X IGF-UA comments on UNSG HLPDC Report
X IGF-UA Final plenary
“UNSG HLPDC Report from the point of view of different stakeholders”
Kyiv, Ukraine, 23rd September 2019
Final plenary of X IGF-UA, which was held on 23rd of September 2019 in Kyiv, Ukraine, was devoted to the discussion of “The Age of Digital Interdependence” (the United Nations Secretary-General’ High-Level Panel on Digital Cooperation report).
Key speakers of the panel: Alex Semenyaka, RIPE NCC. Alexander Isavnin, Internet Protection Society, Natalia Mochu, ICANN, Roberto Gaetano, EURALO ICANN, Serhii Saienko, MFA of Ukraine. Discussion was moderated by Oksana Prykhodko, iNGO European Media Platform.
Messages:
- Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and the concept of multistakeholderism (MSH) have to be supported, first of all on ideological level.
- Nevertheless IGF demands enlargement and work on some crisis phenomena, as well as MSH, which is difficult on practical level and time-consuming, has a room for improvement (by mutual efforts of all stakeholders).
- It is necessary to minimize the risks of spoofing and imitation of MSH approach.
- Internet can not work without trust, but confidence-building is extremely delicate and fragile process, and trust can not be imposed top-down or be simply imported from best-practices. The process of confidence-building has to be based on the model of risks and institution of reputation.
- MSH is gradually applied beyond Internet Governance issues. This process is highly appreciated, but demands additional efforts on promotions, awareness raising and capacity building.
Recent Comments on this Site
5th July 2022 at 5:37 pm
Paragraph 2: Mentioning standardisation bodies in one line with industry deployment seems like a mix-up/mistake.
See in context
5th July 2022 at 5:33 pm
Paragraph 2: It is unclear what the actual message is.
See in context
5th July 2022 at 5:32 pm
Paragraph 1: It is unclear what the actual message is.
See in context
5th July 2022 at 5:30 pm
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?).
See in context
5th July 2022 at 5:12 pm
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.”
See in context
5th July 2022 at 5:11 pm
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.
See in context
5th July 2022 at 5:02 pm
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.
See in context
5th July 2022 at 5:00 pm
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.
See in context
2nd July 2022 at 10:46 pm
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.
See in context
2nd July 2022 at 10:44 pm
comment on paragraph I don’t see this paragraph related to the Digital Sovereignty discussions. I suggest deleting it.
See in context