully by the end of this year when new zealand joins us and this is now very important is this effort that we need to make to ensure countries and states understand what we're doing and what the ramification

ramifications of these guidelines will be on all space actors of the future. as noted by simonetta and others, we've reached an important milestone. it's been a long, hard road and i want to give credit to the people who started this. this started well over ten years ago back with unispace 3 in 1999 when the genesis of the ideas of security and sustainability of outer space were put forward, brought forward by the chair of the scientific and technical subcommittee in the early early, carl deutsche and was picked up and very well developed by gerard brachet who we have in the audience when he was chair some decade ago that started the momentum going and supported, of course, by the office for outer space affairs who led a lot of that and, of course, has been picked up now by simonetta.

so there are many fathers and mothers of this process and it has been a very sustained and i think excellent collaboration, clearly a lot of -- you don't come to these agreements without some, i would say challenges, and there have been challenges. those have been, i think, extremely well handled by peter martinez on my left who will talk much more about the details but i'd just like to really as chair mention the collegiality we found inside the committee on putting this together. now we have 83 state, not all states have been fully engaged but all states have signed on and that's very important but states such as, of course, the

u.s., the russian federation, japan, france, china, india, germany, italy, canada, brazil, mexico, i can go on. these are the leaders who have come together week after week to really put these guidelines into the state we have them right now and let us not underestimate the importance of these guidelines as mentioned by simonetta and others, these are really i believe going to change the way we work in space collectively and globally. now, it's appropriate these come through cop puuoscopuos, the on platform we have that can discuss these types of issues and we are undertaking a re-evaluation of the agenda.

dealing with security in space, dealing with other thematic prior these simoneetta mentioned really start to -- we start to address nose an open way over the next decade leading as similar mon simonetta said, this space exercise which we will conduct in 2018. one way of looking at the long-term sustainability and the way i like to look at them is using the term that others have used, which is 's ttcbms. this term came out of a -- u.n. group of governmental experts that met about what will be four or five years ago. their report was agreed by the general assembly and is being

followed. the term is very apropos, we have to start working on much more transparency and we are going to need to build confidence amongst the various actors. question hear on a regular basis about the congested nature of space, how it is contested, how it is competitive and how it is vulnerable and there's not a week goes by without some issues that are being -- need to be dealt with on a fairly high level in order to ensure that we do not make a mistake and we have a really bad day up in the -- up above us, these tcbms, though, these transparency and confidence-building measures have to some extent been used over a number of years to develop a number of forums, not only the long-term sustainability, forums where

you -- one can obtain -- one can get major states together to discuss, coordination of their activities in key areas where we're dealing with space. i'll mention a few of them because it has been a -- i would say a relatively successful decade of starting to build this confidence. i mentioned the space debris committee, 13 major agencies that get together and at great detail discuss the way that space debris is being tracked is being handled, mitigated. most of you know about the iedc guidelines, the guidelines that -- non-binding guidelines that guide space actors as to how to mitigate against more -- adding to space debris. we have -- well, a very classic one is the international space

station. that has built confidence amongst major states in operating together in space. we have two new committees, consuco dealing with asteroid threat. the international asteroid warning network and the space mission planning advisory group which came out of the unispace plus 5 and copuos activities which are meeting on a regular basis to look at how to work together as nations to ensure that we can react to a possible asteroid threat. the icg, the international coordination group on global navigation satellite systems i think is another very good example of how countries are getting together, all those countries who now have interest in global navigation systems are talking to each other about compatibility, about how they're not going to jam each other's

signals and how they can share relative information. that's a huge breakthrough. again came out of copuos and unispace plus 50. great leadership has been shown there in a way we can work together, doesn't matter which states we are. we are on a good track, we need to do more. the long-term sustainability is -- activity is extremely important. we have now as simonetta mentioned, achieved a certain level of success. we have more work to do. the first 12 guidelines have been put in the bank and we are going to be working over the next two years at the next set and there are some very sensitive issues and peter will, i'm sure, mention some of those issues as we move forward. it's not going to be easy but we have to work together and now we

have to -- as this meeting is why we're here we have to start to talk about these guidelines because near are going to affect the way that nations do their business in space as a leadoff speaker said, safe and responsible use of outer space is the key and we need now to move forward and i'm pleased to be here and pleased that we are discussing these and such in open forum with all the stakeholders. one of the challenges we have in copuos is that copuos is made up of states. again, i repeat, we have 83, 84 states. the commercial sector, the academic sector are not members of copuos. how do we bring these extremely important parts of the community into the discussions? how do we listen do them? how do we ensure that we have

their ideas incorporated into these guidelines as we move forward? this is part -- and the agenda of copuos as we move forward and this is part of the high level s symposium that was just mentioned. i will stop there. but just to say that over the next two years as i am now the chair and take the chair for the next two years of the committee i give you my commitment this will be the highest priority as far as i'm concerned to bring these long term sustainability guidelines to the general assembly to get them approved in 2018 and to move forward with the agenda to increase these -- the sustainability activities through yuan space plus 50 so thank you very much for your attention and i look forward to hopefully chatting with some of you the rest of the day, thank you.

[ applause ] >> last but not least we have peter martinez the chair of the long term sustainability working group. he had quite a job herdsing cats so congratulations peter and thank you for coming to speak on this. >> thank you, victoria, good morning, ladies and gentlemen, it's a great pleasure for me to be here this morning to participate in this special event koo organized by the state department and secure world foundation to discuss the very important topic of space sustainability. i would like to thank the organizers of this event for the invitation to participate in this panel and for giving me the opportunity to prevent the progress on the bourquing group on outer space activities. the international regulatory framework for outer space activities is predicated on the notion that states as subjects of international law bear international responsibility and liability for outer space

activities conducted by entities under their jurisdiction and/or control. the number and diversity of space actors is increasing rapidly and the space environment is becoming increasingly congested in earth orbit with increased possibilities of contingency situations arising in or bit that could engadanger the safet of space operations to the detriment of a wide variety of space actors. the actions of a single actor in outer space could have serious consequences for many other space actors conversely, no single actor or even a group of like-minded states can adopt measures to mitigate entirely the risks posed by the congestion in the earth's orbital environment. this is an intransally multilateral issue, in his remarks david kendall showed you how copuos is the appropriately mandated multilateral body to address such questions. at the same time, the

non-governmental space actor is growing in size and importance and any multilateral solution to the problems of space sustainability must take into account the experience, capabilities and concerns of non-state actors. the private sector has experience in the conduct of space activities, it has a vested interest in a safe, stable, and conflict-free space environment with clear rules for the orderly and predictable behavior of all space actors. copuos has been addressing aspects of the long-term sustainability of our outer space activities, or lts, as we refer to it in the committee, for quite a number of years but it's only in the past few years it has taken a more wholistic approach to this topic and i would like to recognize this morning the presence among us of gerard brachet, a former chairman of copuos who played a leading role setting in motion the process that led to the

creation of this working group. building on the previous efforts of gerard, in 2010 the scientific and technical subcommittee of the committee on the peaceful uses of outer space established a new working group to focus on the long-term sustainability of outer space activities. the objectives and desired outputs of the working group include identifying areas of concern for the long-term sustainability of outer space activities and proposing measures in the form of a set of voluntary non-binding guidelines that could enhance the safe and sustainable use of outer space for peaceful purposes and the benefit of all found reis in 2011, copuos adopted the terms of reference and work plan for this working group which included a comprehensive list of pertinent topics for consideration by the working group, these topics were clustered into four broad thematic areas and in order to

expedite its work, the working group established expert groups to discuss the topics in these thematic areas in parallel. expert group a addressed sustainable space utilization supporting sustainable development on earth and explored the linkages between sustainable development on earth and space sustainability. expert group b addressed space debris, space operations and tools to support collaborative space situational awareness and i'd like to recognize among us the presence today of richard bineke, one of the co-chairs of that expert group. expert group c addressed space weather issues and the affects of space weather on systems. expert group d expressed the regulatory regimes and guidance for space actors in the space arena and we're privileged to have among us one of the co-chairs of that group professor sergio marcchesio who will speak in a subsequent

panel. the expert group comprised experts nominated by the member states and i would like to take the opportunity to thank the member states for supporting the participation of the experts in these groups for a number of years. most of the guidelines that we adopted in june this year were the ones that reached a high level of maturity, particularly because of the inputs of the experts in the early discussions and the proposals of those guideline so thank you to all of the member states who contributed their experts for quite a number of years. in contrast to the diplomatic negotiating format of copuos discussions, the expert groups were delivered at fora in which the experts exchanged their views and proposed draft guidelines if the consideration of the working group, inputs from non-state actors were received through the relevant member states of copuos or through the permanent observers to the committee.

these included intergovernmental organizations such as the itu, other u.n. entities such as the unoffice for disarmament affairs, professional bodies such as kospar or the iaa, international entities such as the iaf and industry associations of several countries. in addition, in 2013, a long-term sustainability workshop was organized during the 56th session of the scientific and technical subcommittee of copuos where representatives of national private sector entities and industry associations were provided by with an opportunity to share their experiences and perspectives on lts with members of the working group. by mid-2013, the working group had before it a compilation of candidate guidelines proposed by the four expert groups. in 2014, the working group consolidate it had candidate guidelines proposed by the expert groups to reduce duplication and overlaps and

during 2014 and 2015 several member states proposed additional draft guidelines for consideration by the working group. as of the start of 2016, there were 29 draft guidelines under consideration and it was clear the various guidelines were at different levels of maturity with some being largely agreed and therefore within the reach of consensus by copuos while other draft guidelines still needed substantial further discussion to build consensus. time does not permit me to give you a detailed blow-by-blow account of all the discussions in copuos. i see my co-panelist smiling here because he knows the details. suffice it to say that in 2016 the working group reached consensus on 12 of the 29 guidelines and it noted this state of guidelines was ready

for states and international intergovernmental organizations to consider implementing on a voluntary basis. the committee also agreed on a work plan for the period 2016 to 2018 to continue its discussions of the remaining guidelines and pream bird flu already a text with a view to providing a compendium of guidelines for long-term sustainability to be referred to the general assembly in 2018, the same year as unispace plus 50. the first 12 agreed guidelines represent the low-hanging fruit of the lts discussions but they also mark a significant step forward in that they will present the tangible progress that has been made in addressing space sustainability. the first set of guidelines create a foundation for further consensus building in copuos. time does not permit me to describe these 12 agreed guidelines in detail here and, indeed, they're readily

available on the webb side of the office for outer space affairs in the annex to the report of the 59th session of copuos. broadly speaking the agreed guidelines address the adoption and updating of national regulatory frameworks for space activities, the supervision of national space activities and the rational and equitable utilization of radiofrequency spectrum and oth/or bittal regi. there are a number of guidelines that address matters such as improving the accuracy of orbital data on space objects, the sharing of such information as well as the sharing of information, models and expertise on space weather phenomenon and on established practices for the mitigation of adverse space weather effects on space systems. lastly, some of the agreed guidelines address matters of awareness, capacity building and

research on ways to support space sustainability and to manage the space debris population in the long term. of the remaining draft guidelines currently under discussion some are closer to consensus than others. these include guidelines on exchange of contact information of spacecraft operators, exchange of information on or bittal events, conjunction assessments for objects in orbit and pre-launch conjunction assessments. there are proposed guidelines on enhancing registration practice, conducting space activities solely for peaceful purposes, on ensuring the security and integrity of ground infrastructures used to support space activities and also proposed guidelines on active debris removal and on destruction in exceptional circumstances of space objects in orbit. not surprisingly, the draft

guidelines where we are still far from consensus are those that touch on more sensitive topics such as the removal of space objects from orbit, issues of siber security, technology safeguards and intellectual property safeguards which the areas of international cooperation and information sharing. it is entirely possible that although the working group may not achieve consensus on some of the proposed guidelines within the current extended work plan, it may reach consensus on the need to continue discussions on those topics within copuos in future. indeed, one may identify topics currently not under discussion which could be addressed by copuos under the general context of lts in the future. perhaps issues arriving from on-orbit servicing or the placement of large scale korns lags in earth orbit could be the subjects of such future discussions and possibly future

guidelines, future proposals for guidelines. i would like to report in the period since june, we had a very successal intersessional meeting in vienna in late september and we're very hopeful that this has created fertile ground for making further progress in agreeing on additional guidelines in the coming sessions of copuos in 2017. i would like to in my state with a few reflections on the way forward both in terms of the process and substance of the lts discussions within copuos. from the press' perspective i would like to point out that as the lts process has gathered momentum, so, too, has the number of states participating actively in the discussions. dpurg the expert group stage of the discussions it was mainly the countries with established space capabilities that contributed to the initial drafting of guideline proposals but as the process entered the

negotiation stage more states started participating actively in the discussions. currently this stands at 45 member states. this is a very encouraging trend for a process that can only achieve result by consensus of the growing number of copuos member state which is currently stands at 83 and soon to be 84. working by consensus is slow, difficult work but in the absence of legally binding international instruments to promote space sustainability, the lts guideline prose ride is a pragmatic way for the global space community to take urgent action now to preserve outer space for future generations. from a substantive perspective, the working group will need to ensure the guidelines represent a balance of the interests of nations at different levels of development of their space capabilities. the barriers to space activity

are being lowered and many more actors are entering the space arena. it is in no one's interest for emerging space actors to repeat the lessons learned in the first 50 years of the space age on how to conduct safe and sustainable space activities. therefore, the guidelines should be seen as a strong encouragement for states with considerable accumulated experience that space activities to share appropriate experience, establish best practices and relevant information we merging space actors to the benefit of all users of outer space. this accounts for the strong threat on international cooperation, information sharing, and capacity building that runs through the guidelines. of course the guidelines will only be effective if they are implemented by the member states to the greatest extent practicab

practicable. indeed, implementation of the guidelines will be the litmus test as to whether voluntary non-binding instruments can be an effective means to promote space sustainability. in this regard the implementation experiences of states will be useful to establish the effectiveness of the guidelines as well as to amend them if necessary. here again the implementation experiences of non-state actors will be a valuable source of information for the lts process going forward. we will also need criteria for the consideration of proposals for new guidelines and the amendment of existing guidelines in future. it is worth emphasizing that although the guidelines are voluntary and non-binding, this does not mean they are non-legal in the sense that states may implement the guidelines at national level in a way that has legal character for entities under their just dirks and/or control.

the speakers before me have highlighted the linkages ults discussion and the unispace 50 thematic priorities so i will not repeat what they've said. however, with regard to the future of lts discussions and copuos, the runup period to unispace plus 50 would be a good time to think about how we would like to structure the lts discussions in copuos in future. in the immediate post 2018 period, the emphasis on the discussions will probably shift from negotiation of new guidelines to implementation experiences, to the sharing of implementation experiences and discussions on procedures for the revision of guidelines or the introduction of new proposals for guidelines in future. the point is that maybe we should think about lts as being an activity under the main committee of copuos rather than under the scientific and technical subcommittee, as is the case at present as this would allow for improved

coordination and dove tailing of relevant lts-related activities under the agendas of the two subcommittees of copuos. the challenges of lts are inherently multilateral challenges and it's my genuine belief that in multilateral space diplomacy the international community has an opportunity to work together to find ways not only to expand the access to the benefits of space to more nations but also to ensure the space environment is preserved and protected for use by future generations. thank you for your attention and i look forward to hearing the perspectives of the other participants at this event. [ applause ] >> okay, great. that gives us some time for q&a. i'll use the power of the chair to start the discussion. peter, your presentation raised the question in my mind, do you guys envision guidelines, discussions, to be a permanent

part of the copuos work? ? >> thanks, victoria. i think this is something we will have to discuss in the next few years as the focus, of course, is necessarily on wrapping up the discussion of the guidelines currently on the table but as i said in my remarks, the implementation stage is going to be key so we need to figure out a way in which the implementation phase of lts will be discussed and whether this is through a -- an agenda item or some other mechanism is something we need to discuss and agree in copuos. >> i think from my perspective we do have to find a way to ensure this activity is not stopped or is not slowed down

through the -- after 2018, which is the extend to which the committee has extended the working group on the long-term sustainability. i think, though, there is very good signs that states that are members of the committee understand the importance of continuing this work as simonetta mentioned, there are quite a few linkages between the thematic priorities we are discussing now and the current primary issues that we're dealing with in the future. space debris mitigation and certainly remediation is one that comes to mind straight away and that is part of where i think unispace plus 50 is moving through some of its priorities. space weather is another one

that simonetta mentioned which is clearly something we need to continue to work on and to strengthen the governance i would say, global governance, of this activity. so, yes, i'm very hopeful that we have a good path forward to ensure that we will continue the important work and as peter mentioned, share now hopefully practices that -- where these guidelines are being implement bid many states which i think is absolutely crucial to enshurp that dialogue is -- there's a mechanism for that dialogue moving forward. >> >> following up on that, everyone mentioned that copuos now has 83 -- soon to be 84 members. that's a lot of different view points and perspectives. i'm wondering if you envision the possibility of changing how copuos functions or the guidelines function to be from a

consensus-based organization to majority vote organization. >> i can also reply on this. i'm the executive. >> thank you, victoria. i won't respond directly to the question you've just asked but i will give you a perspective from the lts view point. we are very mindful that as more states join the discussion that there is a danger of reopening guidelines that have been agreed to by consensus in the past so these guidelines that we agreed to in june, there was an understanding in the committee that those would not be touched again in the period for 2018. there may be at the end when we compile the compendium we may need to harmonize some of the guidelines to address issues of terminology or whatever but

there's an understanding in the working group that we would not reopen those guidelines so what do we do between now and 2018? as we move forward and hopefully reach an agreement guidelines i section. as chair of the working group, i would hope we could be in a situation where as we reach an agreement on guidelines in 2016 to 2018 period, we could agree to bank the guidelines and not reopen them and focus our discussion on the remaining body of material. so that is the pragmatic way in which we are addressing the development of the guidelines in the context where there's a growing number of member states. >> let me just say as chair having to reach consensus amongst 83 states with different

outlooks on the way the world functions is certainly a challenge but also a great benefit. once you do reach that cabo san lucas us you have put off the table the issue that states can say i never agreed with that an finish the debate. you have finished the debate. you have a signed document in 83 states who have agreed to move forward in a certain way. getting there is tricky, yes. but in the end states in the committee understand that. and i think what we have achieved with long-term sustainability is an excellent example of how consensus can be reached in some very, very sensitive areas. i think personally i would not like to see modus oppoerandi

change. >> i can keep asking questions but maybe audience members with questions can raise your hands. can you please wait for the mic and identify your self. >> chris johnson from secure world foundation. you say some guidelines which you finalized some closer to consensus and some which are further away in reaching consensus. can you kind of give an outlook on the challenges in finalizing ones closer, challenges further away, and then within the u.n. what is the destination for those guidelines, once they are finalized, referral to general assembly and in what type of form within the u.n. are they

finalized. thank you. >> thank you for the question. so as i mentioned in my remarks, the guidelines where we're closer to achieving consensus are those dealing with, for example, the sharing of information on contacts of operators, orbital events, conjunction analysis. there are a number of open issues there, but i'm freely, cautiously optimistic we are able to reach agreement on those guidelines, guidelines where i think we may be a bit further from achieving consensus at this stage are the ones dealing with more sensitive issues such as cyber security or the removal of

objects from orbit. there are questions around the legal status of unregistered objects and so on. we will continue in terms of the mode of discussion. we will continue to discuss all the up guidelines in the upcoming sessions of the main committee and scientific and technical subcommittee. we have also in recent years followed the practice of having intercessional meetings. as i mentioned an intercessional meeting in vienna in the last week -- penultimate week of september, which was characterized by a remarkable spider of flexibility and cooperation on the part of all the member states present and a very well attended meeting. so i'm optimistic we will continue to make progress on all of the guidelines, even the ones

we're further from consensus at this point. we may not reach consensus on all elements but i'm optimistic we will reach consensus on many, if not most of them. for those to be done we may agree to continue those discussions in an ongoing lts process of some sort. with regard to how the guidelines will be taken forward in the general assembly, there is a general understanding in the working group that the guidelines -- once the compendium of guidelines is compiled in 2018, that this will be referred to the general assembly in some appropriate form. that form has to be decided by working group and endorsed by the committee. that decision hasn't yet been taken. it's the intent general assembly in 2018. >> i'll just add to that.

yesterday the report, "the general assembly approved by the general assembly. in that report, it notes -- the report includes an annex which has guidelines and those tentatively approved and those worked upon. there's a note in the resolution that says the aneck is not part of the formal approval process. so all states, all 193 states of the united nations now have before them a document which shows the current status of the long-term sustainability activity. although as noted, it is not part of the formal approval of the report for this year. the report does note the process

mentioned where we will be bringing forward with the general assembly in 2018, a full compendium of agreed upon guidelines is the plan. so again the general assembly is aware of the process as the report without the annex but is aware of the annex and process. >> i actually have a question for you slightly shifting focus a little bit. this has been in the news having signed agreements with sierra nevada and having cooperative efforts. i wonder if you could explain about agreements and what the status is onatus is on that. >> with pleasure. as i mentioned in my statement, there is a need and preparation to look at the entire and broader space community and also to look at new ways of

fulfilling our mandate in a way. under the umbrella of the human space technology initiative which stopped in 2010, we've been signing in particular three agreements recently. one with jaxa, for principle investigators, proposals from principle investigators from developing countries. and we just saw made the announcement last year together, made the selection together and just selected the first cube set from the universe which is going to fly -- deploy from the module on the international space station next year. that's the first part.

it's already a first step to start doing capacity building in developing countries in a different way. not only capacity building, training, workshops, technical advisory, which are still very, very important. we continue to do that. there's also another way of helping developing countries with benefits of space activities for their own developments. the second agreement which has been signed back in march, because the one with jaxa was last year, so already advanced in a certain way and we just issued second announcement of opportunity in guadalajara for isc. the second agreement, as i said under the umbrella of sdi is an agreement i signed with the chinese space agency and is ab agreement in order to allow

developing cubs to some experiments in lower orbit through the chinese space station. we are in the process of, let's say, hire someone to do this job and we hope the opportunity could be out second quarter next year maximum beginning of summer period next year. and then we recently signed agreement with sierra nevada corporation that is a strong push in order to develop more and more collaborations with the private sector. in this case sierra nevada a unique development going, dream chaser. the idea is to have by 2021, first u.n. space nation with dream chaser where we will like to give open access to all

countries. so particular attention to developing countries again but to all countries. what we are doing in this case is to look for sponsors and contributors in order to have a donation paid by -- to support developing countries. we have some interesting dial ocean ongoing. the announcement of opportunity that's the target should go out july next year if everything goes well. in any case, as i said, time being target launch date is end of 2021 in for a mission in orbit, unmanned mission in orbit for 10 days. for what digital globe is concerned, it was signed last year and the first agreement signed with a private company.

they are very known company in the world for providing high-resolution images, which is quite important for our activities so the main goal of this agreement is to develop a platform. mainly for u.n. but for all the potential users. the agreement we have that we have to provide requirements for them to develop the best platform possible. in order to prepare them for this development, we have been working together. up to now we had what is called discovery days. already three discovery days. the first one was last year together with fao, because clearly we're working with other u.n. entities. the first one was in december last year in rome with fao.

then we had another one back in may, was in geneva. together observation and wmo. the third one last week organized with undp. this is because what we want to do is really to explain how good is this idea we've been developing and we want to collect users requirements and needs mainly from this stage u.n. entities. i have to tell you we're a minimum 40 people attending in new york. so i expect in the coming months to be able to provide a requirement document to develop this platform. >> other questions. i can keep going. anyone from the audience?

sor sorry. >> my name is audrey schaeffer and i had the privilege of being involved with negotiation last few years negotiating lts guidelines. in that time political dynamics have shifted quite a bit in a variety of ways both in the committee as well as the world. that has affected the negotiation of the guidelines during that time so i'm wondering from your perspectives, 2018, quite a bit of optimism, which i share, that will be able to complete negotiation of a second set and send full compendium. i'm wondering from your perspectives having watched the process how you think the politics will shape up and what the signs are that we can look toward to be optimistic that we'll be able to have a great success in two years.

thank you. >> i'll start off by not mentioning u.s. presidential election. i'm always an optimist. i believe through the process you know very well being a key member of the team who worked diligently over the past six years, the remarkable leadership of peter to get us to this stage. it relies on certain personalities. i believe the last six year developed a certain relationship between the various actors that has developed basically confidence in the process. i've been personally very i

would say pleased at the way the team works. clearly there's differences of opinion. these differences of opinion, as you point out, stem from geo politics often. but in the end the various states have given responsibility to people that got to know each other and got to know their way of working. u.n. while imperfect is, again, go back took the unique platform. if we didn't have u.n., we'd probably have to reinvent it. where else do we get together in order to discuss issues that are critical to the security and safety of outerspace activities for all actors. so a bit of a long answer to a simple question, and i am

optimistic although who knows what tomorrow will bring in the geopolitical arena. i believe that the major actors are working diligently towards the same area, direction. one thing, let me be quite blunt with you that worries me, discussions not in copious but on the conference of disarmaments and the areas -- more security areas that tends from time to time, i believe, to lean over towards the discussions in the peaceful arena of outerspace affairs. and i am not -- there's many more experts in the room that follow this much more closely. i believe that although there's a bit of -- continues to be

stalemate in the area, there is dialogue going on in these areas, was mentioned, i think, this morning, what was mentioned this morning about discussions between the u.s. and china, for example, on aspects of security in space. these are very positive. i think there is a willing -- i hope there is a willingness to continue those across powers to make sure we have understanding and, again, going back to the phrase that i used at the beginni beginning, transparency which is where we need to be. thank you. >> thank you, david. david has just said much of what i would have said, so i'll be very brief. audrey, i think you and all the others in this room today who have worked so hard in the

development of these guidelines, and i'd like to acknowledge too many to mention by name, but it's been a fantastic privilege to work with such professional colleagues in the past few years in developing these guidelines and continuing our discussions. what i've perceived as chair of the working group is a willingness by the member states -- first in appreciation by the member states that we really cannot fail. it has to succeed. we may differ on views in terms of the process going forward. there may be differences of opinion on certain substantive matters but there's a lot of common ground where we can make progress. it's my function in the chair to try and identify common ground where we can build consensus and to develop that as rapidly as

possible so we can then focus our discussions on the more difficult issues. i've seen a great willingness on part of delegations to really listen to each other's perspectives and concerns. i've also witnessed quite a lot of flexibility in terms of the discussions certainly that took place in june and more recently in september. and to go back to a point david mentioned about tcbms, the very fact we were able to reach agreement on the first 12 guidelines is in it's self tcbm, shows we can reach consensus on discussions on sensitive issues and builds confidence for the process going forward. thank you. >> yeah. more on the process, all the other points have been touched.

first of all, something asking, i would like to clarify currently office without space affairs, drafting a paper that will be presented for the first time in subcommittee and 2017 cycle, which means next year, beginning of next year. we are going to present some ideas for discussion and final decision by member stays on the organization of the activities for unispace plus 50, which would be a segment of the normal session in june 2018. where we expect to have two documents, one out of the meeting session in june 2018, one being the usual report, which will then produce in a way

that usually will be in the information document for the resolution and -- general assembly as usual. and then another document which could be probably resolution, again, to be discussed by member states in february next year, which will have a parallel life, which will deal mainly with it. 2018 is really an important milestone, and i would expect that all member states will look at june 2018 as a lending point overall, because from that point on, i am sure they will like to see the look at the future with different perspectives. so i'm quite confident that will be with all the players working

together towards same goal. i'm quite sure june 2018 would be a success. >> we have time for probably one more question. >> i will ask the last question then. seems a real commentary between guidelines and obligations that exist. i'm curious if you guys think that the community will ever move back towards treaties for space issues or are we doing sort responses to this? >> i think this is legal subcommittee to discuss. much easier to discuss this later on in the day. my view is that everybody would like to see some more teeth in what we're doing.

i think there's general consensus on that point. nobody really sees a clear path on how to get there is what as pointed out geo politics is going to be more and more -- it is all part of what we're working with every day in the committee. and the complexity of reaching a treaty now with the 83 states is i wouldn't say overwhelming but close to being overwhelming from the perspective i have unless there is a breakthrough. i think the breakthrough would only really come if the very top leaders of the major states decide this is something which they really need to move forward on. currently i do not see through

g7 or g-20 exercise, this being at that level. i think that's what it will take to make a breakthrough at a treaty level. >> thank you. >> yes, i agree with david. i think it's going to require leadership to move back to treaty making mode. we all know there is not at the present time a great appetite for negotiating new legally binding treaties. instruments like guidelines and pcbms are pragmatic measures we can take. our, i would like to remark that tcbms and guidelines if they are observed and implemented to the greatest extent practical by member states could lead to established practice of states and that might in the long run

create fertile ground for the discussion of more legally binding norms. for the time being, i think tcbms and guidelines are the pragmatic route forward to address a very pressing issues of immediate importance. >> just to say that it's been already mentioned by the the end of the year we will get -- reach 84. i can anticipate already a couple of preliminary information at least other two countries could ask for becoming members. at the very end, i believe this is the proof that we are fulfilling our mandate quite well. the mandate is to bring space to human kind. the more countries we get on board, the more it seems to me we are doing our job well

together. so if you look at the positive side of the story, the more we are, the more we can go together and be sure that what we do is not only, you know, important guidelines in the long-term sustainability but overall entire broad spectrum of space activities is taking care the maximum number possibility of countries and united nations members states. thank you. >> thank you. >> perhaps if i could just make one other remark. even quite apart from talking about new legally binding instruments, perhaps we should first strive to build universal adherence to space. even members that haven't ratified some of the basic instruments. so i think that is another area

that we should pursue to encourage ratification of existing space treaties. >> with that i think we're actually out of time. please join me in thanking that panel for a fascinating discussion. [ applause ] coming up this afternoon, we'll bring you a discussion on 2008 financial crisis and housing policy. it's hosted by george washington university lay school. live coverage on c-span2. with just a week to go both major party candidates are stumping for votes today. donald trump and mike pence in the battle ground state of wisconsin later today. c-span will have it live beginning 8:00 p.m. eastern. after that 45 mix later democrat hillary clinton will be meeting with voters in battleground florida, ft. lauderdale. see her remarks live 8:45 esh on c-span2.

>> on election day november 8th, the nation decides our next president and which party controls the house and senate. stay with c-span for coverage of the presidential race including campaign stops with hillary clinton, donald trump, and their surrogates, and follow key house and senate races with coverage of their candidate debates and speeches. c-span where history unfolds daily. this week on c-span2 we're featuring political radio programs with national talk show hosts. on wednesday live from washington, d.c., conservative radio talk show host hugh hewitt is live from 6:00 to 9:00 a.m. eastern. live thursday from noon to 3:00, author and progressive radio host thom hartmann. friday, mike gallagher show, live from new york city. all this week live on c-span2.

>> up next, national security and terrorism experts discuss how news and social media shape public reaction to terrorism. panelists discuss a report that examine how city officials and journalists respond to pulse nightclub terror attack. new america is the host of this program. it's about two hours. >> welcome. i'm pleased to introduce this event on terrorism in america in the digital age. my name is tom glaisyer, voice

and democracy fund, two organizations founded by ebay founder to ensure that the public comes first in our democracy. a new nonpartisan organization dedicated to helping america build a stronger democracy. like our sister organization, we are working to ensure our political system is responsive to the public and able to meet the challenges facing our nation. basically we seek to do things like make democracy work better. i focus on work around media on misinformation, sustaining local news and engagement. as political demagoguery heated up this last winter we found our self asking what role we could play to make things better but what dangers could take place that could actually make things even worse.

quite frankly we were concerned the election cycle and incurring violence could speed emotion in democratic institutions. while emergency managers think about public responses to major disasters, little attention is focused on how major shocks and disruptions can damage political institutions and processes. the paper launched today on the event provided tremendous opportunity to explore trat gis for developing greater civic resiliency in the face of such events. it is our hope expert reports like this one on this topic will prompt conversations among journalists, technology companies and others about practices and responses to the unthinkable and how these can strengthen rather than threaten the health of our democracy. i'm looking forward to the discussions this afternoon. the comment on behalf of democracy fund voice i would like to pass the mike to sharon.

>> thank you very much. thank you all here today and online. i'm sharon burke adviser on new america. adviser to the international security program and future of war, co-author of this report, which is terrorism in america in the digital age. i'm going to introduce my colleague peter singer in a moment but i want to thank tom and democracy fund voice. when we started this project some time ago, you know, i thought their mission was great. it was about revitalizing democracy and strengthening civil society. what he talked about in terms of erosion and long-term concerns, i was with him on that. i didn't think it was an urgent and immediate problem. hoping you're right, something for right now, not a concern about what happens next or ten years from now. so i'm glad to be a part,

supported by them. i also wan to thank people who worked on the project, lisa simms project coordinator, david, a co-author on reports and peter bergen and his team advised us and helped us all throughout. so peter is currently in iraq so he couldn't be here today. but we very much appreciate his work and all of the communications team here at new america that puts on these events. so i'm going to start by summarizing our report briefly and get into a conversation with dr. singer because he just came out with a new article in the atlantic i commend to everyone here about war going viral and war in the age of social media. we're going to talk a little about our report and his work and whether some of the similarities and differences there. then we're going to have a wonderful panel come up and i will introduce you to those at this time. we will have a discussion and then have some audience q&a.

i want to preset with you and the audience and audience online, university of central florida joining us online today, i just want to warn you i may look nice and friendly but please keep your questions to a question or as peter says something with a question mark at the end. if you monologue, i probably will cut you off. i'm not that friendly. peter singer here at new america, strategist and senior fellow. i'm looking at his bioto make sure i get the key points. he's one of the top national security experts in the country and haur an interesting focus on technology, a trend spotter, ahead of the game, and operating in just about every sector you can. he's advising hollywood, technologi technologists, so i'm glad to open this up and have a conversation. first off the report. when we started this report, we wanted to look at terrorism in america and how people react to

terrorism. of course in the middle of our study, the attack in orlando at pulse nightclub happened. that changed what we were looking at a little bit. to put it in a broader context, peterberg and his team have focused on what happened in america since 9/11. there have been 147 in killed in terror attacks, 94 at the hand of jihadists. most recently the places that ring a bell, san bernardino, orlando, stabbing in minnesota, new york city, new jersey and maybe even north carolina recently. it's too soon to tell what the details of that attack were but it's possible that was also a terrorist attack. political violence in this country, we've had a history of it for a long time. it's not jihadi violence. this is everything from the weather underground to possibly this new attack in north carolina. as i said, hard to say at this

time. it's not possible to stop all attack for all time, no matter how good our intelligence operations are, no matter how good our military is and very good gentlemen, we know that. we have a couple of army officers here, which is terrific. we can't stop everything for all time. so what do terrorists want? more than 30 years ago prime minister margaret thatcher said that, you know, publicity is the oxygen of terrorism. what they want is to affect how you feel, how you act, how your government acts. and they have their own goals. that is the definition of terrorism is a group that uses violence for a political or ideological cause. so that's what they want. so in other words, how you act is part of their strategy. resilience to such an attack should be and is part of any nation's counter-terrorism strategy and certainly part of

this nation's counter-terrorism strategy. so when lou back at the recent attacks that happened in places like san bernardino, i think when you look at polling, a lot of americans feel like they are at personal risk of a terrorist attack. the risk of any individual american being attacked isn't that high but why was san bernardino a target? because the perpetrators lived there. in other words, any given individuals not at a high risk of attack, any city could be attacked at any given time. every city in this country needs to be prepared for this kind of crisis and what they would do. this is what our report is looking at. dhs, department of homeland security defines resilience resist, absorb, recover from or successfully adapt to adversity or change in conditions. we looked at what determines resilience, what shapes resilience. a big part of resilience is who tells the story and what kind of story they tell.

how do they choose to shape the narrative. this is something that's changing dramatically in the era of social media so that's what we looked at, the how the way the story is told changing. we have a historical section in our report that starts with the world trade center bombing in 1993. the reason we started with that bombing, that's when you start to see live television coverage coming into play in a big way. also when cell phones first started making an appearance. they are so ubiquitous it's hard to believe there was a time so recently they weren't. that was the first time started to have people with cell phones calling news organizations, calling government and first responders with information. so we started from there and tracked how media and this personal ability to communicate from eyewitnesss, victims, and even perpetrators starts to shape the story. we went from there and looked at also

oklahoma city bombing. pretty much every attack that's happened since then. starting in '93 and of course before that, news media was largely the gatekeeper. they were the narrator and the ones that told you what the story was by how they covered it, what images they showed you and what they told you. that starts to change in the 2000s when camera phones arrive which happens in the early 2000s. again, hard to believe, probably everyone in here has a camera phone on them but that was just starting in the 2000s. saw that in 2005 metro london bombing, pictures people took from their phones were making it on "nightly news" and making it into newspapers for the first time really. 2009 ft. hood, that was one of the first jihadist attacks in the united states that was using social media, that social media picked up the story and began to shape it. boston bombing and we'll hear from panelist later firsthand what that felt like, saw good

changes with social media coverage. in two ways, officials were using it sometimes to really good effect and sometimes to spread misinformation such as there was a story there had been a bomb at the jfk library and boston police repeated the story. then it becomes an article of faith. also a social media platform read it. the users really kind of ran away with the story and started speculating on who the perpetrators might be. when law enforcement tried to get ahead of the story by putting out some early photos and users tried to guess who they might be, they guessed wrong. they identified a picture and matched it with a student who was missing. he was not the perpetrator but the pain and suffering it caused his family was awful. so this is when we first saw social media playing that kind of role for better or worse. in 2013, the westgate mall shooting in kenya, you had for the first time terrorist group

al shabaab live tweeting their own attack. again, this is a big change, right, from when news media decides what the story is to the perpetrator decides, directly communicating with the public what the story is. then all the way through today, where not only do you have that, you have live streaming. so now as i said, we spent a lot of time on orlando in our study, because it was the case study that we looked at. it happened in the milliddle ofr research. i'm not going bo too much detail what we saw and found because we're fortunate to have him here and he can best tell you what that looked like. what i do want to say as we're entering -- firmly in this area where news media is not the only gatekeeper and public officials don't necessarily control the story, what did we learn from orlando and all the other cases we looked at? at a time when eyewitnesss and victims and perpetrators and

observers thousands of miles away are going to shape the story and decide how the public reacts. what did we find? first we found leadership matters. even though you have so many people telling the story, first responders and public officials still have an authoritative voice in telling the story. so how they shape it, what they say, when they say it, to whom they say it really matters. and what you'll hear from mayor dyer, he felt differently about that and how he wanted his city to feel and think, and that matters. part of that is leadership matters, you have to be prepared. not only prepared, exercises for a crisis but prepared for the communications aspect and for the pace of it. in the case of orlando, this happened at 2:00 in the morning. the city had a little time to think about how it was going to respond. if it happened at 2:00 in the afternoon, they would have had to know right away.

the fact they were prepared and knew how to use social media for this kind of crisis would have made a huge difference. it did, even though they have a little time to craft their response. so social media and the pace of information has to be built into exercises. second, i think we found that it's really important to give the public a constructive role, to give them agency. so one of the things that we found that was very interesting is after the paris attacks, recent paris attacks, there was a police operation in brussels where they were hunting for some of the suspects. the brussels police communicated to the city, please do not post pictures or tweet where we're conducting operations, you'll just tip off the people we're looking for. and the city and the wider twitter community responded and began tweeting cat pictures -- i don't know if people remember

this, to the #, brussels lockdown. it buried things people were posting that might help find where they were doing these operations. the brussels police posted after that a picture of cat food and said, thank you, help your selves. so again, i think not just by being sophisticated with social media but by giving victims a way to not feel like victims, it helps with resilience. include communications and social media use and planning in real life really do as public officials and first responders need to know, need to have practiced and incorporated social media into your operations, eastbound for a small city. finally what we found was it's important to empower your local press. of all the press it tells the story they are part of your community, so they have a vested interest in the community being resilient because they live there, because their families live there. they also have the most local knowledge. so local press, even though they

are under a lot of pressure right now from all kinds of competition still has an important role to play. an out of state change become a different kind of press that will continue to be true. then finally social media companies we think need to embrace their responsibility here. they are the mass media of choice toward many, many people now. whether they see themselves in that light or not, it is the truth. some companies such as facebook have been pretty forward leaning and trying to understand what that means. they have community rules. they are experimenting with how to improve them. they are experimenting with how transparent to be. they are experimenting with collaboration with the government. facebook is by far the most used social media company and they try to embrace this role. they have people who look at counter-terrorism on their staff. so that's a good thing. there's also a lot of companies who will say things like twitter has community rules, we speak truth to power. that's great. that tension between dangerous

speech and free speech is very real and not something you can easily dismiss. a place like reddit where they can say we don't get into that, that rings hollow with something that happened like with the boston bombings where you ruin somebody's life. social media companies need to embrace their role and the fact they are mass media companies at this point. with that i'd like to turn to peter. peter's article in the atlantic called war goes viral. he focused on the side of the equation, partly this is a weapon and how isis and others use it. i have my notes, all the things i want to talk about. the first thing i want to ask you can you define homofly for us. >> dig down into the details.

it should be familiar to you, definition of love of self. what happens, there's an idea, seeming contradiction where this technology is supposed to be bringing us together. we're searching out and finding validation in people who think like us already. so you can see this in everything from sports. you connect to people who like the same team or hate the same team to the election where all the information is online. if you watch the facebook feed of a trump supporter versus a hillary supporter, they are in fundamentally different worlds. so you create these kind of ecochambers and it's the same thing happening on the violence side as well. to pull back on all this, what we were wrestling with in the project, emerson brookings

council on foreign relations is how the internet it's self is changing and how that affects all of us. the internet has gone from being used merely to transfer information back and forth, me e-mailing you, to also collecting information about the world around us. so your average smartphone has over 20 sensors on it. the camera to geo location, you name it. actually when you crunch the numbers, we have roughly 6 billion things online right now, the internet of things, smart cars, et cetera. you get up to 50 billion. actually that leads to a trillion sensors out there, things collecting information. the other shift what you're talking about, the rise of social media, we're not just collecting information, we're sharing it. we become distributors of information in the way media used to be. so the result is every single

actor in violence is online, be it isis, be it the u.s. military, be it the russian military, and every single act of violence is being talked about online usually in realtime now. often first. again, that's true whether you're looking at the case of the attack in orlando where, you know, literally the club's facebook account. >> seven minutes. >> seven minutes. it's telling people inside the club to run, yet you and i can track it from afar to right now you can track the battle with mosul via everything from youtube channel to instagram. this is something new, something different. >> the reason i started asking a specific term. you're painting a picture that it's this world of information and informers but also a world of selective truths and untruths. that makes it different, right? people are deciding which pieces

of that they want to hear. >> the way i frayed it is there's arguably no more secrets, but the truth is being buried beneath a sea of lies. we can see that playing out anything from electoral politics today and how that links to russian information warfare campaigns to the discourse over terrorism. you name it. homophily side comes in. it's strange, the way we think. we're more likely to believe information that connects and links the way we already view the world. when they did a study of what goes viral, it's not -- what you are most likely to share online. what you are most likely to share online is not defined by its truth whether it's true or not. it's by whether it validated what you thought before and how many of your friends already

shared it. so there's a little bit of a peer pressure side. the other thing that's disturbing, when you confront someone with a counter-argument, even if it's true, they are actually more likely to dig in and hold to their old belief rather than change their mind. if i say you're wrong and present facts to show you're wrong, you're actually less likely to be persuaded. >> you don't mean me personally. >> again, we all kind of feel that in the election right now. >> take that and tell us in the article you went to -- you talked about isis. so that's the general sort of swirling backdrop against which they are operating. if i remember right in the article, you know, a lot of people are talking about they are social media geniuses. i think you called them talented plagiarist. >> strategic plagiarist.

>> isis using social media in a way that's new and not new. talk about that, the way in which they are using it as a weapon. >> they are -- one analyst put it, first arguably terrorist group to own both physical territory and digital territory. you see echos in what they are doing with the classic story of terrorism it's self. terror doesn't take place in alley ways. you go back to attacks in judea, back when zealots are attacking roman soldiers or sympathizers. they make sure to do it in the square where everyone can see it. more recently terrorism defined as theater of violence, a top analyst do it. they are trying to do it in public. persuade -- it's all about emotion, publicity. the same thing if you look at their use of social media. one hand they are advancement. it's amazing to compare how al

qaeda communicated back to using vcrs and cable tv to now the social media side. much of what they are doing you can see parallel and best practices online. so they were going oh, my goodness. they launched their mosul offensive with a hashtag, which is what any video game or movie would do. they are highly visual. again, they try and work the system to their advantage, so go back to that mosul operation, they created an app for it that then spun out 40,000 retweets so that then their message started to trend. they had twitter's algorithm work the same way a political campaign would do it. they try to hijack conversations. they jump into conversations on everything from the world cup to interviews with minor youtube celebrities so they can get

attention. another example would be the buzzfeed style. they don't just have one message. they push out multiple messages. buzzfeed puts out roughly 200 stories a day. one of them takes off and the others do not. same thing in isis messaging. the other part, which is the tactic used by everything from, you know, the real strategists of social media, katy perry and taylor swift, it's the combination of being very strategic and tailored and also simultaneously you a thentdic. so katy perry arguably has the most twitter followers. she mixes promotion with very personal kind of messages that are dashed off quickly in a style that sort of connects to her followers. the same things if you look at what isis is doing, it's a mix of messaging and very kind of personal so you see everything

from battle footage to a guy complaining about everything from having potato peeling duty to putting up instagrams of his cats to musing on the death of robin williams and what the isis fighter thought about jumanjjum. they are taking the message into a different space where the cultivation began. it's the same thing that happened in online dating. you meet someone who sounds like you and take the message to the side and talk further. that's where we're seeing recruiting. it's partly in the open but also moving to a more personal level. >> so it's not just a nonstate group trying to look bigger than it is that's using this technique to a greater advantage. it's also the russians both with rt, their news media source

online and their use of social media, their hacks, all that. also you talked about in your article cyber nationalists of china. you talk about the role -- also the quote that really caught me you said something about it, it's a world without facts. so my questioning bundling all of that together is so what do we do in this world? how do you consider or how do you fight or deal with the fact you have isis to it to cyber nationalists who are trying to influence your public and tell the story. have you seen good strategies? what do you think a good strategy is? >> i love the message you have in your report. in discussions of everything from terrorism to cyber security, we're constantly using the two ds, defense and

deterrence. keep the bad guys out and/or scare the bad guys away. and in terrorism in cyber security and in this information warfare side, that is a losing game. as you put it, it's never going to give you 100% security because, one, there's actors that aren't deterrable. other actors already on the inside, so you can do whatever you want on the immigration on the wall side but inside, same thing in cyber security. instead, the magic word should be resilience. how do i power through the attack? how do i, to go back to use the taylor swift reference, shake it off. how do i remember quickly when i've been knocked down. it's the same thing when you're thinking about information warfare. the best way to respond is to be resilient. the best way to keep from being

manipulated is to know that someone is trying to manipulate you. and again, shrug it off, power through it, push out alternative messages that are just as adept, bury the lie in a sea of truths. that -- the challenge, and i think your next panel is going to get to this, it's the same thing again in all of these spaces, cyber security, terrorism, information warfare side is, is our current political system and media one that incentivizes resilience or rewards hysteria? is it one where the gate keeper, so to speak, whether it's a gate keeper who is an editor on a cable tv show, a gate keeper in terms of a media company, social media company, a gate keeper in

terms of a politician, are they incentivized to ramp up the anger, ramp up the fear factor, ramp factor? or incentivized to say we'll power through this. is it worse where they are existing in two different worlds? it's hard to be resilient if you and i have a different set of facts that happened. that's one of the major challenges of our democracy right now is how does it become more resilient to these forces? >> that's great. it's a terrific opening conversation for us to bring up the next panel. tell us before you go, then please peter will stick around for the q&a, you have a book you're working on? >> there is a next project that will try to pull back and look at this, not individual

examples, but figure out what's going on overall in terms of politics. >> we look forward to that book. can't wait. get busy. if i could invite the panel to come up right now. i will interest deuce them to you. this is a very distinguished panel. we want to make sure we get them correct. we have katie wheelbarger. previously miss wheelbarger served as deputy staff director -- i'm going to call you katie. on intelligence during the chairman of mike rogers. katie was council advisor to dick cheney and chernoff in the department of homeland security. graduate of ucla and harvard law school. next to her we have jewell why

it kayyem who is expert on homeland defense and national security having served as state official in massachusetts and department of homeland security. she is today an entrepreneur running her own company giving strategic advice and risk management planning, kayyem solutions. she is an analyst on cnn. she is a podcaster and author of new book called "security mom, an unclassified guide to protecting our homeland and your home" which came out in april 2016. immediately to my left is mayor buddy dyer. he served as orlando's mayor since 2003. he's a really important leader for central florida. if you think about orlando, orlando is not your average city of its size. it is one of the most visited cities in the world, certainly in this country. something like 49 million

visitors a year? >> 66. >> i'm off by a lot. 66 million visitors a year for a city that's i think 250,000 in the city proper and 1.4 million in the area. when you're mayor of that city, you have a really interesting set of challenges. i have a list of his accomplishments. he opened three community venues, the amway center, dr. phillips center of performing arts, camping world stadium, number two nationally best place to buy real estate. number three in job growth. my favorite, number four in the happiest place to work. he served in the florida senate as senate leader. he is a very experienced politician. he's been mayor since 2003. if i remember right, in 2004 he started his tenure off with three hurricanes and a tropical storm all in a row?

>> right. >> he got trial by fire. i was intrigued to see you have degree of civil engineering from brown university and jd in florida in some other florida city, and started out as environmental engineer. which is a topic near and dear to my heart. delighted you could join us today. katie, i would like to start with you. the question i have for you, you look at threat. tell us about the threat, is terrorism something americans still need to worry about, and specifically at home? is this a threat that's growing, that's getting worse? give us a sense. >> appreciate you having me here today. i think peter explained it in your discussion with him, gave a back drop of what we worry a lot on capitol hill. the morphing and changing behavior of the terrorist organizations, the stent to

which they are harnesses new media and new communication techniques to really bring new members into their fold and also inspire others around the world, even if they are not directly members. i will say though in some ways, looking at the threat now and par mistaking in the public dialogue, the post isil era, there is a silver lining to it is that i believe people are paying attention to it as they deserve to pay attention to it. those of us that were advocating to continue to worry about the terrorist threats the metastasizing threat around the world as different branches of al qaeda were opening and we were continuing to take in different military actions in more and more countries, there was a sense in america it was not something we wanted to think about any more or something we thought we had solved. we could deal with it overseas by military action. we had defended ourselves and made ourselves so secure in our homeland defense it wasn't as

much of a problem here. i think the event, not only the rise of isil but attacks in europe and america the last couple of years have actually brought the attention it deserves. the numbers we cite are a little sometimes don't necessarily reflect the true stent of the threat. you're unlikely statistically to be a victim of terrorism, but in ways the number of terrorist attacks we have not had is somewhat a sign of the success of our post 9/11 counterterrorism efforts. we've been lucky sometimes. i think the numbers are not what we should be looking at, but look at the fact there are growing organizations metastasizing organizations that right now continue to have people that are completely absorbed every day in doing external plotting against the united states. i just came back from afghanistan. i was there two days ago.

met with general nicholson. he likes to remind visitors that 20 of 90 designated terrorist organizations operate within the afpak area. many attempting to attack the u.s. personnel in those countries. jelalibad continues to be a hotbed. these are issues we are still confronting. the organizations are resilient. they are emboldened. i think they can absorb a lot of our military efforts. the coalition against isil is doing great things. some of us on capitol hill wish they could go a little bit faster. the slower the military efforts overseas take, the easier it is for the organizations to absorb the effort and to adapt to them. these are adaptable organizations. i'll end with one thought which is i'm heartened to see the

report because we do spend so much time when looking at the threat focused on how is the enemy using social media for their advantage? i think it's really important for us to get a better sense of how we can better use it to avoid the fear and the terror the terrorists actually want us to endure. >> one more question for katie. which is, so what do you think, if you had to characterize the view from congress and how congress is looking at terrorism and specifically at counterterrorism and the united states, how would you describe the level of interest of what members of congress want right now? >> i think, obviously, they want us to be secure. if i was being perfectly honest, the perspective i have is schizophrenic. right after an attack or a thwarted attack, the talk for the first few weeks after it is how can we harden our defenses, how can the fbi let this happen?

what could we be collecting more of? how could we not have known what that person was thinking. that's something else i want to foot stomp what you said earlier. we can't expect ourselves to be perfect. especially in defense. we are an open, civil society. i believe we need to do everything we can overseas to stop the organization from existing to avoid them inspiring others to do acts in the united states. we can't expect a level of perfection from our intelligence and defense agencies that they can't read people's minds. in some ways, you would be expecting them if you prior that. schizophrenic in the sense immediately after attack or a thwarted attack, they want to know what happened and how we could stop it. there might be civil liberties issues that come up later. why are these agencies doing x, y and z or correcting that information? they are trying to find the balance that the american constituency is trying to find

and get back to something peter said is sometimes we can find ourselves in the media loop of we get more attention if we're hysterical, whichever direction it goes. whether it's the hypersecurity side. we see that a lot on capitol hill. the little bit of the loud voices get the attention. most folks up there are strong on security and balanced in how to achieve it. we do see the same things they're trying to address in your report. we see on capitol hill. >> take that view, juliette. you have a really interesting perspective on this. not just because you're you. a federal official, a cia official, and then at the time that the boston marathon bombing happened, you were a cnn analyst and fresh off government service, i believe. not only that, it was your town, a mile from your house. so all of a sudden you're living a terrorist attack as a journalist, a public official, a

parent, a resident, a victim, it was your city, you were right there. can you give us your perspective, your multilayered perspective? >> i write about it in the book. thank you all for coming and thank you. it's an honor to meet you. and katie was my husband's student. i'm sure she did well. he did good in one regard. the boston marathon bombing both because i think it set the stage for what worked and didn't work for what happened in orlando, but my various roles. my life i had one career with many jobs. in federal government as state homeland security advisor i was in charge of the planning for the boston marathon many years before the attacks. it was very intimate with a lot of the preparedness and planning that had gone on. as some people in the audience

know, the brothers went to my kids' school. >> the anchors were saying newtown. >> and trying to give a sense of what was going. so part of what i viewed my role was describe how the apparatus works. why does it look like the cops are just standing there and what are they doing? also was interesting use of social media both good and bad. cnn had a major reporting error

wednesday when they announced an arrest and there wasn't. thursday night when for the first time the fbi and those who work with the fbi know how historic this was, crowd source and identification. there are millions of cameras at the finish line. the irony was given all those cameras, there was not good positioning of public cameras to figure out who theyer, of public safety cameras. so you saw the good and bad of this crowd sourcing, social media. it confirmed what i had been thinking about since i left dhs. we can tend to try to

rationalize away the threat of terrorism particular in the homeland by saying the statistics are so low, whatever. what i remind people as a mother of three, yeah, you can say that, but if my kid is that 0.001%, your statistics be damned, right? we have to accept as public officials the intimacy that people feel and fear that they feel. that does get to what i thought was so interesting about the report, if i could xent on a few things. homeland security, we actually don't talk about the department as being homeland security. any more than would you say the department of education is education policy. we really talk in terms of the homeland security enterprise. we also talk another pivot essentially after 2005 hurricane katrina, the department of homeland security came out in 2001 and the terror attacks in 2005 is what i call a course

correction after hurricane katrina which we also talk about all hazards. those two things combined really do try to invest the communities with a sense of trying to minimize all risks to the community. so you are training your public officials for all sorts of hazards. you try to maximize all national defenses, not just federal because the department is very small. people from fema, there are less than 3,000 people that work at fema. the muscle of public safety is on the state and local level. you also try to maintain our openness as a society. those shifts really do complement what's going on in social media. i want to just talk about after the boom side of this and something to think about in response to the report. it is true that i think that social media has the capacity to engage communities after any disasters, but we could talk

about terrorism specifically. in my field in 2001, we had a tendency to talk about to the public in a way that either made them tune out or freak out. we probably still do that. oh, god, the world is going to hell in a hand basket, i can't pay attention. or i can't go outside my house. my kids have to wear helmets in the basement. that's how we talk to people. trying to use social media to engage people to actually do something rather than read about it, be scared about it or whatever. so that's write think social media has this power to engage people in what we call the enterprise, which is the public, state and local first responders. ngos, the churches and faith based community, and certainly the network. so one thing that is worth noting is the stent to which we've become reliant on social media. i sort of put crowd sourcing and

shared economy, i put those all together. use i using the web or whatever to engage people who aren't physically in the same room. a lot of you are familiar with facebook sort of disaster ping. if something happens in paris, i advise airbnb, and to give them full credit, airbnb after orlando but certainly after paris and in the buildup to the hurricane, airbnb renters -- they are not called renters. i just exposed the fact i don't use them. but airbnb people who put up their homes, we notify them and say there are going to be people who may need homes. they're an incredible community. that is something you can do whether it's a hurricane or terrorist attack. you can engage and use the platform. uber. a lot of you noticed uber is helping out with flu shots