List of proposals for EuroDIG 2023: Difference between revisions

From EuroDIG Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 63: Line 63:
| 14 || [[consolidated_programme_2023#topic2_sub1_23 | Topic 2 / Subtopic 1 ]] <br /> [[consolidated_programme_2023#topic2_sub2_23 | Topic 2 / Subtopic 2 ]] || Wout de Natris || De Natris Consult || Private sector || || <span class="table-squares-23 ig-eco">n</span> || || || || || <span class="table-squares-23 s-a-c">n</span> || <span class="table-squares-23 t-a-o">n</span> || Internet fragmentation. Is Internet fragmentation to be prevented at all cost or is/are there a scenario or scenarios that would make fragmentation the preferable option? If so, what are they? Is the Internet already fragmented looking at it from e.g. a Chinese or Russian perspective?  
| 14 || [[consolidated_programme_2023#topic2_sub1_23 | Topic 2 / Subtopic 1 ]] <br /> [[consolidated_programme_2023#topic2_sub2_23 | Topic 2 / Subtopic 2 ]] || Wout de Natris || De Natris Consult || Private sector || || <span class="table-squares-23 ig-eco">n</span> || || || || || <span class="table-squares-23 s-a-c">n</span> || <span class="table-squares-23 t-a-o">n</span> || Internet fragmentation. Is Internet fragmentation to be prevented at all cost or is/are there a scenario or scenarios that would make fragmentation the preferable option? If so, what are they? Is the Internet already fragmented looking at it from e.g. a Chinese or Russian perspective?  
|- id="prop_15"
|- id="prop_15"
| 15 || [[consolidated_programme_2023#opening_plenary_23 | Opening plenary ]] || Wout de Natris || De Natris Consult || Private sector || || <span class="table-squares-23 ig-eco">n</span> || || || || || || || The future of Internet Governance. At the WSIS +20 advise will be provided on whether to continue with the IGF (and thus all NRIs, like EuroDIG). This merits a few timely actions and the answering of questions. 1. Has Internet governance a role after 2025? 2. Is there a role for the IGF after 2025? 3. If so, what are the decisive arguments? 4. How to win over those in doubt of multistakeholderism? 5. What are the successes of the IGF system? 6. Does the current model allow for tangible outcomes? These answers will assist those working towards WSIS +20 and provide the arguments in favour of continuation that can be used on meetings on Internet governance in general and the IGF in particular, also the ones that will be organised by our community and assist the makers of all the presentations that will have to be made globally. To do an inventory within EuroDIG would be a good start and a powerful message.
| 15 || [[consolidated_programme_2023#topic2_sub3_23 | Topic 2 / Subtopic 3]] || Wout de Natris || De Natris Consult || Private sector || || <span class="table-squares-23 ig-eco">n</span> || || || || || || || The future of Internet Governance. At the WSIS +20 advise will be provided on whether to continue with the IGF (and thus all NRIs, like EuroDIG). This merits a few timely actions and the answering of questions. 1. Has Internet governance a role after 2025? 2. Is there a role for the IGF after 2025? 3. If so, what are the decisive arguments? 4. How to win over those in doubt of multistakeholderism? 5. What are the successes of the IGF system? 6. Does the current model allow for tangible outcomes? These answers will assist those working towards WSIS +20 and provide the arguments in favour of continuation that can be used on meetings on Internet governance in general and the IGF in particular, also the ones that will be organised by our community and assist the makers of all the presentations that will have to be made globally. To do an inventory within EuroDIG would be a good start and a powerful message.
|- id="prop_16"
|- id="prop_16"
| 16 || [[consolidated_programme_2023#topic1_sub2_23 | Topic 1 / Subtopic 2 ]] / [[consolidated_programme_2023#flash06_23 | Flash 6 ]] || Marko Ala-Fossi || Tampere University || Academia || || <span class="table-squares-23 ig-eco">n</span> || || || || || || <span class="table-squares-23 t-a-o">n</span> || Together with a group of Nordic colleagues from Denmark , Norway and Greenland we are currently preparing a research project under a tentative title "The backbone of digitalisation: A New Nordic agenda for digital infrastructure studies."  
| 16 || [[consolidated_programme_2023#topic1_sub2_23 | Topic 1 / Subtopic 2 ]] / [[consolidated_programme_2023#flash06_23 | Flash 6 ]] || Marko Ala-Fossi || Tampere University || Academia || || <span class="table-squares-23 ig-eco">n</span> || || || || || || <span class="table-squares-23 t-a-o">n</span> || Together with a group of Nordic colleagues from Denmark , Norway and Greenland we are currently preparing a research project under a tentative title "The backbone of digitalisation: A New Nordic agenda for digital infrastructure studies."  
Line 71: Line 71:
| 18 || [[consolidated_programme_2023#topic2_sub1_23 | Topic 2 / Subtopic 1 ]] <br /> [[consolidated_programme_2023#topic2_sub2_23 | Topic 2 / Subtopic 2 ]] || Luiza Brandao || Alexander von Humboldt Foundation || Civil society || || || <span class="table-squares-23 hu-ri">n</span> || || || || <span class="table-squares-23 s-a-c">n</span> || <span class="table-squares-23 t-a-o">n</span> || Cross-border data flow is part of the internet global functioning, and has receiving attention from policymakers, regulators and courts in Europe, such as in the GDPR and the cases Schrems I and II, or at international negotiation to establish a new agreement with the USA, a digital single market, or to operate in the global digital trade. The proposals regarding the international aspects enabled by the internet also need to dialogue with the technical and architect aspects the networking. It includes intricate logics of operating traffic and routing internationally, which very often are restricted to the engineering field. The importance of the global internet for a digital future, as well as the need to guarantee human rights, such as privacy and freedom of expression, across multiple countries, combined with the threats of the internet's fragmentation and lost of its global nature justify the need to consider technical, political, economical, and social aspects of cross-border data flow. Multidisciplinary and public interest oriented dialogues, in spaces as the Euro DIG, are crucial to move forward in the comprehension and effective regulation of transnational data flows.  
| 18 || [[consolidated_programme_2023#topic2_sub1_23 | Topic 2 / Subtopic 1 ]] <br /> [[consolidated_programme_2023#topic2_sub2_23 | Topic 2 / Subtopic 2 ]] || Luiza Brandao || Alexander von Humboldt Foundation || Civil society || || || <span class="table-squares-23 hu-ri">n</span> || || || || <span class="table-squares-23 s-a-c">n</span> || <span class="table-squares-23 t-a-o">n</span> || Cross-border data flow is part of the internet global functioning, and has receiving attention from policymakers, regulators and courts in Europe, such as in the GDPR and the cases Schrems I and II, or at international negotiation to establish a new agreement with the USA, a digital single market, or to operate in the global digital trade. The proposals regarding the international aspects enabled by the internet also need to dialogue with the technical and architect aspects the networking. It includes intricate logics of operating traffic and routing internationally, which very often are restricted to the engineering field. The importance of the global internet for a digital future, as well as the need to guarantee human rights, such as privacy and freedom of expression, across multiple countries, combined with the threats of the internet's fragmentation and lost of its global nature justify the need to consider technical, political, economical, and social aspects of cross-border data flow. Multidisciplinary and public interest oriented dialogues, in spaces as the Euro DIG, are crucial to move forward in the comprehension and effective regulation of transnational data flows.  
|- id="prop_19"
|- id="prop_19"
| 19 || [[consolidated_programme_2023#opening_plenary_23 | Opening plenary ]] || Chris Buckridge || RIPE NCC || Technical community || || <span class="table-squares-23 ig-eco">n</span> || || || || || || <span class="table-squares-23 t-a-o">n</span> || Is the UN commitment to a multistakeholder approach to Internet governance (as enshrined in the Tunis Agenda) at risk as we move towards the WSIS 20-year review? Is there a need to better shape, define and evolve multistakeholder processes and modalities for Internet governance?
| 19 || [[consolidated_programme_2023#topic2_sub3_23 | Topic 2 / Subtopic 3]] || Chris Buckridge || RIPE NCC || Technical community || || <span class="table-squares-23 ig-eco">n</span> || || || || || || <span class="table-squares-23 t-a-o">n</span> || Is the UN commitment to a multistakeholder approach to Internet governance (as enshrined in the Tunis Agenda) at risk as we move towards the WSIS 20-year review? Is there a need to better shape, define and evolve multistakeholder processes and modalities for Internet governance?
|- id="prop_20"
|- id="prop_20"
| 20 || [[consolidated_programme_2023#topic1_sub2_23 | Topic 1 / Subtopic 2 ]] || Karen Mulberry || IEEE || Technical community || || || || || || || <span class="table-squares-23 s-a-c">n</span> || || Cybersecurity by Design - Building in Resilience Cloud security technologies are procedures and technologies designed to address external and internal threats to an organisation’s security. Despite ongoing technology improvements, gaps in cloud forensics have been found involving a number of stakeholders, including cloud service providers, cloud application developers, and cloud service users. Considering cybersecurity needs in the design stage of products or services is critical, as is convening all of the affected stakeholders in the process. The standards creation process can help bring together a wide variety of stakeholders to have the conversations needed, and to contribute to structuring the process of making systems safe and trustworthy for all. This is an especially pertinent topic for Europe, as it recently proposed in the EU Cybersecurity Act, which strengthens the EU Agency for cybersecurity (ENISA) and establishes a cybersecurity certification framework for products and services. https://engagestandards.ieee.org/cybersecurity.html
| 20 || [[consolidated_programme_2023#topic1_sub2_23 | Topic 1 / Subtopic 2 ]] || Karen Mulberry || IEEE || Technical community || || || || || || || <span class="table-squares-23 s-a-c">n</span> || || Cybersecurity by Design - Building in Resilience Cloud security technologies are procedures and technologies designed to address external and internal threats to an organisation’s security. Despite ongoing technology improvements, gaps in cloud forensics have been found involving a number of stakeholders, including cloud service providers, cloud application developers, and cloud service users. Considering cybersecurity needs in the design stage of products or services is critical, as is convening all of the affected stakeholders in the process. The standards creation process can help bring together a wide variety of stakeholders to have the conversations needed, and to contribute to structuring the process of making systems safe and trustworthy for all. This is an especially pertinent topic for Europe, as it recently proposed in the EU Cybersecurity Act, which strengthens the EU Agency for cybersecurity (ENISA) and establishes a cybersecurity certification framework for products and services. https://engagestandards.ieee.org/cybersecurity.html
Line 113: Line 113:
| 39 || [[consolidated_programme_2023#topic3_sub2_23 | Topic 3 / Subtopic 2 ]] / [[consolidated_programme_2023#flash09_23 | Flash 9 ]] || Callum Voge || Internet Society || Civil society || || || <span class="table-squares-23 hu-ri">n</span> || || || || <span class="table-squares-23 s-a-c">n</span> || <span class="table-squares-23 t-a-o">n</span> || Both the European Union and the United Kingdom have proposed new rules that seek to improve safety online. While these rules are well intended, both proposals take an approach that places an obligation on online communication service providers to screen private communications to detect harmful content. This obligation would, in practice, push service providers to either weaken or remove end-to-end encryption entirely. Encryption is an integral building block for the open, globally connected, secure and trustworthy Internet. Decisions made in the EU or the UK have global appeal and would be copied by other government around the world, including those that would exploit the loss of encryption for political control and censorship. Relevant documents: EU proposal for a regulation laying down rules to prevent and combat child sexual UK Online Safety Bill  
| 39 || [[consolidated_programme_2023#topic3_sub2_23 | Topic 3 / Subtopic 2 ]] / [[consolidated_programme_2023#flash09_23 | Flash 9 ]] || Callum Voge || Internet Society || Civil society || || || <span class="table-squares-23 hu-ri">n</span> || || || || <span class="table-squares-23 s-a-c">n</span> || <span class="table-squares-23 t-a-o">n</span> || Both the European Union and the United Kingdom have proposed new rules that seek to improve safety online. While these rules are well intended, both proposals take an approach that places an obligation on online communication service providers to screen private communications to detect harmful content. This obligation would, in practice, push service providers to either weaken or remove end-to-end encryption entirely. Encryption is an integral building block for the open, globally connected, secure and trustworthy Internet. Decisions made in the EU or the UK have global appeal and would be copied by other government around the world, including those that would exploit the loss of encryption for political control and censorship. Relevant documents: EU proposal for a regulation laying down rules to prevent and combat child sexual UK Online Safety Bill  
|- id="prop_40"
|- id="prop_40"
| 40 || [[consolidated_programme_2023#opening_plenary_23 | Opening plenary ]] || Sébastien Bachollet || Interne Society France (&) EURALO || Civil society || || <span class="table-squares-23 ig-eco">n</span> || <span class="table-squares-23 hu-ri">n</span> || || || || || <span class="table-squares-23 t-a-o">n</span> || Improving Digital cooperation is a key priority of the United Nations both at the global level and local level. Building on the roadmap for digital cooperation which suggested strengthening the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) ecosystem, it is essential to foster a multi-stakeholder approach and improve digital cooperation at the national and local levels. Cooperation between European IGFs, local and regional (NRIs), and between NRIs and the European institutions is key to enabling tangible outcomes for stakeholders.Improving Multi-stakeholder fora is a key priority for Internet end users and the other stakeholder groups. Their participation at all levels (national, regional and global) is very important for the various actors but also for the future of Internet Governance.Key questions arise: what role could the IGF and NRIs play after 2025? How to strengthen multi stakeholder cooperation at the local and regional level? How to take the messages developed at those levels to the global IGFs? How to encourage tangible outcomes for Internet users?
| 40 || [[consolidated_programme_2023#topic2_sub3_23 | Topic 2 / Subtopic 3]] || Sébastien Bachollet || Interne Society France (&) EURALO || Civil society || || <span class="table-squares-23 ig-eco">n</span> || <span class="table-squares-23 hu-ri">n</span> || || || || || <span class="table-squares-23 t-a-o">n</span> || Improving Digital cooperation is a key priority of the United Nations both at the global level and local level. Building on the roadmap for digital cooperation which suggested strengthening the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) ecosystem, it is essential to foster a multi-stakeholder approach and improve digital cooperation at the national and local levels. Cooperation between European IGFs, local and regional (NRIs), and between NRIs and the European institutions is key to enabling tangible outcomes for stakeholders.Improving Multi-stakeholder fora is a key priority for Internet end users and the other stakeholder groups. Their participation at all levels (national, regional and global) is very important for the various actors but also for the future of Internet Governance.Key questions arise: what role could the IGF and NRIs play after 2025? How to strengthen multi stakeholder cooperation at the local and regional level? How to take the messages developed at those levels to the global IGFs? How to encourage tangible outcomes for Internet users?
|- id="prop_41"
|- id="prop_41"
| 41 || [[consolidated_programme_2023#topic2_sub2_23 | Topic 2 / Subtopic 2 ]] <br /> [[consolidated_programme_2023#topic2_sub2_23 | Topic 2 / Subtopic 2 ]] || Lucien Castex || Internet Governance and Regulation Research Group, CIS CNRS || Academia || || <span class="table-squares-23 ig-eco">n</span> || <span class="table-squares-23 hu-ri">n</span> || || || || || <span class="table-squares-23 t-a-o">n</span> || Internet fragmentation and human rights. Is Internet fragmentation already there? Access restrictions, automated customisation, regulation have resulted in divergences in the way content and services are available to internet users. How should we assess the impact of the ‘splintering’ of the internet on Human Rights in the wake of the EU legislative agenda? The UN Secretary-General' report, Our Common Agenda, proposes a Global Digital Compact expected to outline shared principles and address key digital issues such as avoiding Internet fragmentation and applying human rights online as well as improving digital cooperation. How can EU commitment to promoting the development of a single, open, neutral, free and secure Internet be combined with a human right centric approach amid a tense geopolitical environment? This topic is particularly important for European Stakeholders in the “times of trouble”.
| 41 || [[consolidated_programme_2023#topic2_sub2_23 | Topic 2 / Subtopic 2 ]] <br /> [[consolidated_programme_2023#topic2_sub2_23 | Topic 2 / Subtopic 2 ]] || Lucien Castex || Internet Governance and Regulation Research Group, CIS CNRS || Academia || || <span class="table-squares-23 ig-eco">n</span> || <span class="table-squares-23 hu-ri">n</span> || || || || || <span class="table-squares-23 t-a-o">n</span> || Internet fragmentation and human rights. Is Internet fragmentation already there? Access restrictions, automated customisation, regulation have resulted in divergences in the way content and services are available to internet users. How should we assess the impact of the ‘splintering’ of the internet on Human Rights in the wake of the EU legislative agenda? The UN Secretary-General' report, Our Common Agenda, proposes a Global Digital Compact expected to outline shared principles and address key digital issues such as avoiding Internet fragmentation and applying human rights online as well as improving digital cooperation. How can EU commitment to promoting the development of a single, open, neutral, free and secure Internet be combined with a human right centric approach amid a tense geopolitical environment? This topic is particularly important for European Stakeholders in the “times of trouble”.
|- id="prop_42"
|- id="prop_42"
| 42 || [[consolidated_programme_2023#opening_plenary_23 | Opening plenary ]] || Giacomo Mazzone || Eurovisioni || Civil society || || <span class="table-squares-23 ig-eco">n</span> || || || <span class="table-squares-23 m-a-c">n</span> || || || || THE MANIFESTO OF PUBLIC SERVICE INTERNET TWO YEARS LATER: the manifesto about PSI signed by Habermas and Chomsky among many others, imagined that a different Internet is possible. a model based on public service principle, and different from the merely commercial one proposed by Internet Platforms giants as well as diverse from the model of social control proposed by China. What was seen at the time of its publication as a visionary proposal, now that EU rules over the platforms are entering in force (GPDR, data protection, DSA-DMA), seems possible and affordable. Having a debate around this proposal (and other similar, such as the "Solid" project of Tim Berners Lee) at EuroDIG 2023 seems very timely and appropriate, to check if a European way to the Internet of the future is really possible.  
| 42 || [[consolidated_programme_2023#topic2_sub3_23 | Topic 2 / Subtopic 3]] || Giacomo Mazzone || Eurovisioni || Civil society || || <span class="table-squares-23 ig-eco">n</span> || || || <span class="table-squares-23 m-a-c">n</span> || || || || THE MANIFESTO OF PUBLIC SERVICE INTERNET TWO YEARS LATER: the manifesto about PSI signed by Habermas and Chomsky among many others, imagined that a different Internet is possible. a model based on public service principle, and different from the merely commercial one proposed by Internet Platforms giants as well as diverse from the model of social control proposed by China. What was seen at the time of its publication as a visionary proposal, now that EU rules over the platforms are entering in force (GPDR, data protection, DSA-DMA), seems possible and affordable. Having a debate around this proposal (and other similar, such as the "Solid" project of Tim Berners Lee) at EuroDIG 2023 seems very timely and appropriate, to check if a European way to the Internet of the future is really possible.  
|- id="prop_43"
|- id="prop_43"
| 43 || [[consolidated_programme_2023#topic3_sub2_23 | Topic 3 / Subtopic 2 ]] || Giacomo Mazzone || rai || Press || || <span class="table-squares-23 ig-eco">n</span> || <span class="table-squares-23 hu-ri">n</span> || || <span class="table-squares-23 m-a-c">n</span> || || || || The arrival of DSA-DMA, the implementation of the GDPR and of the Audiovisual Media Directive, and of the EU new code of practice of internet platforms will finally create the conditions for a sanitization of the on-line ecosystem and to tackle disinformation, misinformation and their diffusion over the web. would be useful to make a point within the organizations that are active in this field to which kind of implementation is needed to be the more effective and the more protective for citizens without harming human rights. Organizations such as EDMO and the national hubs created by EU to fight disinformation, the EC team in charge of the application of the code of practice and projects such as the MPM - Media Pluralism Monitor and the guidelines for digital and media literacy are the interlocutors to be invited to join such collective reflection.
| 43 || [[consolidated_programme_2023#topic3_sub2_23 | Topic 3 / Subtopic 2 ]] || Giacomo Mazzone || rai || Press || || <span class="table-squares-23 ig-eco">n</span> || <span class="table-squares-23 hu-ri">n</span> || || <span class="table-squares-23 m-a-c">n</span> || || || || The arrival of DSA-DMA, the implementation of the GDPR and of the Audiovisual Media Directive, and of the EU new code of practice of internet platforms will finally create the conditions for a sanitization of the on-line ecosystem and to tackle disinformation, misinformation and their diffusion over the web. would be useful to make a point within the organizations that are active in this field to which kind of implementation is needed to be the more effective and the more protective for citizens without harming human rights. Organizations such as EDMO and the national hubs created by EU to fight disinformation, the EC team in charge of the application of the code of practice and projects such as the MPM - Media Pluralism Monitor and the guidelines for digital and media literacy are the interlocutors to be invited to join such collective reflection.
Line 135: Line 135:
| 50 || [[consolidated_programme_2023#topic1_sub3_23 | Topic 1 / Subtopic 3 ]] || Vladislav Ivanets || Free Moscow University || Civil society || <span class="table-squares-23 a-a-l">n</span> || <span class="table-squares-23 ig-eco">n</span> || || || || || || <span class="table-squares-23 t-a-o">n</span> || HOPE. «EU candidate states and their integration into the digital European legal space». In 2022, Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova declared their desire to join the EU in response to Russia’s aggressive war on the European continent. In addition to these countries, the current European Union enlargement program contains several other candidates, including a group of the Western Balkan countries and Turkey. But to what extent the legislation and infrastructure of these states are in line with current EU digital policies, laws, and technical requirements? How can the legal framework for Internet regulation in these countries be restructures to comply with European jurisdiction? What efforts and means are planned to be taken to reduce the technical differences and smoothly integrate the new states into the EU infrastructure landscape? What should be done about some still existing ‘restrictive’ local laws that contradict the humanitarian and legal foundations of Europe? Encouraging newcomers to join the EU, the Internet community, with the participation of parliamentarians, legal experts, and other stakeholders, should give a realistic perspective to the upcoming processes along the way.
| 50 || [[consolidated_programme_2023#topic1_sub3_23 | Topic 1 / Subtopic 3 ]] || Vladislav Ivanets || Free Moscow University || Civil society || <span class="table-squares-23 a-a-l">n</span> || <span class="table-squares-23 ig-eco">n</span> || || || || || || <span class="table-squares-23 t-a-o">n</span> || HOPE. «EU candidate states and their integration into the digital European legal space». In 2022, Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova declared their desire to join the EU in response to Russia’s aggressive war on the European continent. In addition to these countries, the current European Union enlargement program contains several other candidates, including a group of the Western Balkan countries and Turkey. But to what extent the legislation and infrastructure of these states are in line with current EU digital policies, laws, and technical requirements? How can the legal framework for Internet regulation in these countries be restructures to comply with European jurisdiction? What efforts and means are planned to be taken to reduce the technical differences and smoothly integrate the new states into the EU infrastructure landscape? What should be done about some still existing ‘restrictive’ local laws that contradict the humanitarian and legal foundations of Europe? Encouraging newcomers to join the EU, the Internet community, with the participation of parliamentarians, legal experts, and other stakeholders, should give a realistic perspective to the upcoming processes along the way.
|- id="prop_51"
|- id="prop_51"
| 51 || [[consolidated_programme_2023#topic1_sub1_23 | Topic 1 / Subtopic 1 ]] / [[consolidated_programme_2023#opening_plenary_23 | Opening plenary ]] || Vladislav Ivanets || Free Moscow University || Civil society || || <span class="table-squares-23 ig-eco">n</span> || || || || || || || RISK. «False Flag Participation». The participation of different stakeholders and organisations is crucial for Internet governance nature, but is it really equal, reliable, and sufficiently balanced? A brief observation of the latest IG events revealed that some participants and organisations are not what they try to seem. Quite often behind the screen of ‘civil society’, ‘academia’, ‘private sector’ and ‘tech community’ pro-government initiatives, gongo organisations, financial interests lobbyists, impostors or even detractors can be found. Do organisers of IG initiatives make enough effort to check and confirm that participants and organisations really belong to the groups they declare and speak from? Isn’t it a time for local and international IG communities to develop and implement some kind of filters or other tools for more transparent, trustworthy and equitable representation? This question is to be addressed to the secretariats and organising committees of IG initiatives, NRIs representatives, and reliable and verified participants from civil society, tech community, business, and academia.
| 51 || [[consolidated_programme_2023#topic1_sub1_23 | Topic 1 / Subtopic 1 ]] / [[consolidated_programme_2023#topic2_sub3_23 | Topic 2 / Subtopic 3]] || Vladislav Ivanets || Free Moscow University || Civil society || || <span class="table-squares-23 ig-eco">n</span> || || || || || || || RISK. «False Flag Participation». The participation of different stakeholders and organisations is crucial for Internet governance nature, but is it really equal, reliable, and sufficiently balanced? A brief observation of the latest IG events revealed that some participants and organisations are not what they try to seem. Quite often behind the screen of ‘civil society’, ‘academia’, ‘private sector’ and ‘tech community’ pro-government initiatives, gongo organisations, financial interests lobbyists, impostors or even detractors can be found. Do organisers of IG initiatives make enough effort to check and confirm that participants and organisations really belong to the groups they declare and speak from? Isn’t it a time for local and international IG communities to develop and implement some kind of filters or other tools for more transparent, trustworthy and equitable representation? This question is to be addressed to the secretariats and organising committees of IG initiatives, NRIs representatives, and reliable and verified participants from civil society, tech community, business, and academia.
|- id="prop_52"
|- id="prop_52"
| 52 || [[consolidated_programme_2023#topic1_sub2_23 | Topic 1 / Subtopic 2 ]] || Vladislav Ivanets || Free Moscow University || Civil society || || || || <span class="table-squares-23 i-a-e">n</span> || <span class="table-squares-23 m-a-c">n</span> || || || <span class="table-squares-23 t-a-o">n</span> || RESILIENCE. «The Visible Impact of Sanctions on the Internet Infrastructure and Community». The EU began imposing its sanctions on Russia in March 2014. By now, the 9th package of Western sanctions has already been announced against authoritarian regime, and Russia has become the world leader in the number of restrictive measures imposed on the country. But can we as a global Internet community feel the real impact of political, financial, technological, and industrial sanctions, or have the ‘canceling’ actions of the private sector and civil society proved to be more effective against the Russian authorities? Has Russia’s disconnection from SWIFT affected the spread of disinformation in Western countries (and what are the actual figures)? How has the banning of software for state corporations affected their destructive activities? Has the influence of pro-Russian political cells and ‘expert groups’ decreased in media due to the complication of funding and travelling (or did it rather affect academics and civil society)? Can sanctions and secondary sanctions affect the stability and connectivity of the Internet? Can the huge relocation of IT specialists from Russia affect the European labor market? Any other positive or negative VISIBLE outcomes of the Western sanctions for IG ecosystem and global Internet infrastructure? All these questions need a separate discussion between high-level speakers, business reps, civil society, researches, monitoring groups, and others.
| 52 || [[consolidated_programme_2023#topic1_sub2_23 | Topic 1 / Subtopic 2 ]] || Vladislav Ivanets || Free Moscow University || Civil society || || || || <span class="table-squares-23 i-a-e">n</span> || <span class="table-squares-23 m-a-c">n</span> || || || <span class="table-squares-23 t-a-o">n</span> || RESILIENCE. «The Visible Impact of Sanctions on the Internet Infrastructure and Community». The EU began imposing its sanctions on Russia in March 2014. By now, the 9th package of Western sanctions has already been announced against authoritarian regime, and Russia has become the world leader in the number of restrictive measures imposed on the country. But can we as a global Internet community feel the real impact of political, financial, technological, and industrial sanctions, or have the ‘canceling’ actions of the private sector and civil society proved to be more effective against the Russian authorities? Has Russia’s disconnection from SWIFT affected the spread of disinformation in Western countries (and what are the actual figures)? How has the banning of software for state corporations affected their destructive activities? Has the influence of pro-Russian political cells and ‘expert groups’ decreased in media due to the complication of funding and travelling (or did it rather affect academics and civil society)? Can sanctions and secondary sanctions affect the stability and connectivity of the Internet? Can the huge relocation of IT specialists from Russia affect the European labor market? Any other positive or negative VISIBLE outcomes of the Western sanctions for IG ecosystem and global Internet infrastructure? All these questions need a separate discussion between high-level speakers, business reps, civil society, researches, monitoring groups, and others.
Line 153: Line 153:
| 59 || [[consolidated_programme_2023#topic3_sub1_23 | Topic 3 / Subtopic 1 ]] / [[consolidated_programme_2023#topic3_sub2_23 | Topic 3 / Subtopic 2 ]] || Emilia Zalewska || NASK, Youth IGF Poland || Technical community || || || <span class="table-squares-23 hu-ri">n</span> || <span class="table-squares-23 i-a-e">n</span> || || || <span class="table-squares-23 s-a-c">n</span> || || If one had to decide what are the recent, most trendy words in new technologies, “metaverse” would definitely be one of them. Big tech companies are already investing tons of funds in creating a new, completely virtual world in which the humanity will work, learn, do business, spend free time and connect with others. Whether we share their enthusiasm or not, the level of global interest indicates that sooner or later at least elements of the metaverse will start to become more widely used. Even now, some platforms of this type are already quite popular, especially among younger users. For this reason, we should already be thinking about the potential risks and challenges of the metaverse and whether we have sufficient tools to counter them. For example, will the current regulations, like DSA or GDPR be able to provide sufficient level of protection for users, their data and privacy on such platforms? So far, technological breakthroughs have taken policy-makers by surprise, perhaps now there is a possibility to prepare for one of them in advance.
| 59 || [[consolidated_programme_2023#topic3_sub1_23 | Topic 3 / Subtopic 1 ]] / [[consolidated_programme_2023#topic3_sub2_23 | Topic 3 / Subtopic 2 ]] || Emilia Zalewska || NASK, Youth IGF Poland || Technical community || || || <span class="table-squares-23 hu-ri">n</span> || <span class="table-squares-23 i-a-e">n</span> || || || <span class="table-squares-23 s-a-c">n</span> || || If one had to decide what are the recent, most trendy words in new technologies, “metaverse” would definitely be one of them. Big tech companies are already investing tons of funds in creating a new, completely virtual world in which the humanity will work, learn, do business, spend free time and connect with others. Whether we share their enthusiasm or not, the level of global interest indicates that sooner or later at least elements of the metaverse will start to become more widely used. Even now, some platforms of this type are already quite popular, especially among younger users. For this reason, we should already be thinking about the potential risks and challenges of the metaverse and whether we have sufficient tools to counter them. For example, will the current regulations, like DSA or GDPR be able to provide sufficient level of protection for users, their data and privacy on such platforms? So far, technological breakthroughs have taken policy-makers by surprise, perhaps now there is a possibility to prepare for one of them in advance.
|- id="prop_60"
|- id="prop_60"
| 60 || [[consolidated_programme_2023#topic2_sub3_23 | Topic 2 / Subtopic 3]] / [[consolidated_programme_2023#opening_plenary_23 | Opening plenary ]] || Sorene Assefa Shifa || Cyber Czar || Technical community || <span class="table-squares-23 a-a-l">n</span> || <span class="table-squares-23 ig-eco">n</span> || <span class="table-squares-23 hu-ri">n</span> || || || || || || Several AU-led initiatives have been implemented at the continental level, including the Digital Transformation Strategy for Africa 2020- 2030, which sets out an overarching strategy for Africa's Digital Transformation, as well as the Data Policy Framework for Digital ID, the Digital Trade Protocol of African Continental Free Trade Area (AFCFTA), the Malabo Convention on Cybersecurity & Personal Data Protection, and the Lomé Declaration on Cybersecurity & fight against Cybercrime, plus other endeavours to enable a resilient digital future. Nonetheless, there is still a disparity in the level of readiness for digital transformation between countries. Lack of investment in digital transformation at the Infrastructure, Policy Implementation, and Digital Skills are unnerving challenges yet to address in Africa.WSIS envisions an information society that is knowledge-based, inclusive, and people-centered, in which everyone can create, access, use, and share information. In preparing for the Global Digital Compact, a collective effort and shared responsibility are essential. Processes such as WSIS and IGF outcomes should lay the groundwork for the future we want, which allows for all stakeholders to participate and share responsibility.SESSION OBJECTIVES 1.Discuss current and future digital cooperation between Europe and Africa.2.Sharing best practices and lessons learned from citizens of the two continents.
| 60 || [[consolidated_programme_2023#opening_plenary_23 | Opening plenary ]] / [[consolidated_programme_2023#topic2_sub3_23 | Topic 2 / Subtopic 3]] || Sorene Assefa Shifa || Cyber Czar || Technical community || <span class="table-squares-23 a-a-l">n</span> || <span class="table-squares-23 ig-eco">n</span> || <span class="table-squares-23 hu-ri">n</span> || || || || || || Several AU-led initiatives have been implemented at the continental level, including the Digital Transformation Strategy for Africa 2020- 2030, which sets out an overarching strategy for Africa's Digital Transformation, as well as the Data Policy Framework for Digital ID, the Digital Trade Protocol of African Continental Free Trade Area (AFCFTA), the Malabo Convention on Cybersecurity & Personal Data Protection, and the Lomé Declaration on Cybersecurity & fight against Cybercrime, plus other endeavours to enable a resilient digital future. Nonetheless, there is still a disparity in the level of readiness for digital transformation between countries. Lack of investment in digital transformation at the Infrastructure, Policy Implementation, and Digital Skills are unnerving challenges yet to address in Africa.WSIS envisions an information society that is knowledge-based, inclusive, and people-centered, in which everyone can create, access, use, and share information. In preparing for the Global Digital Compact, a collective effort and shared responsibility are essential. Processes such as WSIS and IGF outcomes should lay the groundwork for the future we want, which allows for all stakeholders to participate and share responsibility.SESSION OBJECTIVES 1.Discuss current and future digital cooperation between Europe and Africa.2.Sharing best practices and lessons learned from citizens of the two continents.
|- id="prop_61"
|- id="prop_61"
| 61'''*''' || [[consolidated_programme_2023#topic3_sub1_23 | Topic 3 / Subtopic 1 ]] / [[consolidated_programme_2023#flash04_23 | Flash 4]] || Soledad Magnone || Tampere University, CRITICAL project || Academia || || || || || || || || || The session would be a presentation by Reijo Kupiainen (cc'd) from CRITICAL group at Tampere University, specialised on media, information and digital literacy and young people. The presentation is in relation to a research that explored adolescents’ evaluation of the credibility of Instagram posts in Finland. For this, ten authentic Instagram posts were selected representing two themes: eating meat and digital healthy. Both themes are contradictory and of adolescents’ interest. In addition, the posts represented different image types (infographic, image of a person, meme, and promotion image) and different author types (organization, expert, celebrity, blogger, and pseudonym). A think-aloud methodology was used to investigate participants' (N = 15) evaluation practices when they explored the posts. Participants were instructed to verbalize all their thoughts simultaneously when they watched, read, and evaluated the posts. Think aloud-brought available adolescents’ concurrent thoughts when they evaluated multimodal Information. In the analysis, they used episodes as units of analysis. Episodes were used to capture the elements of the posts that adolescents paid attention to during credibility evaluation. Episodes were classified into five categories: 1) exploring an image of the post, 2) exploring a caption, 3) exploring a bio/profile, 4) final credibility judgment, and 5) other. In order to examine adolescents’ evaluation practices, they identified and categorized episodes that included an evaluative talk and analysed different evaluative "tracks”.
| 61'''*''' || [[consolidated_programme_2023#topic3_sub1_23 | Topic 3 / Subtopic 1 ]] / [[consolidated_programme_2023#flash04_23 | Flash 4]] || Soledad Magnone || Tampere University, CRITICAL project || Academia || || || || || || || || || The session would be a presentation by Reijo Kupiainen (cc'd) from CRITICAL group at Tampere University, specialised on media, information and digital literacy and young people. The presentation is in relation to a research that explored adolescents’ evaluation of the credibility of Instagram posts in Finland. For this, ten authentic Instagram posts were selected representing two themes: eating meat and digital healthy. Both themes are contradictory and of adolescents’ interest. In addition, the posts represented different image types (infographic, image of a person, meme, and promotion image) and different author types (organization, expert, celebrity, blogger, and pseudonym). A think-aloud methodology was used to investigate participants' (N = 15) evaluation practices when they explored the posts. Participants were instructed to verbalize all their thoughts simultaneously when they watched, read, and evaluated the posts. Think aloud-brought available adolescents’ concurrent thoughts when they evaluated multimodal Information. In the analysis, they used episodes as units of analysis. Episodes were used to capture the elements of the posts that adolescents paid attention to during credibility evaluation. Episodes were classified into five categories: 1) exploring an image of the post, 2) exploring a caption, 3) exploring a bio/profile, 4) final credibility judgment, and 5) other. In order to examine adolescents’ evaluation practices, they identified and categorized episodes that included an evaluative talk and analysed different evaluative "tracks”.

Revision as of 20:24, 27 February 2023

During the call for issues for EuroDIG we received 60 submissions in the period from 12 September till 31 December 2022. You can see the breakdown of proposals here and download the list of proposals as of 31 December 2022, 24:00 CET as pdf file. The list below is a rolling document where proposals will be added during the review period. Proposals marked with an asterisk * have been added after 31 Dec. 2022.

Categories are coloured as follows: (up to three categories per proposal could be selected)

 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 the head of the column. To restore the original sorting, just reload the page.