Regulation, Legal frameworks and Jurisdiction

Back to: Thematic fields

This is a possible cluster of topic proposals. There are a number of sub-clusters due to the multitude of submissions.

Net neutrality

Proposals 1, 43, 57, 84

Cyber security and cyber crime

Proposals 16, 20, 27, 28, 50, 56, 71, 75, 88

Conflict management and dispute resolution

Proposals 17, 24, 26, 76

Transparency, accountability and the multistakeholder model in (quasi)democractic societies

Proposals 39, 41, 46, 72

New governance models and best practices

Proposals 54, 59, 68, 70, 82, 93

No	Name	Affil./Org.	SH-group	Topic and sub-issues	Description	Remarks
1	Eyvaz Alishov	Ministry of communications an IT, Azerbaijan	Government	The Future of Cybercrime and Cyberterrorism How software vulnerabilities become tools for crime
16	Nir Kshetri	University of North Carolina —Greensboro, USA	Academia	International institutional frameworks related to cybersecurity	Are existing frameworks effective to deal with cyber-conflicts? What are strengths/weaknesses of treaties/informal cooperation? How to deal with countries with different cybersecurity/diplomatic ties?	(speaker self-promotion)
17	Xianhong Hu	UNESCO	Intern. Org.	Global Internet governance framework and principles -- UNESCO draft new concept on Internet Universality.	UNESCO is canvassing a draft new concept of “Internet Universality”. For the Internet to fulfill its historic potential, it needs to achieve fully-fledged “Universality” based upon the strength and interdependence of the following: (i) the norm that the Internet is Human Rights-based, (ii) the norm that it is “Open”, (iii) the norm that highlights “Accessible to All”, and (iv) the norm that it is nurtured by Multi-stakeholder Participation. The “Internet Universality” concept has very specific value for UNESCO. As regards global debates on Internet governance, it can help UNESCO facilitate international multi-stakeholder cooperation, and highlight what the Organization can bring to the Post-2015 Sustainable Development Agenda.	(not a specific European but IGF topic)
20	Matthias Flittner	KIT / research assistant	Academia.	We need transparent cyber security for humanity	What does security mean? Threats in a cyber context? Verification of cyber security. What is about NSA, GHCQ? Transparent provable easy guarantees. New transport / internet technologies.
24	Susanne von Mohnsdorff	Federal Ministry of the interior, Germany	Govern. Org.	Questions of legal interoperability and the prospects of global data protection -- “Global Players - European Privacy?” -- “Dispute Resolution and Data Protection Law”	Discussion on questions of legal interoperability and the prospects of global data protection (among others, the role of the General Data Protection Regulation, the Council of Europe Convention 108, Safe Harbour and global data protection principles) and on the question of how to improve the protection of users and the enforcement of their rights in the online world, e.g. by increasing the accountability of service providers and providing mandatory conflict settlement mechanisms.
26	Susanne von Mohnsdorff	Federal Ministry of the Interior, Germany	Govern. Org	The availability of information on the Internet -- Exhibition of Results of the competition “Forgetting on the Internet” in addition to "Global Players-European Privacy?" and "Dispute Resolution and Data Protection Law".	This competition launched by the Federal Ministry of the Interior and the National Academy of Science and Engineering in 2012 triggered a major debate on the availability of information on the Internet. This debate has focused not so much on technical details, but on the appropriate awareness of the possibilities and risks presented by the Internet. Essays, poems, collages, videos and technical ideas on the different categories were received. A selection of contributions could be exhibited at EuroDIG to show that society closely follows this issue. Furthermore, they also serve as an appeal to political decision-makers to make use of this potential. Hence, the exhibition could serve as a meaningful complement to the expert panel discussions and take up relevant issues.
27	Laura-Lee Smith	SRH Hochschule Berlin	Academia.	Human rights	Cyberattacks and cybersecurity concerns; data protection; standardization of internet principles and freedoms; governance accountability. This report is for scientific, observation research on the legitimacy of internet governance multi-stakeholder processes in 2014.
28	Paul Fehlinger	Internet & Jurisdiction project, France	Academia	.How to maintain the universality and openness of the Internet? Can different legal norms coexist In Cyberspace or will the Internet fragment?	In the absence of appropriate frameworks, a trend towards a creeping fragmentation of the Internet is already observed around the world. Uncoordinated and potentially incompatible solutions emerge in different jurisdictions (new “data sovereignty” laws, national clouds, redirections to national ccTLDs, local offices obligations etc.) How to ensure the digital coexistence of heterogeneous laws and values in online spaces is thus becoming a core challenge for international organi-zations, states, platforms, technical operators and users in Europe. How can frameworks be developed to prevent such a fragmentation? What are the merits of different approaches such as harmonization, treaties, guidelines, standards or enhanced multi-stakeholder cooperation that are currently explored?
39	Leonid Todorov	Coordination Center for TLDs for Russia	Technical community	The PACE report on coordination of effective Internet governance strategies.	A milestone document, the PACE Report for the first time ever is to mirror a consensus-based exhaustive set of fundamental principles, which is set for adoption in the form of Recommendation by PACE. If a success, the process should subsequently culminate in a Resolution by the Committee of Ministers of Council of Europe. It would therefore be appropriate to give the Report a reality check by discussing its main findings and recommendations by and within the EuroDig expert community and with the participation of its authors. The concrete format of the discussion is tbd. The PACE rapporteur from Russia has already agreed to take part in the event and to engage his fellow authors and PACE experts.
41	Ana Neves	FCT- Department of Information Society (Ministry of Education and Science), Portugal	Govern. Org	How much can Europe and its countries influence Internet Governance at global level?	A discussion on: - What have Europe and its different stakeholders been doing until now on this issue? - Is Europe able to bridge with countries worldwide? What should its role be? - What is Europe doing to make multi-stakeholderism clearer? - Could Europe be considered on this discussion as a continent, as a diversity of cultures or as a multiplicity of convictions?
43	Luca Belli	CERSA, Italy	Academia	Network Neutrality 1) The value of net neutrality for human rights and innovation; 2) Threats to net neutrality; 3) Solutions to safeguard net neutrality	Net neutrality, defined as the transmission of Internet traffic without undue discrimination, restriction or interference, helps to ensure pluralism, self-determination and a level playing field in the free market of ideas and innovations. This session will ignite discussion with regard to the challenges and opportunities of net neutrality, stressing the instrumental role of such principle in order to further end-users’ interest, modernise human right and safeguard the Open Internet. (Through an interactive discussion,) panellists will explore potential solutions aimed at promoting net neutrality while analysing various regulatory solutions that have been proposed at the European level.
46	Frank Beyersdorf	FU Berlin, Germany	Academia	States and Internet Governance - legitimacy of internet governance through IGF (constituionalisation of internet governance) - discourse of information - International law for information exchange - North-South Imbalances	The process to constituionalise a global „information space“ started under the League system, continued under the early UN, proceeded into UNESCO in the 1970s (NWICO), and is still at large today under the label of internet governance (WSIS, IGF). The notion that the flow of information necessarily has to be free is deeply ingrained in the genes of public discourse. Although media policy has remained a „normal“ tool of state(s), information beyond each national border has remained wholly unregulated, as demonstrated not only by Google, but also NSA’s Boundless Informant. Recently, the German and Brazilian government's move to to turn privacy laws into international law have marked a (re)new(ed) move to constituionalise information.
50	Tatiana Tropina	Max-Planck Institute for Foreign and International Criminal Law, Germany	Academia	Internet governance - the end of multi-stakeholder approach? Cybersecurity - the end of multi-stakeholder environment? Where are the borders of multi-stakeholder?	Despite all the efforts to make cybersecurity a multi-stakeholder task, there is still a lack of trust between public and private parties, and the tendency to regulate strictly coming from government side when the issue of cybersecurity comes to the level of critical information infrastructure protection or national security and surveillance. The goal of the session is to discuss where are the borders of multi-stakeholder environment and how to build the trust and capacity (and whether it is possible to build them at all).
54	Marianne Franklin	IRP Coalition - UN IGF	Civil society	3) Collaboration as Best Practice: Redressing Disconnects in Internet Governance Forums -- Developing synergies between regional, national, global IGFs with different priorities & organizational cultures; address need for more mutual awareness of diverse positions and priorities.	This theme addresses ongoing debates about representativeness, legitimacy, and accountability within stakeholder groups on the role of the global IGF and burgeoning national IGFs, new (e.g. Tunisia) and established (e.g. Brazil). Regional IGFs take place independently despite need to identify common narratives and issues. Aim to create ways to generate awareness and knowledge-sharing beyond reporting back or documenting best practice; location and sharing of resources, research, points of contention and agreement between and amongst participating groups; address any democratic deficits in organization of different IGF by identifying robust forms of diverse and broad-based participation in preparation and running of these meetings, and official outputs.
56	Oliver Sueme	EuroISPA	Business, Europ. Org.	The Rule of Law as a subject of Multi-stakeholderism and Internet Governance -- Role of the Internet Intermediaries in the focus of Law Enforcement and Surveillance.	With the spread of Internet use, public sector authorities, secret services and private companies are increasingly attempting to co-opt Internet intermediaries as their enforcement and security agents. The Intermediaries are in the focus of this development. While they are responsible for the security of their services on the one hand, they are more and more in the focus of law enforcement agencies, secret services and private companies on the other hand. Is there a need to redesign the European policy paradigms and bring them back within the boundaries of the rule of law? What is the role of intermediaries? Should the balance between the interests of law enforcement authorities, intermediaries and users of the internet be an aspect of the multi-stakeholder-model?
57	Hubert Schoettner	BMWi, Germany	Govern. Org	Open Internet and Net Neutrality -- Recent Developments and outlook regarding the theme „Open Internet and Net Neutrality“, in particular concerning the ongoing legislative deliberations on the European level.	On 12 September 2013, the European Commission presented the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down measures concerning the European single market for electronic communications and to achieve a Connected Continent. The proposal touches on several areas of telecommunication policy, including net neutrality. The legislative process has already started, but it is likely that the legislative deliberations will not be finalized in June 2014. Therefore it seems to be of interest to inform the EuroDIG participants about the legislative process and give some room for reflections and discussions.
59	Hubert Schoettner	BMWi, Germany	Govern. Org.	Outlook on ITU Plenipotentiary 2014 and WSIS follow-up -- EuroDIG 2014 should be used to give an outlook on major conferences where internet governance issues will be discussed.	From 20 October to 7 November 2014, ITU's plenipotentiary conference will take place in Busan, Republic of Korea. Further conferences within the UN are to be expected on the WSIS+10 process. It might be interesting for European stakeholders to get an oversight on the discussion in these fora. EuroDIG is probably one of the first international conferences on Internet governance where the outcomes of the Brazil conference, that will take place in April 2014, can be reflected and discussed.
68	Michal Pukaluk	Department of Telecommunications Ministry of Administration and Digitization, Poland	Govern. Org.	Principles of Multi-Stakeholder Cooperation -- Citizen participation – PL case study	The Polish government believes that the Internet should remain free and open around the world. If any changes to the way global Internet is governed are necessary, they should be a result of transparent and democratic consultations with the community of its users. We believe that everyone has the right to know and understand how the Internet works. Regulations governing the Internet should be clear and the process of developing them should be fully transparent.
70	Sebastian Haselbeck	Internet & Society Collaboratory e.V.	others	Multi-stakeholder approaches to enabling dialogue on internet policy on all levels -- How can we employ the multi-stakeholder approach beyond international contexts to enable creative solutions for Internet policy challenges on national and regional levels?	Multi-stakeholderism enables heterogeneous groups with different positions to find ways of governance. It is a proven concept for avoiding blind spots and increasing legitimacy by reaching higher levels of inclusion not yet broadly adopted outside the IGF context. On national levels processes are often driven behind walled gardens in traditional governmental fashion due to lack of knowledge or habit. There are platforms for internet and society related challenges, and experiments with formats, that can be discussed as opportunities for enabling constructive ideation environments, discourse culture and collaboration. How can stalemates in policy making be overcome? What are models of stakeholder inclusion and balance? How can innovative governance of socio-political dynamics look like?
71	Farzaneh Badiei	Hamburg University, Germany	Academia	Setting out the principles of the rule of law for Internet governance -- What are the rule of law principles in Internet governance? What are the mechanisms by which the rule of law can be protected?	Article 1 of the Council of Europe’s Internet Governance Principles reaffirms that the Internet governance arrangements should ensure the protection of the rule of law. One critical method for achieving this goal may be the use of online dispute resolution (ODR). ODR provides a protective mechanism for the rule of law, as well as a punitive mechanism in case its principles are breached. This proposal discusses the issues regarding structural aspects of ODR, how ODR can use the multi-stakeholder approach to ensure justice, and how effectively it can ensure that the principles of the rule of law are followed.
72	Lee Hibbard	Council of Europe	Europ. Org.	Transparency in Internet governance	How far should state and non-state actors be transparent in their activities and decision-making with regard to (mass electronic surveillance on) the Internet?
75	Lee Hibbard	Council of Europe	Europ. Org.	The multi-stakeholder dimensions and added value in the fight against cybercrime
76	Lee Hibbard	Council of Europe	Europ. Org.	Protecting the Internet from harm – Global Internet Cooperation and Governance Mechanisms
82	Thorsten Benner	GPPi	Academia	Brazil and Germany/Europe: Joint Leadership for an Open, Free and Secure Internet?	Can Brazil and Germany/Europe bring together a coalition for an open, free and secure internet that Charts middle ground between US and the "Information sovereignty" repressive regimes. The session would build on the results of a multi-stakeholder Brazilian-German Workshop in Sao Paulo in February 2014 organized by ITS, FGV and GPPi (with participation of Humboldt Institute). It would also reflect on results of Sao Paulo 23/24 April summit.
84	Gierow Hauke	Reporters Without Borders, Germany	Civil society	Rebuilding the Net -- How can net neutrality be achieved in Europe, and what should be done internationally? Which solutions have been presented to curb surveillance of journalists worldwide, one year after Snowden?	The Internet empowers people to report news and connect with each other. However, surveillance of journalists as well as censorship have become a mundane threat to press freedom. States are claiming more power to shape the way the Internet works. But challenges to press freedom online arise not only through of state actors. ISPs, as well as content and social-media platforms emerge as new gatekeepers. For Media to fulfil their role as \'fourth estate\', it is crucial to have a neutral and reliable infrastructure that operates at foreseeable costs. Infrastructure shall be regarded neutral if it acts as a „common carrier“ and censorship is forbidden. Specific regulatory proposals shall be presented to the incoming EU Commission and Parliament.
88	Hans Peter Dittler	Internet Society German Chapter	Technical community	Freedom on the Internet -- Regulation of the Internet, Privacy of data on the Internet. The conflict between regulation and freedom.	In order to maintain and develop the Internet as a free and open infrastructure, the following topics should be discussed: - how much regulation is needed to keep the Internet as a resource free and available to everybody? - how much regulation can a free Internet stand before it breaks? - should the standards (like the ones from the IETF) which define the rules of the Internet be changed to ensure privacy? - how much traffic engineering and data inspection is needed to keep the Internet technically working?
93	Nigel Hickson	ICANN	Intern. Org	"ICANN's Role in the evolving Internet Governance Ecosystem" --	2013 has, and 2014 is likely to, witness some important and potentially far-reaching developments on the Internet Governance landscape; from privacy and cybersecurity to the changing nature of the DNS as the TLD space expands. This couples with ample opportunity for debate and discussion, whether in Brazil; Dubai (for the WTDC); London for ICANN; Berlin for EuroDig or Busan (for the PP-14) on these issues as well as the fundamental nature of Internet Governance in a changing world. There will be no blueprint or pat solution to read out in Berlin but, given the audience, an informative and lively discussion should be guaranteed".