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 26: Line 26:
! Suggested issue
! Suggested issue
|- id="prop_1"
|- id="prop_1"
| 1 || not assigned yet || Amali De Silva-Mitchell || UN IGF Dynamic Coalition on Data Driven Health Technologies || Other || <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> || What is the optimal ecosystem to accelerate the space of data driven health technologies ? Are there better ways to build back stronger and faster ? What should we pursue and what should we shed from the experience of using telemedicine during covid ?
| 1 || not assigned yet || Amali De Silva-Mitchell || UN IGF Dynamic Coalition on Data Driven Health Technologies || Other || <span class="table-squares-23 a-a-l">n</span> || || || <span class="table-squares-23 i-a-e">n</span> || || || || <span class="table-squares-23 t-a-o">n</span> || What is the optimal ecosystem to accelerate the space of data driven health technologies ? Are there better ways to build back stronger and faster ? What should we pursue and what should we shed from the experience of using telemedicine during covid ?
|- id="prop_2"
|- id="prop_2"
| 2 || not assigned yet || Amali De Silva-Mitchell || UN IGF Dynamic Coalition on Data Driven Health Technologies || Other || || <span class="table-squares-23 ig-eco">n</span> || <span class="table-squares-23 hu-ri">n</span> || <span class="table-squares-23 ig-eco">n</span> || || || || || Doctor, medical staff, medical equipment and service access is in shortage and will reach a crisis soon. How can the internet and emerging technologies be used to assist healthcare, research, collaboration for service delivery and development, Including education?  
| 2 || not assigned yet || Amali De Silva-Mitchell || UN IGF Dynamic Coalition on Data Driven Health Technologies || Other || || <span class="table-squares-23 ig-eco">n</span> || <span class="table-squares-23 hu-ri">n</span> || <span class="table-squares-23 i-a-e">n</span> || || || || || Doctor, medical staff, medical equipment and service access is in shortage and will reach a crisis soon. How can the internet and emerging technologies be used to assist healthcare, research, collaboration for service delivery and development, Including education?  
|- id="prop_3"
|- id="prop_3"
| 3 || not assigned yet || Stephanie Teeuwen || Netherlands IGF (NL IGF) || Civil society || || || || <span class="table-squares-23 ig-eco">n</span> || || || || <span class="table-squares-23 t-a-o">n</span> || Internet fragmentation and the three categories of causes (technical, political, economic) and the two areas that are affected by internet fragmentation (economic, human rights).
| 3 || not assigned yet || Stephanie Teeuwen || Netherlands IGF (NL IGF) || Civil society || || || || <span class="table-squares-23 i-a-e">n</span> || || || || <span class="table-squares-23 t-a-o">n</span> || Internet fragmentation and the three categories of causes (technical, political, economic) and the two areas that are affected by internet fragmentation (economic, human rights).
|- id="prop_4"
|- id="prop_4"
| 4 || not assigned yet || Dennis Redeker || Universität Bremen || Academia || || || <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> || Quantum technology, including quantum cryptography, might upend the current system of (asymmetric) encryption including on the protocol level (if it ever comes to full implementation). Europe and European stakeholders should be prepared to co-design new post-quantum encryption, protocols and legal and ethical guidelines. This issue relates to privacy and human rights as well as demanding (potentially) new international agreements and institutions to govern a potential quantum future.  
| 4 || not assigned yet || Dennis Redeker || Universität Bremen || Academia || || || <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> || Quantum technology, including quantum cryptography, might upend the current system of (asymmetric) encryption including on the protocol level (if it ever comes to full implementation). Europe and European stakeholders should be prepared to co-design new post-quantum encryption, protocols and legal and ethical guidelines. This issue relates to privacy and human rights as well as demanding (potentially) new international agreements and institutions to govern a potential quantum future.  
Line 40: Line 40:
| 7 || not assigned yet || Pekka Mustonen || The Pirate Party of Finland || Other || <span class="table-squares-23 a-a-l">n</span> || || <span class="table-squares-23 hu-ri">n</span> || || || || || || While technology is developing and our everyday life is getting more and more digital we also have people who don't have access to any of this. There still are many senior citizens who have never touched a computer/mobile phone. How can we make sure that everyone is still able to survive in more and more digital world?  
| 7 || not assigned yet || Pekka Mustonen || The Pirate Party of Finland || Other || <span class="table-squares-23 a-a-l">n</span> || || <span class="table-squares-23 hu-ri">n</span> || || || || || || While technology is developing and our everyday life is getting more and more digital we also have people who don't have access to any of this. There still are many senior citizens who have never touched a computer/mobile phone. How can we make sure that everyone is still able to survive in more and more digital world?  
|- id="prop_8"
|- id="prop_8"
| 8 || not assigned yet || Frédéric Cohen || UN DESA/IGF - DC DDHT || Intergovernmental organisation || || <span class="table-squares-23 ig-eco">n</span> || || <span class="table-squares-23 ig-eco">n</span> || || || || <span class="table-squares-23 t-a-o">n</span> || The use of robotics as a model of life to develop health technologies  
| 8 || not assigned yet || Frédéric Cohen || UN DESA/IGF - DC DDHT || Intergovernmental organisation || || <span class="table-squares-23 ig-eco">n</span> || || <span class="table-squares-23 i-a-e">n</span> || || || || <span class="table-squares-23 t-a-o">n</span> || The use of robotics as a model of life to develop health technologies  
|- id="prop_9"
|- id="prop_9"
| 9 || not assigned yet || Hille Ruotsalainen || Tampere University || Academia || || || || || || || || <span class="table-squares-23 t-a-o">n</span> || Internet and media platforms
| 9 || not assigned yet || Hille Ruotsalainen || Tampere University || Academia || || || || || || || || <span class="table-squares-23 t-a-o">n</span> || Internet and media platforms
Line 68: Line 68:
| 21 || not assigned yet || Karen Mulberry || IEEE || Technical community || || || || || || || <span class="table-squares-23 s-a-c">n</span> || || Trust, Authorization and Cybersecurity Risks – Defining the Digital Future As Europe works to bolster the pending Cyber Resilience Act, including rules to ensure more secure hardware and software products, cloud computing becomes a critical component, including the need for authorization decisions based on projected cyber risk and authentication-based trust factors; defining security guardrails around identity, platform, and application-level security in remote access scenarios; and addressing how to dynamically alter security and auditing controls based on importance of data, the environment context, and the level of risk in authorised activities. Common technical standards can help implement the draft act. https://standards.ieee.org/industry-connections/cybersecurity-agile-cloud-computing/
| 21 || not assigned yet || Karen Mulberry || IEEE || Technical community || || || || || || || <span class="table-squares-23 s-a-c">n</span> || || Trust, Authorization and Cybersecurity Risks – Defining the Digital Future As Europe works to bolster the pending Cyber Resilience Act, including rules to ensure more secure hardware and software products, cloud computing becomes a critical component, including the need for authorization decisions based on projected cyber risk and authentication-based trust factors; defining security guardrails around identity, platform, and application-level security in remote access scenarios; and addressing how to dynamically alter security and auditing controls based on importance of data, the environment context, and the level of risk in authorised activities. Common technical standards can help implement the draft act. https://standards.ieee.org/industry-connections/cybersecurity-agile-cloud-computing/
|- id="prop_22"
|- id="prop_22"
| 22 || not assigned yet || Vittorio Bertola || Open-Xchange || Private sector || || <span class="table-squares-23 ig-eco">n</span> || <span class="table-squares-23 hu-ri">n</span> || <span class="table-squares-23 ig-eco">n</span> || || || || || - European regulation and Internet fragmentation In the last couple of years, the calls against "Internet fragmentation" have been multiplying; "avoiding fragmentation" has even become a theme at the IGF. However, there are parties that consider the new wave of European Internet regulation, and sometimes even the GDPR, as a form of fragmentation, as they impose localisation requirements, break data flows to countries that do not align with the GDPR, and create content control and moderation requirements that push the development of EU-specific services. Is this correct or not? Is national and regional regulation a form of fragmentation, and when: always, never, under some conditions? Are there any principles that could be suggested to promote good regulation that protects user rights while ensuring alignment with local values and jurisdictions?
| 22 || not assigned yet || Vittorio Bertola || Open-Xchange || Private sector || || <span class="table-squares-23 ig-eco">n</span> || <span class="table-squares-23 hu-ri">n</span> || <span class="table-squares-23 i-a-e">n</span> || || || || || - European regulation and Internet fragmentation In the last couple of years, the calls against "Internet fragmentation" have been multiplying; "avoiding fragmentation" has even become a theme at the IGF. However, there are parties that consider the new wave of European Internet regulation, and sometimes even the GDPR, as a form of fragmentation, as they impose localisation requirements, break data flows to countries that do not align with the GDPR, and create content control and moderation requirements that push the development of EU-specific services. Is this correct or not? Is national and regional regulation a form of fragmentation, and when: always, never, under some conditions? Are there any principles that could be suggested to promote good regulation that protects user rights while ensuring alignment with local values and jurisdictions?
|- id="prop_23"
|- id="prop_23"
| 23 || not assigned yet || Vittorio Bertola || Open-Xchange || Private sector || || || || <span class="table-squares-23 ig-eco">n</span> || || || || || - Implementing the Digital Markets Act The new Digital Markets Act, entering into force at the end of 2022, includes many new requirements and constraints for the dominant Internet companies. However, the devil is in the details and many of these requirements still need to be fleshed out and turned into practical guidelines. Staff in appropriate quantity and quality needs to be found and hired for this process and for the subsequent enforcement of the law. This implementation process is vital for the actual success of the Act, also given the likely legal and practical resistence by at least some of the affected companies; and it is important that it is done in a multistakeholder format, avoiding a private negotiation between the institutions and the gatekeepers. Are there any suggestions and proposals that the EuroDIG community could make to the Commission?
| 23 || not assigned yet || Vittorio Bertola || Open-Xchange || Private sector || || || || <span class="table-squares-23 i-a-e">n</span> || || || || || - Implementing the Digital Markets Act The new Digital Markets Act, entering into force at the end of 2022, includes many new requirements and constraints for the dominant Internet companies. However, the devil is in the details and many of these requirements still need to be fleshed out and turned into practical guidelines. Staff in appropriate quantity and quality needs to be found and hired for this process and for the subsequent enforcement of the law. This implementation process is vital for the actual success of the Act, also given the likely legal and practical resistence by at least some of the affected companies; and it is important that it is done in a multistakeholder format, avoiding a private negotiation between the institutions and the gatekeepers. Are there any suggestions and proposals that the EuroDIG community could make to the Commission?
|- id="prop_24"
|- id="prop_24"
| 24 || not assigned yet || Vittorio Bertola || Open-Xchange || Private sector || || || <span class="table-squares-23 hu-ri">n</span> || <span class="table-squares-23 ig-eco">n</span> || || || || || - The Data Act: user control on data and simpler cloud switching The proposal for a new Data Act introduces several provisions that are aimed at empowering users and promoting competition. It gives users the right to extract the data generated by Internet-connected hardware devices and move them to third parties; it introduces anti-lock-in provisions that should facilitate cloud infrastructure customers that want to move away from dominant platforms and into competing ones. However, there are views that advocate against this proposal, or that promote amendments that would significantly limit its impact. An explanation of the law and a discussion on its usefulness would be a good topic.
| 24 || not assigned yet || Vittorio Bertola || Open-Xchange || Private sector || || || <span class="table-squares-23 hu-ri">n</span> || <span class="table-squares-23 i-a-e">n</span> || || || || || - The Data Act: user control on data and simpler cloud switching The proposal for a new Data Act introduces several provisions that are aimed at empowering users and promoting competition. It gives users the right to extract the data generated by Internet-connected hardware devices and move them to third parties; it introduces anti-lock-in provisions that should facilitate cloud infrastructure customers that want to move away from dominant platforms and into competing ones. However, there are views that advocate against this proposal, or that promote amendments that would significantly limit its impact. An explanation of the law and a discussion on its usefulness would be a good topic.
|- id="prop_25"
|- id="prop_25"
| 25 || not assigned yet || Menno Ettema || Council of Europe || Intergovernmental organisation || <span class="table-squares-23 a-a-l">n</span> || || <span class="table-squares-23 hu-ri">n</span> || || || || || || Suicides by youngsters such as Amanda Todd in 2012 and Molly Russel in 2017 are widely covered in the media, exemplifying the ultimate psychological impact that hate speech and other harmful content online can have. The impact of hate speech on targeted individuals and groups is widely documented by institutional monitoring bodies, such as the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance of the Council of Europe, and NGOs. Yet, most hate speech goes unreported, and users, getting accustomed to hate speech, either believe that they can handle it or are too ashamed to seek support or unaware where to find it. How can we reach out to victims and, more broadly, how to support all those targeted by hate speech, before it’s too late? Are there appropriate support services in place, and are they up to the task? What is missing and which measures can different stakeholders, including internet platforms, NGOs and State authorities set up? The Council of Europe will conclude in the spring of 2023 a review study of support mechanisms for those targeted by hate speech across a selection of member states and providing examples of promising programmes, activities and policies. The study builds on the Recommendation CM/Rec (2022)16 on Combating Hate Speech adopted in May 2022, and it will serve as a strong bases to review how a comprehensive and multi-stakeholder approach can ensure effective support for the victims and targets of hate speech and other harmful content.
| 25 || not assigned yet || Menno Ettema || Council of Europe || Intergovernmental organisation || <span class="table-squares-23 a-a-l">n</span> || || <span class="table-squares-23 hu-ri">n</span> || || || || || || Suicides by youngsters such as Amanda Todd in 2012 and Molly Russel in 2017 are widely covered in the media, exemplifying the ultimate psychological impact that hate speech and other harmful content online can have. The impact of hate speech on targeted individuals and groups is widely documented by institutional monitoring bodies, such as the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance of the Council of Europe, and NGOs. Yet, most hate speech goes unreported, and users, getting accustomed to hate speech, either believe that they can handle it or are too ashamed to seek support or unaware where to find it. How can we reach out to victims and, more broadly, how to support all those targeted by hate speech, before it’s too late? Are there appropriate support services in place, and are they up to the task? What is missing and which measures can different stakeholders, including internet platforms, NGOs and State authorities set up? The Council of Europe will conclude in the spring of 2023 a review study of support mechanisms for those targeted by hate speech across a selection of member states and providing examples of promising programmes, activities and policies. The study builds on the Recommendation CM/Rec (2022)16 on Combating Hate Speech adopted in May 2022, and it will serve as a strong bases to review how a comprehensive and multi-stakeholder approach can ensure effective support for the victims and targets of hate speech and other harmful content.
Line 82: Line 82:
| 28 || not assigned yet || Desara Dushi || Vrije Universiteit Brussel || Academia || || || <span class="table-squares-23 hu-ri">n</span> || || || || <span class="table-squares-23 s-a-c">n</span> || || In May 2022 the European Commission proposed a “Regulation laying down rules to prevent and combat child sexual abuse” material online. The proposal provides a uniform approach to detecting and reporting child sexual abuse imposing obligations on online service providers. But it has been criticized for including measures which put the vital integrity of secure communications at risk and opening the door for a range of authoritarian surveillance tactics. The proposal allows the scanning of private communication with the purpose of searching not only for verified illegal child sexual abuse material (CSAM), but also for new photos and videos, as well as evidence of text-based “grooming”. Is this proposal balanced and proportional or will this mark the end of end-to-end encryption? Despite several safeguards, should providers have a duty to scan our conversations? In the long debates of child protection and privacy so far it seems that children have always been the ones to be sacrificed and this proposal is trying to change the situation. Can we have both privacy and child protection online without either one diminishing the other? Is this regulation the solution to child sexual abuse online? Can we fight these types of crime by changing technical standards?
| 28 || not assigned yet || Desara Dushi || Vrije Universiteit Brussel || Academia || || || <span class="table-squares-23 hu-ri">n</span> || || || || <span class="table-squares-23 s-a-c">n</span> || || In May 2022 the European Commission proposed a “Regulation laying down rules to prevent and combat child sexual abuse” material online. The proposal provides a uniform approach to detecting and reporting child sexual abuse imposing obligations on online service providers. But it has been criticized for including measures which put the vital integrity of secure communications at risk and opening the door for a range of authoritarian surveillance tactics. The proposal allows the scanning of private communication with the purpose of searching not only for verified illegal child sexual abuse material (CSAM), but also for new photos and videos, as well as evidence of text-based “grooming”. Is this proposal balanced and proportional or will this mark the end of end-to-end encryption? Despite several safeguards, should providers have a duty to scan our conversations? In the long debates of child protection and privacy so far it seems that children have always been the ones to be sacrificed and this proposal is trying to change the situation. Can we have both privacy and child protection online without either one diminishing the other? Is this regulation the solution to child sexual abuse online? Can we fight these types of crime by changing technical standards?
|- id="prop_29"
|- id="prop_29"
| 29 || not assigned yet || David Frautschy || Internet Society || Civil society || || <span class="table-squares-23 ig-eco">n</span> || || <span class="table-squares-23 ig-eco">n</span> || || || || <span class="table-squares-23 t-a-o">n</span> || The fragmentation of the Internet is pressing issue for Europe as well as the world at large. Governments and businesses across the world are increasingly making risky decisions that have the potential to adversely impact the open, global Internet - and they might not even know it. Risks to the Internet’s infrastructure can take many shapes - regulation of internetworking, sanctions impacting the availability of and trustworthiness of the Internet’s infrastructure, dangers to data security, and centralization of control - and can lead to geographical, political or experiential fragmentation of the Internet. This not only impacts the efficiency, agility and interoperability offered by the Internet but also has severe impacts on the global economy, innovation and access.
| 29 || not assigned yet || David Frautschy || Internet Society || Civil society || || <span class="table-squares-23 ig-eco">n</span> || || <span class="table-squares-23 i-a-e">n</span> || || || || <span class="table-squares-23 t-a-o">n</span> || The fragmentation of the Internet is pressing issue for Europe as well as the world at large. Governments and businesses across the world are increasingly making risky decisions that have the potential to adversely impact the open, global Internet - and they might not even know it. Risks to the Internet’s infrastructure can take many shapes - regulation of internetworking, sanctions impacting the availability of and trustworthiness of the Internet’s infrastructure, dangers to data security, and centralization of control - and can lead to geographical, political or experiential fragmentation of the Internet. This not only impacts the efficiency, agility and interoperability offered by the Internet but also has severe impacts on the global economy, innovation and access.
|- id="prop_30"
|- id="prop_30"
| 30 || not assigned yet || David Frautschy || Internet Society || Civil society || || <span class="table-squares-23 ig-eco">n</span> || || || || || || <span class="table-squares-23 t-a-o">n</span> || There are renewed calls from telecom operators proposing that online services should contribute to telecoms' infrastructure deployments. While this issue was debated and rejected a decade ago, it is important to explain how similar proposals effectively enacted in South Korea have led to a degradation in the Internet experience for users and an increase of costs. Also these proposals have a huge risk of fragmenting the Internet. This debate is currently expanding out of Europe to other regions, acquiring a global dimension.
| 30 || not assigned yet || David Frautschy || Internet Society || Civil society || || <span class="table-squares-23 ig-eco">n</span> || || || || || || <span class="table-squares-23 t-a-o">n</span> || There are renewed calls from telecom operators proposing that online services should contribute to telecoms' infrastructure deployments. While this issue was debated and rejected a decade ago, it is important to explain how similar proposals effectively enacted in South Korea have led to a degradation in the Internet experience for users and an increase of costs. Also these proposals have a huge risk of fragmenting the Internet. This debate is currently expanding out of Europe to other regions, acquiring a global dimension.
Line 118: Line 118:
| 46 || not assigned yet || Stephen Wyber || International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions || Civil society || || || || || <span class="table-squares-23 m-a-c">n</span> || || || || The internet brings huge possibilities to boost Europe’s capacity for education, research and access to culture. The pandemic – for those with the skills and connectivity to benefit – demonstrated how much progress could be possible towards a more inclusive Europe through providing remote access. However, it became clear that laws around online content – and in particular copyright – were far from well suited to this, and that too often, the possibility to continue with key public interest activities was dependent on the discretion of rightholders and other gatekeepers.   It would therefore be valuable, building on previous discussions at EuroDIG around the Digital Single Market (DSM) Directive, to look holistically at how well current rules and practices are serving us in terms of enabling access and use. In particular, it would be worth looking at unfinished business from the DSM Directive, as well as in the wider framework, in order to inform early thinking about what could be achieved under the next Commission.  
| 46 || not assigned yet || Stephen Wyber || International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions || Civil society || || || || || <span class="table-squares-23 m-a-c">n</span> || || || || The internet brings huge possibilities to boost Europe’s capacity for education, research and access to culture. The pandemic – for those with the skills and connectivity to benefit – demonstrated how much progress could be possible towards a more inclusive Europe through providing remote access. However, it became clear that laws around online content – and in particular copyright – were far from well suited to this, and that too often, the possibility to continue with key public interest activities was dependent on the discretion of rightholders and other gatekeepers.   It would therefore be valuable, building on previous discussions at EuroDIG around the Digital Single Market (DSM) Directive, to look holistically at how well current rules and practices are serving us in terms of enabling access and use. In particular, it would be worth looking at unfinished business from the DSM Directive, as well as in the wider framework, in order to inform early thinking about what could be achieved under the next Commission.  
|- id="prop_47"
|- id="prop_47"
| 47 || not assigned yet || Roberto Gaetano || EURALO || Civil society || || <span class="table-squares-23 ig-eco">n</span> || || <span class="table-squares-23 ig-eco">n</span> || || || || <span class="table-squares-23 t-a-o">n</span> || Last year we had a session on Delay-Tolerant Networks (DTN) in which we explored mostly the technical issues and the use for inter-planetary communication, while the governance issues were not addressed as they were not in scope. However, the need to address these governance issues using a multi-stakeholder model was expressed, to avoid that the standards in inter-planetary communication are driven by commercial interests rather than by consensus of the community. Potential interested organizations include IPNSIG and UNOOSA.
| 47 || not assigned yet || Roberto Gaetano || EURALO || Civil society || || <span class="table-squares-23 ig-eco">n</span> || || <span class="table-squares-23 i-a-e">n</span> || || || || <span class="table-squares-23 t-a-o">n</span> || Last year we had a session on Delay-Tolerant Networks (DTN) in which we explored mostly the technical issues and the use for inter-planetary communication, while the governance issues were not addressed as they were not in scope. However, the need to address these governance issues using a multi-stakeholder model was expressed, to avoid that the standards in inter-planetary communication are driven by commercial interests rather than by consensus of the community. Potential interested organizations include IPNSIG and UNOOSA.
|- id="prop_48"
|- id="prop_48"
| 48 || not assigned yet || Roberto Gaetano || EURALO || Civil society || <span class="table-squares-23 a-a-l">n</span> || || || || <span class="table-squares-23 m-a-c">n</span> || || || <span class="table-squares-23 t-a-o">n</span> || The issue is the problems that people in disadvantaged situations may face. A practical example is given by the Sámi population, nomadic rein herders in the north of Finland - and spread in the Artic region. Issues include the connectivity problem, the language problem (all Sámi languages are in the UNESCO list of endangered languages), lack of Universal Acceptance of their IDN character sets, and maybe more. It would be a great opportunity to have them at EuroDIG in Tampere.
| 48 || not assigned yet || Roberto Gaetano || EURALO || Civil society || <span class="table-squares-23 a-a-l">n</span> || || || || <span class="table-squares-23 m-a-c">n</span> || || || <span class="table-squares-23 t-a-o">n</span> || The issue is the problems that people in disadvantaged situations may face. A practical example is given by the Sámi population, nomadic rein herders in the north of Finland - and spread in the Artic region. Issues include the connectivity problem, the language problem (all Sámi languages are in the UNESCO list of endangered languages), lack of Universal Acceptance of their IDN character sets, and maybe more. It would be a great opportunity to have them at EuroDIG in Tampere.
Line 128: Line 128:
| 51 || not assigned yet || 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 || not assigned yet || 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 || not assigned yet || Vladislav Ivanets || Free Moscow University || Civil society || || || || <span class="table-squares-23 ig-eco">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 || not assigned yet || 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.
|- id="prop_53"
|- id="prop_53"
| 53 || not assigned yet || Natālija Bokučava || Internet Society || Other || || || || || || || <span class="table-squares-23 s-a-c">n</span> || || Combating the spread of false information with the involvement of law enforcement agencies, without restricting human rights.
| 53 || not assigned yet || Natālija Bokučava || Internet Society || Other || || || || || || || <span class="table-squares-23 s-a-c">n</span> || || Combating the spread of false information with the involvement of law enforcement agencies, without restricting human rights.
Line 136: Line 136:
| 55 || not assigned yet || Charlotte Freihse || Bertelsmann Stiftung || 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> || Decentralization as democratization: Mastodon instead of platform power With Musk’s takeover of Twitter, the disparate power that major platform owners currently hold is more visible than ever. If nothing else, this opens a window of opportunity to look at alternatives and reflect on the various design features we can opt for to prevent and defend against power imbalances. Is decentralisation the key? Could federated networks like Mastodon scale and still contribute to the public common good? We want to shed a light on these questions and more in our session because: While there is lots to be hopeful about, the road towards social platforms serving the common interest is still long – and rocky.  
| 55 || not assigned yet || Charlotte Freihse || Bertelsmann Stiftung || 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> || Decentralization as democratization: Mastodon instead of platform power With Musk’s takeover of Twitter, the disparate power that major platform owners currently hold is more visible than ever. If nothing else, this opens a window of opportunity to look at alternatives and reflect on the various design features we can opt for to prevent and defend against power imbalances. Is decentralisation the key? Could federated networks like Mastodon scale and still contribute to the public common good? We want to shed a light on these questions and more in our session because: While there is lots to be hopeful about, the road towards social platforms serving the common interest is still long – and rocky.  
|- id="prop_56"
|- id="prop_56"
| 56 || not assigned yet || Chris Buckridge || RIPE NCC || Technical community || || || || <span class="table-squares-23 ig-eco">n</span> || || <span class="table-squares-23 c-c-o">n</span> || || <span class="table-squares-23 t-a-o">n</span> || In light of ongoing climate-related crises and the global effort to address climate issues, it is vital to continue EuroDIG's focus on the relationship between Internet development and governance and environmental issues. The Internet offers an essential tool in understanding the situation and in mitigating the impacts of climate change (both for humans and the broader environment), but it also poses its own threats in terms of ICT waste, energy use and environmental impact. Like environmental governance, Internet governance is challenged to manage global, borderless resources through a combination of traditional state-based governance and emerging multistakeholder approaches - EuroDIG offers an important opportunity to explore those commonalities and identify opportunities for shared learning.  
| 56 || not assigned yet || Chris Buckridge || RIPE NCC || Technical community || || || || <span class="table-squares-23 i-a-e">n</span> || || <span class="table-squares-23 c-c-o">n</span> || || <span class="table-squares-23 t-a-o">n</span> || In light of ongoing climate-related crises and the global effort to address climate issues, it is vital to continue EuroDIG's focus on the relationship between Internet development and governance and environmental issues. The Internet offers an essential tool in understanding the situation and in mitigating the impacts of climate change (both for humans and the broader environment), but it also poses its own threats in terms of ICT waste, energy use and environmental impact. Like environmental governance, Internet governance is challenged to manage global, borderless resources through a combination of traditional state-based governance and emerging multistakeholder approaches - EuroDIG offers an important opportunity to explore those commonalities and identify opportunities for shared learning.  
|- id="prop_57"
|- id="prop_57"
| 57 || not assigned yet || Emilia Zalewska || NASK, Youth IGF Poland || Technical community || || || <span class="table-squares-23 hu-ri">n</span> || <span class="table-squares-23 ig-eco">n</span> || || <span class="table-squares-23 c-c-o">n</span> || || || Over the last few years, one of the emerging issues is the impact of new technologies on the environment. The technical revolution is increasingly demonstrating its dramatic effects in this area and create the challenges we all face today - how to benefit from digital transformation without simultaneously destroying the environment we live in? Aware of this problem, the European Union is intensifying its efforts to create a framework for sustainable, environmentally responsible development. One of the flagship outcomes of this work is the European Green Deal, a package of policy initiatives, that aims to achieve climate neutrality in the Union by 2050. However, despite many actions at the EU level and by individual European countries, they may not be sufficient on a global scale. In addition, in many countries, the environmentally necessary limitation of technological development may mean that the ones most at risk of exclusion will be kept away from digital transformation. Therefore, a discussion is needed on the following topics: What other measures can be taken in Europe to combat the negative effects of digitalisation on the environment? How to partner with other countries and regions to work together in a united and similarly committed manner towards sustainable development? How to ensure that sustainable development is “genuinely sustainable” - i.e. does not exclude vulnerable groups?  
| 57 || not assigned yet || 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 c-c-o">n</span> || || || Over the last few years, one of the emerging issues is the impact of new technologies on the environment. The technical revolution is increasingly demonstrating its dramatic effects in this area and create the challenges we all face today - how to benefit from digital transformation without simultaneously destroying the environment we live in? Aware of this problem, the European Union is intensifying its efforts to create a framework for sustainable, environmentally responsible development. One of the flagship outcomes of this work is the European Green Deal, a package of policy initiatives, that aims to achieve climate neutrality in the Union by 2050. However, despite many actions at the EU level and by individual European countries, they may not be sufficient on a global scale. In addition, in many countries, the environmentally necessary limitation of technological development may mean that the ones most at risk of exclusion will be kept away from digital transformation. Therefore, a discussion is needed on the following topics: What other measures can be taken in Europe to combat the negative effects of digitalisation on the environment? How to partner with other countries and regions to work together in a united and similarly committed manner towards sustainable development? How to ensure that sustainable development is “genuinely sustainable” - i.e. does not exclude vulnerable groups?  
|- id="prop_58"
|- id="prop_58"
| 58 || not assigned yet || Nicola Frank || EBU || Other || || || || || <span class="table-squares-23 m-a-c">n</span> || || || || I am happy to organize a session on 'Media resilience and hope in troubled times' (working title). We could address how media reach their audiences on different distribution platforms and which content they offer to support with information, but also with entertainment.  
| 58 || not assigned yet || Nicola Frank || EBU || Other || || || || || <span class="table-squares-23 m-a-c">n</span> || || || || I am happy to organize a session on 'Media resilience and hope in troubled times' (working title). We could address how media reach their audiences on different distribution platforms and which content they offer to support with information, but also with entertainment.  
|- id="prop_59"
|- id="prop_59"
| 59 || not assigned yet || Emilia Zalewska || NASK, Youth IGF Poland || Technical community || || || <span class="table-squares-23 hu-ri">n</span> || <span class="table-squares-23 ig-eco">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 || not assigned yet || 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 || not assigned yet || 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 || not assigned yet || 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.
Line 169: Line 169:
| 62 || not assigned yet || Oksana Prykhodko || European Media Platform (EMP) || Civil society || || || || || || || || || My initial proposition was to discuss "Realities of digital genocide and perspectives of digital tribunal". Unprovoked ruzzist aggression against Ukraine from 2014 has led to the theft of some of Ukraine's digital resources (such as IP addresses in Crimea, part of Donetsk and Luhansk regions, others). From 24 February 2022 aggressor began to destroy physically or steal equipment of mobile operators, ISPs, steal their software, data bases of personal information, kill or torture staff. Plus constant cyber-attacks on Ukrainian Internet resources But the greatest damage was caused by strikes on Ukraine's energy infrastructure, as a result of which a significant portion of Ukrainians are regularly left without electricity and/or Internet access. Ukraine received huge help and support from all over the world, and Ukrainians and Ukrainian Internet demonstrate their resilience. Nevertheless it is necessary to analyse all lessons of this attempt of digital genocide and develop measures to prosecute the perpetrators, compensate the damage and prevent similar attempts in the future. Just now EMP is implementing the RIPE NCC grant "Internet identifiers in time of war" and is applying for ICANN ABR "The role of individual stakeholders, I* and international organisations in preventing (or facilitating) digital genocide". We also have results of the discussion during XIII IGF-UA (24-25 November 2022) and 30th anniversary of .UA (1-2 December 2022) with the participation of key Ukrainian and foreign stakeholders.  
| 62 || not assigned yet || Oksana Prykhodko || European Media Platform (EMP) || Civil society || || || || || || || || || My initial proposition was to discuss "Realities of digital genocide and perspectives of digital tribunal". Unprovoked ruzzist aggression against Ukraine from 2014 has led to the theft of some of Ukraine's digital resources (such as IP addresses in Crimea, part of Donetsk and Luhansk regions, others). From 24 February 2022 aggressor began to destroy physically or steal equipment of mobile operators, ISPs, steal their software, data bases of personal information, kill or torture staff. Plus constant cyber-attacks on Ukrainian Internet resources But the greatest damage was caused by strikes on Ukraine's energy infrastructure, as a result of which a significant portion of Ukrainians are regularly left without electricity and/or Internet access. Ukraine received huge help and support from all over the world, and Ukrainians and Ukrainian Internet demonstrate their resilience. Nevertheless it is necessary to analyse all lessons of this attempt of digital genocide and develop measures to prosecute the perpetrators, compensate the damage and prevent similar attempts in the future. Just now EMP is implementing the RIPE NCC grant "Internet identifiers in time of war" and is applying for ICANN ABR "The role of individual stakeholders, I* and international organisations in preventing (or facilitating) digital genocide". We also have results of the discussion during XIII IGF-UA (24-25 November 2022) and 30th anniversary of .UA (1-2 December 2022) with the participation of key Ukrainian and foreign stakeholders.  
|- id="prop_63"
|- id="prop_63"
| 63 || not assigned yet || Jörn Erbguth || EuroDIG || Civil society || <span class="table-squares-23 a-a-l">n</span> || || <span class="table-squares-23 hu-ri">n</span> || <span class="table-squares-23 ig-eco">n</span> || || || || || GPT3 and ChatGPT have shown tremendous progress in AI producing text. AI is also increasingly capable to produce text and videos. Homework assignement can be done automatically and better than average students. Coding can be automated too. Now, everybody has access to these capabilities? What does this mean for the education system? Are homework assignement still fair? Does it make sense to learn skills that can be automated in the future? But if text generation, text interpretation and even coding is a skill that can be automated, what are the essential skills for the future? ChatGPT also shows that AI can produce excellent results, but is not trustworthy. Replies are trained to sound good, but often they are just made up – only accidently true. Do we have to revisit the discussion about "trustworthy AI" and conclude, the technology of deep learning cannot generate trustworthy AI? Some interesting podcast on some of these aspects can be found here: https://www-nytimes-com.cdn.ampproject.org/c/s/www.nytimes.com/2023/01/06/opinion/ezra-klein-podcast-gary-marcus.amp.html
| 63 || not assigned yet || Jörn Erbguth || EuroDIG || Civil society || <span class="table-squares-23 a-a-l">n</span> || || <span class="table-squares-23 hu-ri">n</span> || <span class="table-squares-23 i-a-e">n</span> || || || || || GPT3 and ChatGPT have shown tremendous progress in AI producing text. AI is also increasingly capable to produce text and videos. Homework assignement can be done automatically and better than average students. Coding can be automated too. Now, everybody has access to these capabilities? What does this mean for the education system? Are homework assignement still fair? Does it make sense to learn skills that can be automated in the future? But if text generation, text interpretation and even coding is a skill that can be automated, what are the essential skills for the future? ChatGPT also shows that AI can produce excellent results, but is not trustworthy. Replies are trained to sound good, but often they are just made up – only accidently true. Do we have to revisit the discussion about "trustworthy AI" and conclude, the technology of deep learning cannot generate trustworthy AI? Some interesting podcast on some of these aspects can be found here: https://www-nytimes-com.cdn.ampproject.org/c/s/www.nytimes.com/2023/01/06/opinion/ezra-klein-podcast-gary-marcus.amp.html
|- id="prop_64"
|- id="prop_64"
| 64 || not assigned yet || Jörn Erbguth || EuroDIG || Civil society || || || <span class="table-squares-23 hu-ri">n</span> || || <span class="table-squares-23 m-a-c">n</span> || || || || When Elon Musik published the “Twitter files”, it created some controversy. Having discussed content moderation and possible bias of social media platforms over years, we should see it as an opportunity to look at the insights of a social media content moderation team. We see how content moderation and shadow banning of accounts work. We see how the collaboration with governments was done. The main question should not be, did we agree with the content that was removed, or do we like the people that were silenced. We know, a new owner can have different preferences and other governments can request to take down other content. We should rather ask ourselves, should a social media platform work this way? Do we need more transparency? What are the standards we should hold platforms accountable to? Will the coming Digital Services Act DSA create more transparency? Will the DSA offer an effective means of legal redress when such measures are being taken but not justified?
| 64 || not assigned yet || Jörn Erbguth || EuroDIG || Civil society || || || <span class="table-squares-23 hu-ri">n</span> || || <span class="table-squares-23 m-a-c">n</span> || || || || When Elon Musik published the “Twitter files”, it created some controversy. Having discussed content moderation and possible bias of social media platforms over years, we should see it as an opportunity to look at the insights of a social media content moderation team. We see how content moderation and shadow banning of accounts work. We see how the collaboration with governments was done. The main question should not be, did we agree with the content that was removed, or do we like the people that were silenced. We know, a new owner can have different preferences and other governments can request to take down other content. We should rather ask ourselves, should a social media platform work this way? Do we need more transparency? What are the standards we should hold platforms accountable to? Will the coming Digital Services Act DSA create more transparency? Will the DSA offer an effective means of legal redress when such measures are being taken but not justified?

Revision as of 19:19, 20 January 2023

During the call for issues for EuroDIG we received 60 submissions in the period from 12 September till 31 December 2022. You can find the breakdown here.

Categories are colored as follows: (up to three categories 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.

You can also download the list of proposals as of 31 Jan. 2023, 24:00 CET as pdf file.

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