|

All Comments

Comments on the Pages

  • PL 1: Global digital governance – Can technical solutions respond to policy questions? (10 comments)

    • Comment by Michael J. Oghia on 27th June 2019

      “A different approach could consist in making users more responsible for their actions, and thus in charge of their online privacy and security.”

      (1) Edit – of making users, not in making users.

      (2) Comment – I find this sentence incredibly problematic, as it would imply that ensuring trust is solely the responsibility of the user and not the private sector. I suggest rewording to something like:

      A more inclusive approach could be addressing issues of trust through a multi-stakeholder lens that would include more standardised, efficient, and streamlined certification processes for the private sector, investing in skill building and privacy/security literacy for users, and holding vendors accountable for events that break public trust, such as data breaches.

      Comment by Michael J. Oghia on 27th June 2019

      We already know this. The real million-euro question is how?

      Comment by Michael J. Oghia on 27th June 2019

      Edit: tackled within the next 10 years in line with existing agreements and policy frameworks, such as the 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda, the 2015 Paris Climate Accords, and the 2018 IPCC report.

      Comment by Michael J. Oghia on 27th June 2019

      Not break, but violate*

      Comment by Maarten Botterman on 1st July 2019

      [certifications ]

      standaridsation setting processes and lengthy and expensive certifications

      Comment by Maarten Botterman on 1st July 2019

      [, ]

      being informed by standards, labels, and self-certification that is enforced by third parties

      Comment by Maarten Botterman on 1st July 2019

      1 – insert: In this time of rapid evolution of technologies and market uptake, regulation cannot keep up with the pace of change.

       

      Make this the second paragraph – this is the key message.

      Comment by Maarten Botterman on 1st July 2019

      THis should be the third paragraph

      Comment by Maarten Botterman on 1st July 2019

      Open door.

       

      And if you want to keep thi sparagraph, maybe limit it to “Policymakers need to develop long-term strategies to address existing challenges, such as but not limited to, inequalities, the digital divide, and the impact of digitalisation on jobs.”

      And at “upcoming/future” challenges. If policymakers only focus on what exists today they will also be running behind!

       

      Comment by Maarten Botterman on 1st July 2019

      We also mentioned the role of self-certification, and the “establishment of global good practice” to which suppliers should live up to.

  • PL 1: Bridging the urban-rural digital gap – a commercial or community effort? (7 comments)

    • Comment by Melle Tiel Groenestege on 15th June 2018

      co-responsibility of governments, not core responsibility.

      It is not only governments that will drive demand for internet use, it includes the private sector and other actors.

      Comment by Melle Tiel Groenestege on 15th June 2018

      Regulatory and legal frameworks should be catalysers, not obstacles for the development of internet infrastructure and community networks and their funding by investors.

      A lot can be achieved to increase internet access by addressing the ‘basics’ such as spectrum policies, competition policies, network sharing regulations etc. This is not only relevant for community networks but for internet access overall.

      Comment by Olivier Crépin-Leblond on 18th June 2018

      Indeed. The sentence should be “It is the co-responsibility of governments to promote the demand for Internet access with other stakeholders in remote areas with a lower population.”

      Comment by Olivier Crépin-Leblond on 18th June 2018

      +1 to Melle’s comments

      Comment by Olivier Crépin-Leblond on 18th June 2018

      Community networks and commercial networks can be  complementary to each other, but it all depends on the underserved rural area and development project in question.

      Comment by Olivier Crépin-Leblond on 18th June 2018

      Also the first sentence:

      The community’s experience and its direct involvement are important when investing in infrastructural projects.

      Comment by Olivier Crépin-Leblond on 18th June 2018

      Multistakeholder participation has proved its viability and sustainability for implementing infrastructural projects in remote areas to provide Internet access.

  • PL 4: Greening Internet governance – Environmental sustainability and digital transformation (7 comments)

    • Comment by Olivier Vergeynst on 22nd June 2020

      One thing I presented is that the environmental impact of digital technologies is multiple: it’s about GHG emissions but also about energy, water and abiotic resource depletion. If you focus your actions on one indicator only (let’s say GHG emissions), you may for example end up having a very negative effect on abiotic resources, some of which are becoming dangerously scarce. This is why analysis and recommendations should be based on ISO 14040/14044 LCA methodology which, in my understanding, is multicriteria-based.
      I also mentioned briefly the social impact that IT can have (e.g. I talked about jobs that can be created through the refurbishment sector, but it is of course a much larger topic like the work conditions to extract natural resources in mines in Congo RDC and other area, to manufacture devices in factories like Foxconn, or positive aspects that technology can bring to society).
      So I’d like to propose a small modification along the following sentence:
      “A set of indicators that measure the environmental and social impacts of digital technologies is necessary to enable making the right decisions at the regulatory and political levels.”.
      Kind regards,

      Olivier

      Feedback from other panelists:

      ======================================
      I agree with Olivier – I think we will need a set of indicators because a single indicator is not practical. 
       
      For instance, data centres have a range of performance metrics  – see this briefing note I did a few years back.  It’s a bit out of date now as there are new metrics and many of those listed have now been formally standardised.  Single metrics also tend to get misused, like PUE, which should be for trend analysis but is used to compare facilities often in a misleading way.
       
      https://www.techuk.org/images/Data_centre_performance_metrics_for_Tiny_Tots.pdf
       
      We also did a map of environmental standards relevant to data centres.  Again it is a bit out of date but does demonstrate the range of standards applicable and in use within the sector.  Some of these standards are now becoming the basis for regulation or procurement requirements.   
       
      https://www.techuk.org/insights/news/item/15702-mapping-data-centre-standards  (scroll down to the pink bar at the bottom for the pdf)
       
      Best
       
      Emma
      ======================================
      Dear Olivier, dear all,
       
      I was going to make the same comment, suggesting to also include metrics that take into account rebound effects.
       
      Kind regards,
       
      Beat
       

       

      Comment by Olivier Vergeynst on 22nd June 2020

      One thing I presented is that the environmental impact of digital technologies is multiple: it’s about GHG emissions but also about energy, water and abiotic resource depletion. If you focus your actions on one indicator only (let’s say GHG emissions), you may for example end up having a very negative effect on abiotic resources, some of which are becoming dangerously scarce. This is why analysis and recommendations should be based on ISO 14040/14044 LCA methodology which, in my understanding, is multicriteria-based.
       
      I also mentioned briefly the social impact that IT can have (e.g. I talked about jobs that can be created through the refurbishment sector, but it is of course a much larger topic like the work conditions to extract natural resources in mines in Congo RDC and other area, to manufacture devices in factories like Foxconn, or positive aspects that technology can bring to society).
       
      So I’d like to propose a small modification along the following sentence:
      “A set of indicators that measure the environmental and social impacts of digital technologies is necessary to enable making the right decisions at the regulatory and political levels.”

      Many thanks,
      Olivier
      feedback from other panelists:

      ===============================
      I agree with Olivier – I think we will need a set of indicators because a single indicator is not practical. 
       
      For instance, data centres have a range of performance metrics  – see this briefing note I did a few years back.  It’s a bit out of date now as there are new metrics and many of those listed have now been formally standardised.  Single metrics also tend to get misused, like PUE, which should be for trend analysis but is used to compare facilities often in a misleading way.
       
      https://www.techuk.org/images/Data_centre_performance_metrics_for_Tiny_Tots.pdf
       
      We also did a map of environmental standards relevant to data centres.  Again it is a bit out of date but does demonstrate the range of standards applicable and in use within the sector.  Some of these standards are now becoming the basis for regulation or procurement requirements.   
       
      https://www.techuk.org/insights/news/item/15702-mapping-data-centre-standards  (scroll down to the pink bar at the bottom for the pdf)
       
      Best
      Emma
      ===================================
      Dear Olivier, dear all,
       
      I was going to make the same comment, suggesting to also include metrics that take into account rebound effects.
       
      Kind regards,
      Beat

      Comment by Olivier Vergeynst on 22nd June 2020

      Ooops, commented on the wrong paragraph. Please disregard my previous comment on this one, Andrijana did a great job and I have nothing to comment here 🙂

      Comment by Olivier Vergeynst on 25th June 2020

      Additional proposal from Ilias IAKOVIDIS (Ilias.Iakovidis@ec.europa.eu), that I agree with,

      Rephrase as follows:

      A standardized methodology and indicators are necessary to assess and monitor the environmental and social impact of digital technologies to enable evidence based decision making at the regulatory and political levels

      Comment by Olivier Vergeynst on 25th June 2020

      Additional proposal from Ilias IAKOVIDIS (Ilias.Iakovidis@ec.europa.eu), that I agree with,

      Rephrase as follows:

      ‘To reduce the environmental impact of the digital world, it is necessary to adopt measures to optimize  energy and material efficiency (circularity) of digital sector. For example, increase the use of renewables, innovate for low energy consumption,  keeping devices longer in use, facilitating re-use, improving reparability and recyclability, and, adopting sustainable business models.”

      Comment by Michael J. Oghia on 26th June 2020

      +1 Ilias

      Comment by Michael J. Oghia on 26th June 2020

      Well done!

  • WS 4: Children in the digital age – How to balance their right to freedom and their right to be protected? (6 comments)

    • Comment by Michael J. Oghia on 27th June 2019

      Edit: children and youth

      Comment by Michael J. Oghia on 27th June 2019

      Good job. I’d encourage the final to include mention of not just children but also youth since both terms are more inclusive.

      Comment by JuttaCroll on 1st July 2019

      This is a message from the YouthDIG brought into the session, the message was adopted slightly different as follows:

      We want an algorithm built in a multistakeholder environment: SAPA (Smart Active Participation Algorithm). The purpose of this algorithm is to replace some of the ads we are exposed to while browsing on the Internet with information about youth participation initiatives. SAPA will suggest differentiated opportunities based on the age of the users, in order to empower the engagement of people of all ages towards participation initiatives through the Internet.

      Comment by JuttaCroll on 1st July 2019

      To Michael Oghia: We use the term children in the sense of the UN Convention on the Rights of the child meaning young persons up to the age of 18.

      Comment by JuttaCroll on 1st July 2019

      The 3rd message agreed upon is the session needs to be added a follows:

      Digital literacy is important in all age groups – children themselves, teachers, parents. It is necessary to understand the children’s needs in order to conceptualise in line with their needs and in line with complexity and interests of the digital world. A balanced approach is needed in order to make children more resilient, but the industry and data controllers must be held accountable as well.

      Comment by JuttaCroll on 1st July 2019

      Link to be included: “Guidelines to respect, protect and fulfil the rights of the child in the digital environment: https://www.childrens-rights.digital/hintergrund/index.cfm/topic.280/key.1568

  • WS 12: Play the villain – Learn to fight disinformation with news literacy (6 comments)

    • Comment by Michael J. Oghia on 27th June 2019

      [Media literacy and news literacy hand-in-hand are the solution to]

      Edit: Media literacy and news literacy go hand-in-hand, and are the solution to the

      Comment by Michael J. Oghia on 27th June 2019

      Edit:

      While building news literacy, it is difficult to balance between critical thinking and destructive thinking namely, to balance between awareness raising and a critical mindset towards misinformation on the one hand, and the danger of spreading mistrust or cynicism towards news per se on the other.

      Comment by Michael J. Oghia on 27th June 2019

      Really good job!

      Comment by EpE on 27th June 2019

      The correct name of the game is “Bad News Game”, not “fake news”. Also people who weren’t at the WS cannot know we played it. I suggest to change the para to make it clearer as follows: “- for example playing, as the audience did, the Bad News Game”.

      Comment by EpE on 27th June 2019

      I second Michael formulation, but would more modestly say that there are “a solid solution” (not the only one)

      Comment by EpE on 27th June 2019

      Changing the habit of referring to fake news was one of the strongest messages I felt emerging from the workshop: I feel it should be more relevant than an example in parenthesis. Here below a suggestion for a third para, instead of the parenthesis.

      ” An important first step is to discontinue the use of the misleading expression “fake news”, and adopt “disinformation instead”.

  • PL 2: Digital sovereignty – from users’ empowerment to technological leadership (5 comments)

    • Comment by vbertola on 19th June 2020

      Perhaps, at the end, you could also add something about making sure that the “offline” values of Europe continue to apply online, e.g. “in order to… and to enforce the European values in the norms and customs for online activities”.

      Comment by Nicola Frank on 26th June 2020

      You could add after the last sentence: the DSA package offers the perfect opportunity.

       

      Comment by Nicola Frank on 26th June 2020

      At the end a sentence should be added: The DSA package offers the perfect opportunity.

      Comment by Nicola Frank on 26th June 2020

      Sorry, the comment which slipped into para 3 should have been for par 2:
      At the end a sentence should be added: The DSA package offers the perfect opportunity.

      Comment by Nicola Frank on 26th June 2020

      Add at the end: Support for R&D which brings together technology innovation and creativity is key.

  • WS 6: DNS over HTTPS (DoH) – What is it, and why should you care? (5 comments)

    • Comment by Michael J. Oghia on 27th June 2019

      Great job

      Comment by vbertola on 27th June 2019

      This was the subject of some last second comments in the session; I think that the substance is ok but the logical flow now does not work well, as you start with a negative (DoH could affect user choice) then you have a positive (provide more privacy) but you connect them with “as well as”. I would just break the first sentence in two and change the connection, e.g.: “DoH protocol… resolved for them. It could provide more privacy by encrypting DNS queries; however…”.

      Comment by vbertola on 27th June 2019

      Perhaps I would also mention the word “jurisdiction” in an additional open question – i.e. “Which jurisdiction should apply to DNS resolution?”.

      Comment by vbertola on 27th June 2019

      I remember a couple of interventions mentioning the importance of developing agreed ways to keep users in charge, through proper information and easy, open configuration options – this is an issue that often comes up. Not a vital omission though 🙂

      Comment by vbertola on 27th June 2019

      I agree, this is a complex issue with lots of technicalities and yet the summary is really good. I have a few minor observations and am making them throughout the text, but in the overall it’s a good summary.

  • PL 1: 5G – The opportunities and obstacles (4 comments)

    • Comment by Ross Creelman on 22nd June 2020

      I would propose the following wording:

      5G reinforces the foundation for the digital transformation by offering new ways to innovate and create new business models based on real time availability of data.

      Comment by Ross Creelman on 22nd June 2020

      I would propose:

      5G has huge potential to increase sustainability, especially in urban environments, by allowing them to reduce energy consumption and by enabling a new generation of digital services and solutions for cities.

      Comment by Ross Creelman on 22nd June 2020

      I would propose:

      Collaborating on the elaboration of 5G standards is key to ensure interoperable data/ IoT solutions and to promote the security of the 5G ecosystem.

      Comment by Ross Creelman on 22nd June 2020

      I would propose:

      Data protection remains a key consideration in the context of 5G as for all digital communications. The GDPR is protecting data to varying degrees depending on the area of application, however additional safeguards may be necessary for medical data.

  • WS 3: Regulation and the Internet economy – How to create the right building blocks for 5G networks (3 comments)

  • WS 5: Should public policy priorities and requirements be included when designing Internet standards? (3 comments)

    • Comment by Andrew Campling on 17th June 2020

      We did capture views on existing bodies that could fulfil this role via a Mentimeter word cloud, is there any reason not to include this here?

      Comment by Andrew Campling on 17th June 2020

      There was some discussion in the Zoom chat regarding the difference between the stated level of openness of the IETF versus the actual level of openness when taking into account the culture, processes, tools and terminology of the organisation.  It was also noted that not all participants value the involvement of multi-stakeholders, for example with some hostility towards those from government and law enforcement bodies.

      Should relevant points from the Zoom chat be included in the summary?

      Comment by vbertola on 19th June 2020

      Perhaps this point should make the message more general: I think that there was strong agreement that policy input into standardization processes “must be based on the multistakeholder principle, ensuring equal participation among stakeholder groups”, be it through a new body or through the existing standardization organizations.

  • WS 5: Transforming skills to meet innovation challenges (3 comments)

    • Comment by Michael J. Oghia on 27th June 2019

      Edit: Using The Netherlands as a case study, Dutch public authorities have recognised two challenges

      Comment by Michael J. Oghia on 27th June 2019

      Bitcoin in particular? I’d understand mobile finance and banking, but I don’t know how many refugees and migrants can afford to buy Bitcoin, for instance.

      Comment by Michael J. Oghia on 27th June 2019

      Good!

  • WS 7: Cybersecurity challenges ahead! How would you shape regulation to address changing technology? (3 comments)

  • 3.1 Human rights and human agency (2 comments)

    • Comment by A.Karanasiou on 30th September 2019

      I would suggest the following addition: “The advent of AI in our daily lives creates further limitations for due process, posed by opaque and inscrutable algorithmic processes that have wide applications in the private sector and the public affairs alike ( *1). Automated decision making challenges fundamental human rights in an unprecedented manner and diffuses accountability due to the various levels of interactions between human operators and artificial agents (*2). Human agency and autonomy, both underpinning rationals for seminal human rights, such as privacy and free speech, are massively being redefined in the era of automation.  Enhancing algorithmic accountability should therefore be a key priority for policy-making aiming to create a regulative framework that guarantees fairness and transparency. ”

       

      Footnotes

      (*1) Pasquale, F. (2015). The black box society. Harvard University Press.

      (*2) Karanasiou, A. P., & Pinotsis, D. A. (2017). A study into the layers of automated decision-making: emergent normative and legal aspects of deep learning. International Review of Law, Computers & Technology31(2), 170-187.

      Comment by A.Karanasiou on 30th September 2019

      I would add here a footnote with Balkin’s seminal work on information fiduciaries (Balkin, J. M. (2015). Information fiduciaries and the first amendment. UCDL Rev.49, 1183.)

  • PL 6: The European copyright reform: What just happened, what’s next, and what does it mean for the Internet? (2 comments)

  • WS 9: Smart cities and governance (2 comments)

  • WS 9: Privacy in Europe – GDPR vs. information freedom? (2 comments)

    • Comment by Velofisch on 17th June 2020

      This is true and is already regulated by GDPR, but it has not been discussed in the workshop.

      Comment by Velofisch on 17th June 2020

      There was a discussion that the proposed Chines style Firewall that has been proposed by a EP study (Short- (2021), medium- (2025) and long-term (2030) perspectives and the implications for the Digital Services Act) would foster data protection but would very much infringe on information freedom and I felt a consensus, that this needs to be prevented.

      Here is the link to the study https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2020/648784/IPOL_STU(2020)648784_EN.pdf

  • PL 4: Making norms work – Pursuing effective cybersecurity (2 comments)

  • WS 11: Challenges and uptake of modern Internet standards (including, but not limited to IPv6, DNSSEC, HTTPS, RPKI) (2 comments)

    • Comment by Andrew Campling on 17th June 2020

      There was some disagreement about the wisdom of the use of legislation in the session,  I don’t think that this wording completely captures this.  It was more a case of only considering legislation as a last resort, or something along those lines.

      Comment by Andre Melancia on 22nd June 2020

      Would something like this work better

      “[…] Second, we need to carefully discuss tools of pressure, including commercial, political, legislative and others, all of which have pros and cons.”

  • WS 12&16: Community networks in rural areas – best practice (2 comments)

    • Comment by vassilis on 28th June 2020

      We could add something about local services here. CNs not only provide connectivity to internet, but also serve as a local infrastructure on which to deploy local services and generate local content. We could simply add:

      Community network provide internet access and local services for and by [..]

      Comment by vassilis on 28th June 2020

      Regulatory, funding, and connectivity challenges are often common in CNs around the world. Peer exchange among CNs and identifying best practices is one way to deal with these challenges.

  • WS 6: Social media – opportunities, rights, and responsibilities (1 comment)

    • Comment by Nicola Frank on 26th June 2020

      Easy access to and findability of trusted content needs to be ensured.

  • WS 15: Universal Acceptance – a technical or a cultural issue? (1 comment)

    • Comment by Roberto on 28th June 2020

      The overall objective is the production and fruition of local content – i.e. in the local language and using the local writing system. Universal Acceptance is a tool to get there, but we should not confuse the means with the purpose.

  • 3. Individuals, Societies and Digital Technologies (1 comment)

    • Comment by A.Karanasiou on 30th September 2019

      I would suggest the following amendment: “There are also many examples of digital technologies being used or developed in a manner that restricts fundamental human rights and liberties, such as the right to privacy, the right to access to information, and the right to free speech, posing thereby significant threats to societal cohesion, democracy and self-determination.

  • 2.1 Creating an inclusive digital economy (1 comment)

    • Comment by Galia Kondova on 26th June 2019

      I suggest that the following addition to the paragraph is made, namely:

      Countries should also make sure that the broad public is informed and educated about the use of a digital ID system. Countries should also make sure that digital ID systems are user-friendly while meeting high security, privacy and technological standards.

  • PL 3: Emerging technologies and human rights (1 comment)

  • WS 1: Internet consolidation – Opportunities and challenges (1 comment)

  • WS 2: GDPR implementation – Blind spots, opportunities, and the way forward (1 comment)

    • Comment by Michael J. Oghia on 27th June 2019

      It would be great to see a sentence or two, perhaps in the last paragraph, recognising that a potential pitfall/blind spot of GDPR is harming smaller companies that cannot afford to pay large fines relative to their annual revenue in contrast to larger companies that can absorb the cost of non-compliance and has the resources to (potentially) provide a remedy.

  • PL 5: Ethics by design – Moving from ethical principles to practical solutions (1 comment)

  • WS 8: Fending off trolls – Journalists in defence of democracy (1 comment)

  • WS 6: Universal acceptance – Is the Internet reaching the people it needs to? (1 comment)

    • Comment by Olivier Crépin-Leblond on 18th June 2018

      We are going around…

  • WS 10: Blockchain & privacy (1 comment)

    • Comment by vbertola on 27th June 2019

      I could not attend this session, but by reading the messages I am a bit puzzled by the lack of any reference to the big issue regarding blockchain & privacy, i.e. how can you give each user full control on their personal information, including the possibility to update and delete it, on a technical infrastructure where everything is by design public, copied everywhere in a huge number of copies and impossible to change or delete once it is written.

  • WS 11: Criminal justice in cyberspace – More of everything? (1 comment)

    • Comment by Tjabbe Bos on 25th June 2019

      Based on my participation in the session, it appears this message does not appropriately cover the scope of the discussion. In particular, several of the speakers and participants agreed on the need for instruments that go beyond traditional government-to-government cooperation to also include direct cooperation measures, provided that appropriate safeguards to ensure the protection of fundamental right are provided for. Therefore, I propose to reformulate this message as follows:

       

      Criminal justice instruments should provide for safeguards to ensure that fundamental principles are respected, including principles of proportionality, necessity and legality.

       

      In its current form I would strongly oppose the message.

  • PL 7: Tackling online harms – A regulation minefield? Present and future (1 comment)

  • PL 2: Intersection of standards and policy (1 comment)

Source: https://comment.eurodig.org/all-comments/