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.

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.)

in addition to “greening ICT” and respective methods for measuring the footprints, we also discussed the need of methodologies for the enabling side, so please add:

“Futhermore, common methodologies are also necessary to measure and compare the enabling effects of digital solutions in order to describe their net-environmental benefit.”

This is a must for ehealth

Accessibility for all devices is a must and must take into account all disabilities including the blind and deaf.

Accessibility on all devices

Ehealth and medical internet of things requires quality internet

bundling a variety of sectors needs may increase investment. E.g. ehealth with agriculture and education to support a holistic use for the internet ..

The good samaritan can be through NGOs who support all individuals to access the internet – important for the medical internet of things

Critical for internet of medical things functioning for quality internet. Robotics, virtual reality , quantum should all be accommodated.

health data

medical internet of things

medical applications

medical applications ; patients should be able to move with their data and access old data files; consent from patient for third parties to access data; care with profiling and identication when anonymity is applied

important for health application of AI etc. Need trust and accountability of algorithms. Human, trusted oversight is required. Old data should be analyzed. Errors eliminated for quality systems. Transparency on data sources with dates.

take that proper consent is received, by the individual etc.

meaningful access to equitable access, involves accessibility for all

affordability, niche groups and still to be identified groups. Privacy vs transparency?

New era of brain waves for manipulating the applications such as robots or VR. Ethics is important.

Medical aps and ethics. Ethics for brain wave ehealth applications operation. VR ethics.

critical for medical information

Transparency of data sources and algorithms. Building of trust and human oversight. Zero failures for healthcare. Due diligence and audits that are timely. Getting rid of errors and old non relevant data.

very important. brainwave techs, Quantum, VR, how algorithms work for a health ap etc. Naive users must not be made use of. Consent is key, What is a reasonable person ?

collaboration of techiques / know-how,  can enhance medical aps

Important for medical internet of things and ehealth for SDG 3

New theme of Digital Health is required

Green ehealth aps

room for statistical innovation with quantum, robots and mind reading applications now in development.

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.”

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?

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.

The multi stakeholder involvement in the standards development processis crucial, as is the value of a collaborative process to address identified problems and or issues, including the engagement of policymakers in the process so they gain a better understanding of what standards exist and how they are intended to be applied.  Governments are critical to encourage development, adoption and standards implementation rather than mandate or regulate solutions.

The following should be included:
The multi stakeholder involvement in standards development process is needed, as is the value of a collaborative process to address identified problems and or issues, including the engagement of policymakers in the process so they gain a better understanding of what standards exist and how they are intended to be applied.  Governments are critical to encourage development, adoption and standards implementation rather than mandate or regulate solutions.

Here the messaging does not capture the focus of the discussion on the need to implement standards once they have been finalized.  That an implementation framework is important to address national cybersecurity issues and at the international level cooperation is important for effective implementation.

The following should be included: “The multi stakeholder involvement in the standards development process is needed, as is the value of a collaborative process to address identified problems and or issues, including the engagement of policymakers in the process so they gain a better understanding of what standards exist and how they are intended to be applied.  Governments are critical to encourage development, adoption and standards implementation rather than mandate or regulate solutions.”

Here, ‘relentless testing’ is not necessarily connected to consumers but to consumer organisations’ testing programmes and to societal organisation of responsible disclosure.

Also, it is unclear what procurement has got to do with lower-level standard bodies (who are they?).

Paragraph 1: It is unclear what the actual message is.

Paragraph 2: It is unclear what the actual message is.

Paragraph 2: Mentioning standardisation bodies in one line with industry deployment seems like a mix-up/mistake.

[…} Any regulatory initiatives aimed at creating sovereignty in a particular field (NIS Directive, DNS4EU) must be well-examined to be sure they do not harm human rights online, do not harm the open and global nature of the Internet, and are in line with the democratic, multistakeholder principles.

comment on paragraph I don’t see this paragraph related to the Digital Sovereignty discussions. I suggest deleting it.

Alternative wording:

The European vision of digital sovereignty could (should?) be used to increase competition and foster economic growth for the EU and its member states.

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”.

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.

[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.

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.

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.

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:

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.

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

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

[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.

In order to capture the discussions and conclusions of WS3 on International connectivity, I would suggest to add the following text to Focus Area 1, possibly after or within paragraph 2:
“Connectivity should be a fundamental building block in EU efforts, highlighting the importance of connecting Europe to the rest of the world. There is a need for increased investments on international connectivity through submarine cables and other technologies. The EU shoud take decisive steps in establishing a comprehensive digital connectivity strategy not just between the EU Members, but also to other regions across the Globe, in particular those regions with high traffic growth, such as Africa or South America. This strategy is crucial to turn the EU into world-class data hub and its digital products competitive worldwide. In this regard, the Global Gateway is a Key Strategic framework: the new European Strategy aims at boosting smart, clean and secure links in digital, energy and transport”.

Normal
0

21

false
false
false

PT
X-NONE
X-NONE

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-parent:””;
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0cm;
mso-para-margin-right:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:8.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0cm;
line-height:107%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:”Calibri”,sans-serif;
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:”Times New Roman”;
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}

Slight amendment to the text previously sent:

“Connectivity should be a fundamental building block in EU efforts, highlighting the importance of connecting Europe to the rest of the world. There is a need for increased investments on international connectivity through submarine cables and other technologies. The EU shoud take decisive steps in establishing a comprehensive digital connectivity strategy not just between the EU Members, but also to other regions across the Globe, in particular those regions with high traffic growth, such as Africa, South America

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-parent:””;
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0cm;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:”Times New Roman”,serif;}

and Asia including Japan. This strategy is crucial to turn the EU into world-class data hub and its digital products competitive worldwide. In this regard, the Global Gateway is a Key Strategic framework: the new European Strategy aims at boosting smart, clean and secure links in digital, energy and transport”.

Normal
0

21

false
false
false

PT
X-NONE
X-NONE

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.

“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*

Good job!

Well done, good messages

Absolutely on point, well done!

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.

Edit: “of the different” –> of different or of various

Edit: the protection of data, the environmental footprint, and health concerns.

Well done!

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.

Edit: meta level, particularly via multi-stakeholder fora.

Good job

Brilliant job, and absolutely agree with paragraph 5!

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!

Great job

Absolutely!

Good. Were any examples of transparency/accountability mechanisms given?

Good job!

Brilliant job, well captured!

Such as?

Or rather, a debate about what?

Edit: Sustainable Development Goals

Wonderful job!

[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!

Wonderful job!

+1 Ilias

Well done!

I think this is an excellent and needed addition, thank you! Additionally, there have been multiple successful sessions held on the topic at EuroDIG, of which a full listing is available at:  https://eurodigwiki.org/wiki/Greening_Internet_governance_%E2%80%93_Environmental_sustainability_and_digital_transformation_%E2%80%93_2020/2021

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

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.

I propose the following for para 3:

 
Disinformation during the pandemic and the war against Ukraine has confirmed how it can polarize the public debate and be a driver of a crisis. We need a variety of measures to counter disinformation: regulatory measures, trustworthy content through the support of sustainable and independent journalism and independent public service media, fact-checking initiatives and investment in digital and media literacy. Any response to disinformation must comply with human rights and European values, such as democracy and the rule of law. Increased cooperation of the different stakeholders is key.

Normal
0

false
false
false

EN-US
X-NONE
X-NONE

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-parent:””;
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0cm;
mso-para-margin-right:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:8.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0cm;
line-height:107%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:”Calibri”,sans-serif;
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:”Times New Roman”;
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}

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.

We are going around…

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.”

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).”

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.

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.

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.

It would be important to make sure that the concept of ‘classrooms’ extends to wherever learning takes place, including lifelong learning centres, libraries and beyond

… as well as to invest in building media literacy skills in people of all ages

as well as trusted community institutions such as libraries

We should be clear that knowledge itself should be a commons, as also recognised by UNESCO in its Futures of Education report, and therefore support efforts to avoid enclosures that harm the public interest

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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”.

Suggested changes:

“avoid creating barriers to weaker economic players” – competition regulation is always meant to create constraints onto dominant players, to facilitate the others.

Also, I am still not too sure about the final paragraph that singles out two specific things, one of which, DNS4EU, is not even a regulatory initiative (I would actually say that it is not even an exertion of sovereignty, not any more than any public procurement initiative). Possibly we can just strike the parentheses with the examples.

“States” should have a capital S.

This is in total contradiction with the last sentence of paragraph 2. Do we want to prioritise values, or do we want to prioritise business? You can’t always maximise both. Actually, most of the current wave of EU regulation is about protecting values in the face of business pressures. It looks like this paragraph is actually advocating against EU regulation.

Er… what is “internet operability”?

Also, the “operational level of the Internet” (whatever that is) is not managed by the IETF. The IETF makes standards, it does not manage anything.

In the overall, it is unclear to me what the message is.

Third sentence: again, industries implement standards, but standardisation bodies do not. Perhaps the sentence should be broken into two parts.

Fourth sentence: not sure why the encouragement to participation is just for NGOs.

Third sentence: again, industries implement standards, but standardisation bodies do not. Perhaps the sentence should be broken into two parts.

Fourth sentence: not sure why the encouragement to participation is just for NGOs.

Sorry, the last comment was meant for §2 instead – I reposted it there.

I am all in favour of including youth, but if you write the last sentence this way, it looks like the #1 remedy to the challenges posed by the geopolitical tensions is including youth, and I do not think this is what we want to say. Perhaps it could be something like:

– there is a need to take a fresh look

– one of the issues to consider is the inclusion of…

I’m sure we said that digital identity solutions should also be open and interoperable and should allow end-users to pick their trusted identity provider among many, avoiding the centralized control of online identification by either the government or the dominant Internet platforms. At least, I’m sure that Stefano Quintarelli said so 🙂

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