Commenting Platform
Contents
Search
Special Pages
Table of Contents
- Welcome
- EuroDIG 2021 Messages
- FS 1: Greening Internet Governance, Part II – Enabling an Environmentally Sustainable Digital Transformation in Europe
- FS 2: Governing digital interdependence – the role of Europe
- FS 3: New European proposals – NIS2 and cybersecurity agenda
- FS 4: European mediascape – How to (re)create a trusted public sphere?
- WS 1 and WS1 follow-up: Digital services regulation – opportunities and challenges
- WS 2: Benefits and challenges for unleashing potential of quantum technologies
- WS 3: Data Sovereignty and Trusted Online Identity – COVID-19 Vaccination Data
- WS 4: New developments and prospects in data protection (with regard to AI)
- WS 5: Crypto Wars 3.0 – can privacy, security and encryption co-exist?
- WS 6: Copyright – Implementation of the EU directive
- WS 7: Human vs. algorithmic bias – is unbiased decision-making even a thing?
- WS 8: International access to research content and sensitive data
- WS 9: Content moderation on the Internet infrastructure level – Where does censorship begin?
- WS 10: Fake News – Dissolving Superstitions with Media Literacy
- WS 11: Recent studies on accessing educational content
- WS 12: Best practices of self- and co-regulation of platforms towards a legal framework
- WS 13: Doing everything online – mental wellbeing vs. digital addiction effects on human interaction
- WS 14: Privacy impact of COVID19-related shift to online activities (payments, virtual meetings …)
- WS 15: 5G User perspective and implementation
- WS 16: Delay-Tolerant Network (DTN)
- WS 17: Competition in the digital ecosystem – Europe and beyond
- EuroDIG Extra Vol. 2
- EuroDIG 2020 Messages
- PL 1: 5G – The opportunities and obstacles
- PL 2: Digital sovereignty – from users’ empowerment to technological leadership
- PL 3: European Digital Economy and COVID-19 pandemic – current state of affairs, risks, and opportunities
- PL 4: Greening Internet governance – Environmental sustainability and digital transformation
- WS2: Enhancing users’ confidence in cyberspace – risks and solutions
- WS 3: The Impact of DNS Encryption on the Internet Ecosystem and its Users
- WS 4: Innovative uses of blockchain for public empowerment
- WS 5: Should public policy priorities and requirements be included when designing Internet standards?
- WS 6: Social media – opportunities, rights, and responsibilities
- WS 7: Criminal justice in cyberspace – what’s next?
- WS 9: Privacy in Europe – GDPR vs. information freedom?
- WS 10: How to turn challenges into opportunities for education transformation?
- WS 11: Challenges and uptake of modern Internet standards (including, but not limited to IPv6, DNSSEC, HTTPS, RPKI)
- WS 12&16: Community networks in rural areas – best practice
- WS 14: Fighting COVID19 with AI – How to build and deploy solutions we trust?
- WS 15: Universal Acceptance – a technical or a cultural issue?
- Digital Cooperation
- Conclusions of EuroDIG’s stakeholder consultation
- Comments by email
- Comments by the UK Government
- Comment by Amali De Silva-Mitchell
- Initial Comments from the Swiss Government
- Microsoft response to the UN High-level Panel
- X IGF-UA comments on UNSG HLPDC Report
- RIPE NCC Response to the Report
- HLPDC report – comments by Finland
- Denmark’s response to the UN High-level panel
- Comments from the Council of Europe Information Society Department
- Comment from INTA on the UNHLP Report
- Response from IFLA
- EBU contribution to the debate
- Comments of France – UN Report “The age of interdependence”
- Comments by The Netherlands
- Comments by “Media 21” Foundation, Bulgaria
- ICC BASIS response to the report
- Internet Society Comments on the UN HLPDC Report
- Comments by Croatian IGF
- EU Response to the UN HLPDC
- comments by Data Protection Unit – CoE
- Comments by the German Government
- REPORT
Contents - Foreword
- Executive Summary
- 1. Introduction: Interdependence in the Digital Age
- 2. Leaving No One Behind
- 2.1 Creating an inclusive digital economy
- 2.2 Rethinking how we work and learn
- 2.3 Regional and global economic policy cooperation
- 3. Individuals, Societies and Digital Technologies
- 3.1 Human rights and human agency
- 3.2 Trust and social cohesion
- 3.3 Security
- 4. Mechanisms for Global Digital Cooperation
- 4.1 Challenges and gaps
- 4.2 Three possible architectures for global digital cooperation
- 4.3 The role of the UN
- 5. Recommendations
- Annexes
- Notes
- EuroDIG 2019 Messages
- PL 1: Global digital governance – Can technical solutions respond to policy questions?
- PL 2: Intersection of standards and policy
- PL 3: Emerging technologies and human rights
- PL 4: Making norms work – Pursuing effective cybersecurity
- PL 5: Ethics by design – Moving from ethical principles to practical solutions
- PL 6: The European copyright reform: What just happened, what’s next, and what does it mean for the Internet?
- PL 7: Tackling online harms – A regulation minefield? Present and future
- WS 1: Internet consolidation – Opportunities and challenges
- WS 2: GDPR implementation – Blind spots, opportunities, and the way forward
- WS 3: Regulation and the Internet economy – How to create the right building blocks for 5G networks
- WS 4: Children in the digital age – How to balance their right to freedom and their right to be protected?
- WS 5: Transforming skills to meet innovation challenges
- WS 6: DNS over HTTPS (DoH) – What is it, and why should you care?
- WS 7: Cybersecurity challenges ahead! How would you shape regulation to address changing technology?
- WS 8: Fending off trolls – Journalists in defence of democracy
- WS 9: Smart cities and governance
- WS 10: Blockchain & privacy
- WS 11: Criminal justice in cyberspace – More of everything?
- WS 12: Play the villain – Learn to fight disinformation with news literacy
- EuroDIG 2018 Messages
- PRE 1: Copyright reform in Europe – expectations and reality, benefit or harm?
- PRE 2: Don’t forget silver surfers – Digital inclusion and literacy focused on seniors
- PRE 4: UNESCO launch of the 2nd draft of Internet Universality Indicators as a comprehensive tool for enhancing a free, open, rights based and inclusive Internet.
- EDU 1: Is GDPR still a mystery?
- PL 1: Bridging the urban-rural digital gap – a commercial or community effort?
- PL 2: Information disorder: causes, risks and remedies.
- PL 3: Competition in a data-driven world: How to ensure sustainable growth?
- PL 4: Blockchain – a competition to governments?
- WS 1: Platform and data neutrality – Access to content
- WS 2: Privacy is everywhere: how to deal with emerging problems?
- WS 3: Create your digital future: Transforming lives and businesses in Europe
- WS 4: DNS Quo vadis – addressing the challenges and the future functionality of the DNS
- WS 5: IoT – economic opportunities and security challenges
- WS 6: Universal acceptance – Is the Internet reaching the people it needs to?
- WS 7: Surveillance, laws, and governments vs Internet rights
- WS 8: Artificial intelligence, ethics and the future of work
- WS 9: Non-state actors in Europe and beyond: The true shapers of cybersecurity norms?!
- WS 10: Your freedom of expression vs. mine? Who is in control?
- WS 11: Converging markets and blurred borders – challenges for e-commerce in Europe
- Closing Session – Future of the IGF
- Infos
Activity
Recent Comments on this Site
-
There have been some comments about the messages on the WS-16 mailing list rather than being logged as part of the messages procedure. The final result was a list of messages agreed by consensus.
-
I suggest to rephrase more concrete: There must be a global collaborative effort in the form of dialogic regulation between governments, tech companies, and civil society to develop a solution grounded in human rights that will address disinformation and harmful content
-
I suggest tp rephrase a bit more concrete: Liberal approaches of governments towards online platforms at there start of the platform economy led to …
-
Although I was the one who mentioned this during the session, I am not sure that we should push for frequency regulation – besides, it is very likely to be be outside our scope
-
NEW WORDING PROPOSED:
One institution ALONE CANNOT solve the problem. Multistakeholder approach IS needed, TO BUILD AN HARMONIOUS SYSTEM WHERE HARD AND SOFT REGULATION MECHANISMS FIND A BALANCE WITHIN THEIR RESPECTIVE BOUNDARIES, MANDATES AND ACCOUNTABILITY MECHANISMS. IN PARTICULAR Platforms have a big stake, and should be required to develop transparent self/co-regulation.
-
propose to add at the end of the phrase: “Those defenses should be strengthened by media education: a field where public service broadcasters have a special role to play based on their remits.
-
This legitimacy needs to arise from clear legislative frameworks in which hard regulation and soft regulations could find an equilibrium, each one with its own specific role and with clear boundaries and accountability mechanisms.
-
[that will address disinformation and harmful content]
-
As I mentioned during the session, I believe we should be careful with using the term ‘content moderation’ in the context of the Internet infrastructure level, as these services are typically very far removed from the actual content. I would like to suggest amending this paragraph to read: “Recent cases show that certain infrastructure providers unwillingly take action that could be argued to be content moderation by suspending services for the platforms in an ad-hoc manner without any transparent policy. But infrastructure services have limited possible options, which tend to be temporary solutions (clearing cache), overbroad reactions (limiting access) or options that open up websites to cyberattack (terminating services of particular users).”
Comments on the Pages
PL 1: Global digital governance – Can technical solutions respond to policy questions? (10 comments)
“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.
We already know this. The real million-euro question is how?
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.
Not break, but violate*
[certifications ]
standaridsation setting processes and lengthy and expensive certifications
[, ]
being informed by standards, labels, and self-certification that is enforced by third parties
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.
THis should be the third paragraph
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!
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)
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.
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.
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.”
+1 to Melle’s comments
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.
Also the first sentence:
The community’s experience and its direct involvement are important when investing in infrastructural projects.
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)
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
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
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 🙂
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
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.”
+1 Ilias
Well done!
WS 12: Play the villain – Learn to fight disinformation with news literacy (6 comments)
[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
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.
Really good job!
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”.
I second Michael formulation, but would more modestly say that there are “a solid solution” (not the only one)
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”.
WS 4: Children in the digital age – How to balance their right to freedom and their right to be protected? (6 comments)
Edit: children and youth
Good job. I’d encourage the final to include mention of not just children but also youth since both terms are more inclusive.
This is a message from the YouthDIG brought into the session, the message was adopted slightly different as follows:
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.
The 3rd message agreed upon is the session needs to be added a follows:
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: Best practices of self- and co-regulation of platforms towards a legal framework (5 comments)
[that will address disinformation and harmful content]
This legitimacy needs to arise from clear legislative frameworks in which hard regulation and soft regulations could find an equilibrium, each one with its own specific role and with clear boundaries and accountability mechanisms.
I suggest tp rephrase a bit more concrete: Liberal approaches of governments towards online platforms at there start of the platform economy led to …
delete “being”
I suggest to rephrase more concrete: There must be a global collaborative effort in the form of dialogic regulation between governments, tech companies, and civil society to develop a solution grounded in human rights that will address disinformation and harmful content
PL 2: Digital sovereignty – from users’ empowerment to technological leadership (5 comments)
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”.
You could add after the last sentence: the DSA package offers the perfect opportunity.
At the end a sentence should be added: The DSA package offers the perfect opportunity.
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.
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)
Great job
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…”.
Perhaps I would also mention the word “jurisdiction” in an additional open question – i.e. “Which jurisdiction should apply to DNS resolution?”.
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 🙂
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)
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.
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.
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.
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 5: Transforming skills to meet innovation challenges (3 comments)
Edit: Using The Netherlands as a case study, Dutch public authorities have recognised two challenges
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.
Good!
WS 3: Regulation and the Internet economy – How to create the right building blocks for 5G networks (3 comments)
Edit: “of the different” –> of different or of various
Edit: the protection of data, the environmental footprint, and health concerns.
Well done!
WS 5: Should public policy priorities and requirements be included when designing Internet standards? (3 comments)
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?
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?
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 7: Cybersecurity challenges ahead! How would you shape regulation to address changing technology? (3 comments)
Absolutely!
Good. Were any examples of transparency/accountability mechanisms given?
Good job!
3.1 Human rights and human agency (2 comments)
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 & Technology, 31(2), 170-187.
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.)
WS 12&16: Community networks in rural areas – best practice (2 comments)
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 [..]
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 16: Delay-Tolerant Network (DTN) (2 comments)
Although I was the one who mentioned this during the session, I am not sure that we should push for frequency regulation – besides, it is very likely to be be outside our scope
There have been some comments about the messages on the WS-16 mailing list rather than being logged as part of the messages procedure. The final result was a list of messages agreed by consensus.
WS 11: Challenges and uptake of modern Internet standards (including, but not limited to IPv6, DNSSEC, HTTPS, RPKI) (2 comments)
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.
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 9: Privacy in Europe – GDPR vs. information freedom? (2 comments)
This is true and is already regulated by GDPR, but it has not been discussed in the workshop.
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
FS 4: European mediascape – How to (re)create a trusted public sphere? (2 comments)
propose to add at the end of the phrase: “Those defenses should be strengthened by media education: a field where public service broadcasters have a special role to play based on their remits.
NEW WORDING PROPOSED:
One institution ALONE CANNOT solve the problem. Multistakeholder approach IS needed, TO BUILD AN HARMONIOUS SYSTEM WHERE HARD AND SOFT REGULATION MECHANISMS FIND A BALANCE WITHIN THEIR RESPECTIVE BOUNDARIES, MANDATES AND ACCOUNTABILITY MECHANISMS. IN PARTICULAR Platforms have a big stake, and should be required to develop transparent self/co-regulation.
PL 4: Making norms work – Pursuing effective cybersecurity (2 comments)
Edit: meta level, particularly via multi-stakeholder fora.
Good job
PL 6: The European copyright reform: What just happened, what’s next, and what does it mean for the Internet? (2 comments)
Such as?
Or rather, a debate about what?
WS 9: Smart cities and governance (2 comments)
Edit: Sustainable Development Goals
Wonderful job!
WS 9: Content moderation on the Internet infrastructure level – Where does censorship begin? (1 comment)
As I mentioned during the session, I believe we should be careful with using the term ‘content moderation’ in the context of the Internet infrastructure level, as these services are typically very far removed from the actual content. I would like to suggest amending this paragraph to read: “Recent cases show that certain infrastructure providers unwillingly take action that could be argued to be content moderation by suspending services for the platforms in an ad-hoc manner without any transparent policy. But infrastructure services have limited possible options, which tend to be temporary solutions (clearing cache), overbroad reactions (limiting access) or options that open up websites to cyberattack (terminating services of particular users).”
PL 2: Intersection of standards and policy (1 comment)
Good job!
WS 6: Universal acceptance – Is the Internet reaching the people it needs to? (1 comment)
We are going around…
PL 3: Emerging technologies and human rights (1 comment)
Well done, good messages
WS 15: Universal Acceptance – a technical or a cultural issue? (1 comment)
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.
WS 1: Internet consolidation – Opportunities and challenges (1 comment)
Absolutely on point, well done!
WS 2: GDPR implementation – Blind spots, opportunities, and the way forward (1 comment)
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.
WS 10: Blockchain & privacy (1 comment)
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.
PL 5: Ethics by design – Moving from ethical principles to practical solutions (1 comment)
Brilliant job, and absolutely agree with paragraph 5!
WS 8: Fending off trolls – Journalists in defence of democracy (1 comment)
Brilliant job, well captured!
WS 6: Social media – opportunities, rights, and responsibilities (1 comment)
Easy access to and findability of trusted content needs to be ensured.
3. Individuals, Societies and Digital Technologies (1 comment)
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)
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 7: Tackling online harms – A regulation minefield? Present and future (1 comment)
Wonderful job!
WS 11: Criminal justice in cyberspace – More of everything? (1 comment)
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.