Cyber security and cyber crime
|No||Name||Affil./Org.||SH-group||Topic and sub-issues||Description||Remarks|
|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?|
|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.
|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?|
|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).|
|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?|
|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.|
|75||Lee Hibbard||Council of Europe||Europ. Org.||The multi-stakeholder dimensions and added value in the fight against cybercrime|
|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?