List of proposals for EuroDIG 2022: Difference between revisions

From EuroDIG Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 81: Line 81:
| 34 || [[Consolidated_programme_2022#fa03_22_sub2 | Focus Area 3 / Subtopic 2]] || Vlad Ivanets || YouthDIG / Youth Board of CCTLD.RU || Civil society || The IGF, the reform of the forum, and its transformation into the IGF+. Should the forum remain a platform for discussion or should it become a place for decision-making? How will the members of the new MHLB be selected and nominated? To what limits will their power and influence be limited? How to avoid imbalances in stakeholder groups when the tech companies gain more and more significance?
| 34 || [[Consolidated_programme_2022#fa03_22_sub2 | Focus Area 3 / Subtopic 2]] || Vlad Ivanets || YouthDIG / Youth Board of CCTLD.RU || Civil society || The IGF, the reform of the forum, and its transformation into the IGF+. Should the forum remain a platform for discussion or should it become a place for decision-making? How will the members of the new MHLB be selected and nominated? To what limits will their power and influence be limited? How to avoid imbalances in stakeholder groups when the tech companies gain more and more significance?
|- id="prop_35" class="hu-ri"
|- id="prop_35" class="hu-ri"
| 35 || currently open || Riccardo Nanni || University of Bologna || Academia || Individual self-determination in the context of the growing politicisation and economic relevance of (personal) data. This touches upon matters of digital literacy and public regulation.
| 35 || [[Consolidated_programme_2022#fa03_22_sub1 | Focus Area 3 / Subtopic 1]] || Riccardo Nanni || University of Bologna || Academia || Individual self-determination in the context of the growing politicisation and economic relevance of (personal) data. This touches upon matters of digital literacy and public regulation.
|- id="prop_36" class="hu-ri"
|- id="prop_36" class="hu-ri"
| 36 || [[Consolidated_programme_2022#pre05_22 | Pre Event 5]] || Xianhong Hu || UNESCO || Intergovernmental organisation || The COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated digitalization and dependence on digital communications providers in Europe and beyond. The value of the Internet has been underlined, while we are more aware than ever of the power of corporations, governments and forces against human rights and sustainable development, crafting the system to violate rights to dignity, democracy, expression and privacy. Within their capacity to shape the national internet experiences, governments can play both negative and positive roles, in relation to the potential of the Internet and advanced ICTs to support human rights, democracy and sustainable development. On the negative side, Internet cut offs and intrusive cyberlaws can harm the right to seek, receive and impart information and ideas. On the positive side, states can regulate to ensure accessible pricing for Internet access, protection of privacy, media and information literacy, transparency for internet companies, and more. To improve the benefits and reduce harms, a comprehensive and credible mapping of each national internet space can provide evidence about issues where national policies are working, and those that need work. This is the significance of the Internet Universality ROAM principles (Rights, Open, Accessible to all, and Multistakeholderism) which is a mapping instrument that serves as an evidence-based approach to facilitate digital collaboration at regional and global levels and improve national Internet experiences.
| 36 || [[Consolidated_programme_2022#pre05_22 | Pre Event 5]] || Xianhong Hu || UNESCO || Intergovernmental organisation || The COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated digitalization and dependence on digital communications providers in Europe and beyond. The value of the Internet has been underlined, while we are more aware than ever of the power of corporations, governments and forces against human rights and sustainable development, crafting the system to violate rights to dignity, democracy, expression and privacy. Within their capacity to shape the national internet experiences, governments can play both negative and positive roles, in relation to the potential of the Internet and advanced ICTs to support human rights, democracy and sustainable development. On the negative side, Internet cut offs and intrusive cyberlaws can harm the right to seek, receive and impart information and ideas. On the positive side, states can regulate to ensure accessible pricing for Internet access, protection of privacy, media and information literacy, transparency for internet companies, and more. To improve the benefits and reduce harms, a comprehensive and credible mapping of each national internet space can provide evidence about issues where national policies are working, and those that need work. This is the significance of the Internet Universality ROAM principles (Rights, Open, Accessible to all, and Multistakeholderism) which is a mapping instrument that serves as an evidence-based approach to facilitate digital collaboration at regional and global levels and improve national Internet experiences.
Line 149: Line 149:
| 68 || currently open || Saliha Mustafić || Student/University || Academia || Awareness about various forms of cybercrime and measures to prevent and tackle such issues is the only way to combat cybercrime. Cybercrime continues to evolve, with new threats every year. Abstinence from internet use is not the solution. Instead recognizing cybercrime and understanding the prevention and management strategy is important. Awareness needs to start from a young age, and crime should be prevented not cured.  
| 68 || currently open || Saliha Mustafić || Student/University || Academia || Awareness about various forms of cybercrime and measures to prevent and tackle such issues is the only way to combat cybercrime. Cybercrime continues to evolve, with new threats every year. Abstinence from internet use is not the solution. Instead recognizing cybercrime and understanding the prevention and management strategy is important. Awareness needs to start from a young age, and crime should be prevented not cured.  
|- id="prop_69" class="s-a-c"
|- id="prop_69" class="s-a-c"
| 69 || currently open || Vittorio Bertola || Open-Xchange AG || Private sector || The traditional view of privacy and security – and the way these rights are enshrined e.g. in the GDPR – is that the end-user must be in charge, deciding who to trust with their data and having full awareness of where the data goes. However, Internet platforms and device makers increasingly take an opposite view, turning their products and services into opaque boxes which transfer data through encrypted channels within a closed ecosystem, where the company controls both the end-user interface and the cloud servers that receive, process and store the user’s information. They claim that this is the only workable way to protect the user’s privacy and security, as average users do not have the technical and practical skill to make the right choices for themselves. However, smarter users increasingly have a hard time in controlling what their applications and devices do, as control points like a home network firewall, a DNS-based advertising blocker (PiHole) or an ISP content security service get bypassed. Can these different views around security coexist? Should users be granted the ultimate right to control what their applications and devices do, and how?
| 69 || [[Consolidated_programme_2022#fa03_22_sub1 | Focus Area 3 / Subtopic 1]] || Vittorio Bertola || Open-Xchange AG || Private sector || The traditional view of privacy and security – and the way these rights are enshrined e.g. in the GDPR – is that the end-user must be in charge, deciding who to trust with their data and having full awareness of where the data goes. However, Internet platforms and device makers increasingly take an opposite view, turning their products and services into opaque boxes which transfer data through encrypted channels within a closed ecosystem, where the company controls both the end-user interface and the cloud servers that receive, process and store the user’s information. They claim that this is the only workable way to protect the user’s privacy and security, as average users do not have the technical and practical skill to make the right choices for themselves. However, smarter users increasingly have a hard time in controlling what their applications and devices do, as control points like a home network firewall, a DNS-based advertising blocker (PiHole) or an ISP content security service get bypassed. Can these different views around security coexist? Should users be granted the ultimate right to control what their applications and devices do, and how?
|- id="prop_70" class="s-a-c"
|- id="prop_70" class="s-a-c"
| 70 || [[Consolidated_programme_2022#fa01_22_sub2 | Focus Area 1 / Subtopic 2]] || Hendrik Ike || GÉANT || Other || In 2019, 84% of all European individuals between the ages of 16 to 74 regularly used the internet. For any of those individuals to be able to visit a webpage, an internet certificate or ‘badge of validity’ is required for the site to be accessible and secure for the general public. Internet certificates are also needed for mail servers, database connections and much more. The rules and policies needed to issue and assess internet certificates are regulated by the CA/B forum, a governance body made up of the most active certification authorities and vendors of Internet browser software. The issuing and subsequent validity of internet certificates is largely out of European hands. This has several negative consequences, with the most notable being the increasingly impromptu decision making of a unified body of non-European browser software vendors. Stringent rulings, such as lowering the duration of all certificate’s validity to a period of one year or increasing the level of auditing required to issue a credible certificate, have direct consequences for European internet usage.  
| 70 || [[Consolidated_programme_2022#fa01_22_sub2 | Focus Area 1 / Subtopic 2]] || Hendrik Ike || GÉANT || Other || In 2019, 84% of all European individuals between the ages of 16 to 74 regularly used the internet. For any of those individuals to be able to visit a webpage, an internet certificate or ‘badge of validity’ is required for the site to be accessible and secure for the general public. Internet certificates are also needed for mail servers, database connections and much more. The rules and policies needed to issue and assess internet certificates are regulated by the CA/B forum, a governance body made up of the most active certification authorities and vendors of Internet browser software. The issuing and subsequent validity of internet certificates is largely out of European hands. This has several negative consequences, with the most notable being the increasingly impromptu decision making of a unified body of non-European browser software vendors. Stringent rulings, such as lowering the duration of all certificate’s validity to a period of one year or increasing the level of auditing required to issue a credible certificate, have direct consequences for European internet usage.  

Revision as of 17:25, 11 April 2022

During the call for issues for EuroDIG we received 79 submissions in the period from 1 November 2021 till 3 January 2022 for the EuroDIG 2022 programme planning. You can find the breakdown here.

Categories are colored as follows:

 Access & literacy   Development of IG ecosystem   Human rights & data protection   Innovation and economic issues   Media & content   Cross cutting / other issues   Security and crime   Technical & operational issues 

You may sort the table by clicking at head of the column. To restore the original sorting, just reload the page.

You can also download the list of proposals as of 3 Jan. 2022 as pdf file.

Proposals submitted during proposal review phase / Planning Meeting / programme review phase