Agreeing on the Messages for Focus Area 2 – FA 02 2022
21 June 2022 | 17:30 - 18:00 CEST | SISSA Main Auditorium | |
Consolidated programme 2022 overview / Day 1
Messages from Trieste
Messages are compiled from each Focus Area and form the main output of the annual EuroDIG. The messages are presented to the global Internet Governance Forum that is convened by the United Nations with a view to contributing to global, other regional and national debates on Internet governance. Find the messages from 2021 as a reference here.
To agree in consent on the Messages we foresee 30 min at the end of each day for each Focus Area.
Reporters from the Geneva Internet Platform will be assigned to take notes and to formulate the messages for each Focus Area that:
- relate to the particular session and to European Internet governance policy
- are forward looking and propose goals and activities that can be initiated after EuroDIG (recommendations)
- are in rough consensus with the audience
These Messages are finalised after the event by the Org Teams on our Commenting Platform.
We strongly suggest all session organisers and Focal Points to participate in the process of agreeing on the messages, because this delivers the outcome of their work. Session organisers are free to make a summary in addition.
Provided by: Caption First, Inc., P.O. Box 3066, Monument, CO 80132, Phone: +001-719-482-9835, www.captionfirst.com
This text, document, or file is based on live transcription. Communication Access Realtime Translation (CART), captioning, and/or live transcription are provided in order to facilitate communication accessibility and may not be a totally verbatim record of the proceedings. This text, document, or file is not to be distributed or used in any way that may violate copyright law.
>> SANDRA HOFERICHTER: At the end of EuroDIG, we have messages. In the past, basically for the past ten years I would say, we produced sessions from every session, workshop and Plenary. Now with the discussion about more tangible outcome, also with our changed programme structure, the focus areas, we’ll try to be a little bit more focused also in terms of how we produce messages and we’ll agree on messages for each focus area. That means this intro sure will be smaller next time with only four messages.
The format of the messages will remain the same, bullet points, forward looking with the European focus and in rough consensus with the audience. That’s why I said it is important that if you were following one focus area, you have a specific interest in one of these overarching questions that are following the focus area, you should be in the room when we agree on the messages and rough consensus.
Our reporters from the Geneva Internet platform followed the respective sessions and they formulated what they think could be the essence of one focus area. Today we will finish on focus area 1 and 2 and tomorrow we’ll look into focus area 3 and 4. Those who are following focus area 1 are in the workshop rooms doing exactly the same thing that we are going to do now here.
Once we have a rough consensus there is no process afterwards. There is only a fact checking process. We have a commending platform where all teams will be invited to finalize the messages but we will not open Pandora’s box saying yes, no, discussing the content again. Only if there is justified concern that something was misunderstood, someone was not in the room and is requesting a change, we’ll go back to the transcript, back to the recording and we may consider changing it if there is really a factual error. That’s it.
Otherwise, the messages, as they are agreed by consensus today will be the ones that we will promote in the upcoming year to European policymakers and to other interested parties.
Are you fine? Are you okay? I would like to invite you to the stage and Nadia, you should have in the presentation the messages from Andrijana, she will present them to you, I can stay here and moderate if there are questions and comments so that she can take note.
Also let me thank you once more to all of the reporters from the Geneva Internet platform that they are keeping on with us and doing this because what I hear from the community, they are a well-trusted neutral platform forgetting the essence out of any session. In addition to the messages that they’re condensing for a focus area, they’ll also do session reports for every single session. Whoever is not really happy with the messages that we do, the reports, they’ll be there for every session, drafted and published on the Geneva Internet platform.
Andrijana, I hand over to you. If you would like to sit here, sit down, it is up to you.
>> ANDRIJANA GAVRILOVIC. Thank you for your kind words, Sandra. It is our pleasure to be here for God knows which round, what year in a row! Do you remember when we started? No one can remember! It has been many, many years before my time at DiploFoundation and the Internet foundation, I’m glad I have inherited the lead of this process on Diplo’s side. This year I have lead 8 Rapporteur, including myself in this reporting exercise. I have had Rapporteurs asking for two years in a row so when is EuroDIG, when are we going to Italy, Trieste, the reason why I scheduled my wedding for August was so I could definitely be at EuroDIG. That’s how important it is to me personally.
A very favorite conference with my favorite faces.
Let’s go into the messages. Sandra explained the process, I’ll just start reading out. I speak fast naturally, I’ll trial to slow down a bit.
There are two levels of the Internet operability, hence two different levels of the standards implementation are needed. First is the operational level of the Internet which is mantled well by the international technical organizations such as IETF, and another big layer of consumer device cybersecurity that needs to go through the scrutiny of both consumers, through the relentless testing and the cybersecurity demand, and the standardization bodies that are working on the lower level industrial standards through procurement and government regulations.
Any objections? Any comments?
>> SANDRA HOFERICHTER: Maybe, I know you have three slides, right?
>> ANDRIJANA GAVRILOVIC: I will read out again anything that you need me to, just ask.
The dialogue and understanding of the need for standards are crucial: Policymakers that keep the dialogue understand the problems and are more open to reflecting on the limitations from the regulatory perspective, and what are the limitations of standards. Governments should understand the incentives and what are the needs. We need governmental regulation which will encourage and in some cases incentivize the standardization bodies and consumer industry to implement standards into its products. Civil Society groups should seek to expert influence in quickly mushrooming soft laws and guidelines as they tend to be more efficient than the long legislative process and effective to some extent.
Let’s move on to the last one, it is a bit specialized.
>> (Audience speaking off microphone).
>> My name is Rob Palmer with Electronic Frontier Finland. I would like to know a bit more what is quickly the mushrooming soft laws, could you elaborate?
>> ANDRIJANA GAVRILOVIC: It is an interesting formulation for sure. I believe what was meant here, more soft laws are popping up as years go by is what I’m understanding from this message. Of course, this is something that can be edited out or the formulation can be changed. We can just say expert influence in soft laws.
>> Yes. I would like to focus on the government should understand the incentives and what are the needs. I think we have heard the European Commission say that they were not going to regulate Internet standards and related Best Practices and that they should remain voluntary, but that does put something on the governments as well that they have to start giving the Best Practice, and that means when they procure ICTs and IoT that they should demand certs and standards and related Best Practices to be present in the software that they procure. That way, demand will be driven and an incentive given to industry, to actually start deploying the standards and Best Practices.
>> ANDRIJANA GAVRILOVIC: Are you disagreeing with the message, want it edited?
>> Yes. There is – we need governmental regulation and we have heard that from the consumer organizations, for example, but we heard the European Commission saying that they will not pursue it. In other words, in my opinion, that should be in addition to what it says here.
>> ANDRIJANA GAVRILOVIC: Thank you very much. We will edit that later.
>> To add to that quickly mushrooming sentence, it strikes me as a little strange. I wasn’t in all of the sessions, but talking about what Civil Society groups should seek to do in relation to this, I wonder if it makes more sense to talk about non-governmental stakeholders should seek to engage with and expert influence in the growing soft law area as that tends to be more efficient than the legislative process.
>> ANDRIJANA GAVRILOVIC: Editing as you spoke.
That should be it, yes? Thank you, Chris.
No further comments on this message?
>> NADIA TJAHJA: There was a comment in the chat, I have tried to reach the author, Peter Koch mentioned – could you please expand SC standards.
>> ANDRIJANA GAVRILOVIC: Not sure what was meant under SC standards, I have to be honest – cybersecurity. Thank you.
That got reversed. Sorry.
Anything else from the chat or online?
>> NADIA TJAHJA: Nothing further at the moment.
>> ANDRIJANA GAVRILOVIC: We’re all happy with this? The next one, green transition and Digital Transformation are two completely different areas. This was very stressed during the session, with a digital transition being more of a tool and not an end in itself. There needs to be a common methodology on how we account for the emissions and the environmental impact of digital technologies to be able to look at the entire life cycle of any digital product.
If there is nothing online, I would assume we have consensus on this message as well.
Would anyone like me to reread something, to play one slide again.
I suppose silence is approval, yes? This was very fast. Over to you, Sandra.
>> What’s the process from here, will we use the commenting platform for a final review for those that weren’t in the room or were in the other room.
Is this relatively final now?
>> SANDRA HOFERICHTER: That’s what I wanted to explain. As it was in the past, this is nothing new. We do invite speakers and org teams again it review the messages in case of factual errors.
We will not open it to the entire community because the idea was always we take the temperature of the room and these are the messages. On a commenting platform, you can easily end up with discussing the comment and negotiating it and you have more time to think about, you formulate, all of this, the idea was always that was the nature of the message to get the temperature of the room and submit this one if there is rough consensus in the room.
Anyone who has strong objections with what was presented and the way it has been changed, then you should speak up now, otherwise this will be it more or less.
I have an issue, is Markko in the room?
>> NADIA TJAHJA: He’s online in this room, but we’re trying to find a link for the other room.
>> SANDRA HOFERICHTER: Good. Obviously, there was an error with the links. The others are waiting for their messages to get agreed.
Again, coming back to this one, focus area 2, strong objections, feel free, we have 10 minutes to go to raise our to speak up. Otherwise, they will be more or less agreed as written. You said you have a third slide? What’s on that one?
>> ANDRIJANA GAVRILOVIC: That was on Digital Transformation and green transition. We went through that one already.
>> NADIA TJAHJA: From the online room, but there is a hand raised.
>> SANDRA HOFERICHTER: Also I see people queuing here.
>> Thank you, good afternoon.
Maybe if you could go to the green transition slide? It is just a clarification. There it was mentioned, it is mentioned that green transition, Digital Transformation are two completely different areas. I completely agree that digital transition is more of a tool and not an end, that part of the sentence, I’m not objecting. The first part, it seems to be problematic, because I believe if we’re trying to bring this together, stating clearly that these are two completely different areas, it makes it harder in terms of our goal to connect them.
Maybe you could explain why you decided to phrase it this way or if there would be a possibility to emphasize in this interconnectivity among these two topics.
>> ANDRIJANA GAVRILOVIC: As far as the session goes, my colleague read the – at the end of the session, we went through the procedure a bit, this was agreed in the room. I’m not sure how we could change it now considering that the participants agree with this and I was told this was the strongest message from the session two completely different areas formulated like this. Sandra, what do you advise?
>> SANDRA HOFERICHTER: I wasn’t in the session. Maybe we can mark it in yellow and bring that issue back to the session organizers if this was understood in the right way or if this should be reformulated. That’s what I would suggest.
I get your point when we speak about the Green Deal and – the green transition together, those are mentioned oftentimes together, we ask the session organizers to clarify this.
>> Yes. I have asked in the chat to read it again so that we can take a little more time to reflect on the text because this is going to be somehow final. I would like to have a second reading, please.
>> ANDRIJANA GAVRILOVIC: Another procedural question. As we have already explained, the organizing teams and the speakers will be the ones reviewing the messages at the final stage and at this moment we’re only taking the temperature of the room, and from what I understand from this comment you’re not strictly objecting to anything in particular. I think we should move on.
>> NADIA TJAHJA: There is a hand raised.
Please go ahead.
>> Yes. I was in the org team, I was focal point for a workshop where the referred message is coming from. Just on the – to clarify what the first part of the sentence, I think it’s your right – you’re right in the sense that we should try to rephrase it in a way that we still showed the intersection of this, of this green digital transition though we shouldn’t – the point was, of Alex, from MPE, it is here that we have to always think that digital is helping us to accomplish the green transition in the end. Here, environmental and digital should cooperate together, of course, but in the end, what we’re trying to accomplish, it is the roles and resilience and, of course, I’m looking back to the Rapporteurs on the phrasing it. This is why it was said this way. Yeah.
>> ANDRIJANA GAVRILOVIC: Thank you very much. I do believe I understood your point.
What about green transition and Digital Transformation are two different areas with digital transition being a tool for – wait. The digital transition being more of a tool for a green transition and not an end in itself. I could edit that on the screen now so we could see what that looks like. To be more of a tool.
Tool for green – does that look better, or is it still too harsh with two different areas?
>> NADIA TJAHJA: One moment.
>> I also agree with Nabel from the chat that we can resign from the word completely, which is really strong.
>> ANDRIJANA GAVRILOVIC: We deleted that. We have green transition and Digital Transformation, it is two different areas with the digital transition being more of a tool for a green transition and not an end in itself.
Is that acceptable?
>> NADIA TJAHJA: Yes.
>> SANDRA HOFERICHTER: Still I think the org team has the time to do this on the commenting platform. I think there is something important here on the wording, it is detected right now. That’s why – let’s put that particular part on the commenting platform.
>> NADIA TJAHJA: There is one more comment.
>> Hello, everyone. Can you hear me? I can hear myself.
I notice there had is no message regarding our session we just finished on cybercrime and I was wondering if you were going to do that later? I know there was no time to add it to the slides right now. It would be good to have something because also because of the very different topic related to the messages that you have.
>> ANDRIJANA GAVRILOVIC: Thank you. I was the Rapporteur for that session. I do have a message drafted.
In my view, we spoke a lot about where we are, which is, of course, useful to explain, especially for those not following the processes closely and are a bit confused with the UN level and the interplay with the Budapest Convention. But we didn’t speak much about the future, possibly because we’re not really sure yet what is to come.
My suggestion would be something that was said by one speaker and I need you to let me know if this is something that’s strong enough to stand on its own.
It will go as follows: In terms of a Global Cybercrime Treaty we have to leave sufficient room for states, when we formulate the minimum standards on the most important elements such as substantive law, procedural law, conditions and then safeguards, the whole framework would provide added value and could be used effectively for international cooperation purposes. (Text not transcribed verbatim).
>> DESARA DUSHI: It seems reasonable to me. I don’t know if we have the speakers present and they can give their opinion or someone from the organizing team.
>> ANDRIJANA GAVRILOVIC: I believe it is just you. Yes, we have a comment. Just a second.
Use the microphone.
>> I think that was my comment actually, you just referred to. I think it illustrates pretty well actually what is right now the situation, what are the expectations and what everybody is expecting, that it should be something actually that would provide minimum common standards and then added value.
I think it just says everything.
>> ANDRIJANA GAVRILOVIC: You’re okay with this message? The way that –
>> Yeah. Yeah. I’m fine.
>> ANDRIJANA GAVRILOVIC: Okay. Any other comments in the room? Online? Okay.
>> SANDRA HOFERICHTER: I would say we have rough consensus about the focus area, two messages. Again, drafting on the commenting platform up to the org team and the organizers and the speakers and now I hand over back to Nadia to announce our last keynote speaker. This is basically something that we are doing new that we invite someone whose not speaking about Internet Governance but about something completely different and that should fresh up the mind a little bit, give you more insight, thinking out of the box before we hopefully will see you for the nice evening event.
Nadia, back to you to announce the last speaker of the day.
>> NADIA TJAHJA: Thank you very much. I would like to first thank Sandra for providing information about the social evening and, of course, thank you for the wonderful work you’re going to do with the messages for EuroDIG. Thank you, Andrijana.