IGF 2016: Enabling Inclusive and Sustainable Growth

This workshop will explore some of the main cybersecurity challenges in the Global South today and how local stakeholders are working to overcome them. For developing economies and societies to fully reap the benefits of the Internet, the global community must work not only to ensure digital access, but also to tackle questions related to having a secure and trustworthy Cyberspace such as: innovative approaches to DNSSEC that enhance user confidence in Internet-based services; wider deployment of secure routing technologies; tools and policies for better traffic management; solutions to enhance the confidentiality of Internet traffic; data security and integrity; security of IoT; protection of critical Infrastructure from cyber attacks; end-user device security, among others. These are key aspects for developing regions to truly leverage the Internet as a tool to achieve inclusive and sustainable growth and avoid further inequalities.
The session will introduce the perspective of 5 regional stakeholders from Latin America and the Caribbean, Asia Pacific and Africa and will showcase success cases unfolding in developing economies. With representatives from civil society, government, private sector and the academia, the workshop will provide an opportunity for an open, multi-stakeholder debate on how to tackle cybersecurity issues in developing economies.

Speakers provisionally confirmed:

Hoepers, Cristine
Hountomey, Jean-Robert
Kolkman, Olaf
Palma Salas , Marcelo
Toimoana, Andrew
Vega, Erika
Wilson, Paul

Inclusive and sustainable growth means children and young people should be able to grow and flourish through the opportunities the internet makes available, free from violence and coercion. Unfortunately, it has never been easier for perpetrators to make contact with children, or to share images of abuse and inspire each other to commit further crimes. 

WePROTECT offers a critical multistakeholder intervention to prevent such crimes, in support of the IGF 2016 theme and the Sustainable Development Goals (16.2). The mission is to instill in everyone a responsibility to help protect children online so that, collectively, we help identify and protect victims; remove child sexual abuse material from the internet and strengthen cooperation to track down perpetrators around the world.

In any such program, systematic capacity-building is also critical to inclusive and sustainable growth. Whether you are a member of law enforcement, a new industry player, part of a child protection NGO, come and learn how you and your organization can join the WePROTECT Global Alliance and help make a difference on a global stage on this important issue.

The IGF is a unique opportunity to reach potential partners from governments, law enforcement, and civil society. Being in Mexico allows us to reach potential Latin American, Caribbean and South American Partners. 

Draft Agenda
1) Opening remarks from Moderator – 5 minutes
2) Overview of WePROTECT – 10 minutes
3) Reactions from existing supporters – 15 minutes
4) Discussion with audience participants 45 minutes
5) Wrap up and next steps – 15 minutes

Speakers provisionally confirmed:

Allen, Ernie
Bautista, Colonel Freddy
Beauchere, Jacqueline 
Nejm, Rodrigo

The tension between freedom expression and the need to take action against extremist content is one of the most important internet governance challenges we face today. 

It is a classic example of the offline and online worlds colliding and is tied directly to Sustainable Development Goals 1, 4, 8 and 16.

Since violent and terror-inducing groups have started to use social media and video-sharing services to recruit and expand, a need has arisen to regulate social media content without infringing on the rights of users or violating established user agreements. This need for a delicate balance creates a variety of issues and questions.

• What is the right policy to deal with this serious issue? 
• How much should companies voluntarily cooperate with the government to keep violent propaganda off their platforms and identify suspicious users? 
• What can be done to control and combat propaganda that is spread via social media?
• How do you balance the right to expression with the need to stop extremist content?

After a brief overview from the moderator, the room will divide into 4 breakout groups to address one of the questions above. Each group will have a discussion facilitator to help move the discussions along and we will ensure that each group has proportional representation from across the multistakeholder community.

After discussion and deliberations, findings from the groups will be presented with an eye towards building a document that proposes recommendations going forward on how to address this critical issue.

Speakers provisionally confirmed:

Elrafihi, Mohamed
Miller, Carl
Ramadan, Omar

States’ jurisdiction, traditionally anchored on the principle of territoriality, is increasingly challenged as cyberspace is in principle borderless. Notably, law enforcement agencies’ access to criminal evidence is complicated by storage online, often by private companies’ servers, and often abroad in another jurisdiction. This growing lawlessness in cyberspace complicates law enforcement’s ability to rapidly secure and obtain digital evidence to prevent and investigate serious crime and terrorism.

Generally, no harmonised global approach exists on how to access such information. A wide array of evolving national approaches are threatening to fragment cyberspace, causing conflicting requirements on Internet companies, and posing tough questions about the rule of law, inclusiveness and online rights. 

These challenges are forcing governments and international institutions to consider new frameworks for cooperation and is leading to a global rethink on how to better determine jurisdiction in cyberspace.

This session will convene experts from law enforcement, the Council of Europe, tech industry, civil society and academia to address current challenges and point to possible solutions.

Confirmed speakers:

- Alexander Seger, Head of Cybercrime Division, Council of Europe
- Neide de Oliveira, Coordinator of the National Working Group on Cybercrime, Brazil
- Paul Mitchell, General Manager, Technology Policy, Microsoft Corporation
- Bertrand de la Chapelle, Director, Internet & Jurisdiction Project
- Emma Llanso, Director of the Free Expression Project, Center for Democracy & Technology
- Nathalia Foditsch, American University
- Christian Borggreen, Director, International Policy, Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA) 

Link to event flyer. 

The choices we make about Internet security will have an impact on our ability to achieve the sustainable development goals (SDGs). This panel discussion will explore the critical role of collaboration in Internet security and how that approach affects sustainable economic and social growth.

Any practical cybersecurity framework needs to start with an understanding of the fundamental properties of the Internet and an appreciation of the complexity of the cybersecurity landscape. It should be premised on fostering trust and protecting opportunities for economic and social prosperity. Achieving security objectives, while preserving these fundamental properties, rights and values is the real challenge of cybersecurity strategy.

The Internet Society recently published an approach to tackling cybersecurity in the paper "Collaborative Security". This approach starts from the considerations identified above. The objective of this IGF workshop is to continue the development of the Collaborative Security approach and principles as they apply in regional and local contexts.

The session format is a panel that will enable moderated discussion among panellists, and all participants both online and in-person. An outline agenda for the session follows:

1. Introduction, purpose, format and outcomes - 5 minutes
2. Panellist intros - 5 minutes
3. Collaborative Security framework overview - 5 minutes
4. Regional and local perspectives - 20 minutes
5. Moderated discussion between panellists - 15 minutes
6. Open discussion with in-person and online participants (the latter facilitated by the online moderator) - 35 minutes
7. Summary, key findings and continuing the dialogue - 5 minutes

Speakers provisionally confirmed:

Carvell, Mark
Esaki, Hiroshi
Ito, Yurie
Kolkman, Olaf
Lefèvre, Flávia
Shorey, Nick

Bringing the next billions online is a goal shared by all. But if this growth is to be inclusive and sustainable, we need to empower new users to protect themselves from the growing problems of malware and cyber fraud. 

For experienced users, familiarity with these problems helps keep them safe. But for those just coming online, dealing with these threats is something that is foreign to them.

Our session aims to allow the audience themselves to be the problem solvers. Instead of listening to someone at the dais spout statistics, participants will help problem solve in the following three areas: 
1. Malware
2. Cyber fraud
3. Enabling trust

After a brief set of opening remarks and explanation of the format, a topic leader for each group will spend no more than 5 minutes framing the specific discussion boundaries and will cite 1-3 specific events or reports on each to initiate the discussion and help focus it. 

The group will reassemble where all participants will engage in discussing brain stormed ideas on what wisdom and approaches can be used to help new internet adopters. The report on the session will catalog the outcomes for the IGF record.

Speakers provisionally confirmed:

Nigam, Hemu
Palumbo, Dan

2016 IGF Best Practice Forum (BPF) Cybersecurity: ‘Building Confidence and Security in the use of Information and Communications Technologies (ICTs) through Enhanced Cooperation and Collaboration’

Substantive Session

IGF Day 3: Thursday, 8 December 2016, 9:00 - 10:30am - WS Room #9

Title and Date/Length of the Session:

2016 IGF Best Practice Forum (BPF) Cybersecurity: ‘Building Confidence and Security in the use of Information and Communications Technologies (ICTs) through Enhanced Cooperation and Collaboration’

IGF Day 3: Thursday, 8 December 2016, 09:00 - 10:30am (90 Minutes)

Brief Description/Objective:

The ongoing work and draft output of the 2016 IGF Best Practice Forum on Cybersecurity emerged based on the general consensus from the community that the BPF might most benefit from addressing cooperation and collaboration between stakeholder groups as a topic.There was agreement that the community would benefit from having a multistakeholder discussion, including each of the major IGF stakeholder groups, on how to engage and communicate with each other on cybersecurity issues and that this work was uniquely fit for an IGF BPF. There was also agreement that the BPF for 2016 should not be seen in isolation, but should rather be seen in a long-term perspective and that capacity building would be an integral component for the work.

This session will present the draft output paper and provide the broader community with an overview of the work that the BPF has carried out over the past 6 months since the BPF was formally initiated in May of 2016. The session will also invite all contributors to the BPF to present and discuss their views on the subject matter and to comment on the contributions of others as reflected in the output. Finally, the discussion will aim to find a way forward for the work of the BPF cybersecurity.
During the meeting, we'll cover the work done so far and comments provided in the review platform.

Next, we'll have about one hour of discussion on the topic. Each of the speakers will have a few minutes to make a short opening statement. After that, we'll roughly try to cover the following areas, and any others raised by attendees or speakers:

• Definition: We identified that Cybersecurity has different meaning to different stakeholder groups. Do you believe we need a universal definition, perhaps some type of document that covers areas, roles and responsibilities? Or is the lack of formal and agreed-upon definition an opportunity for ongoing conversation and improving each other's understanding of the space?
  
  
• Situational awareness: One of the areas which was touched in the initial definition of work for the BPF was that of "situational awareness", a "knowing and influencing of risks and applied mitigations". 
  
  One interesting example raised in the contributions was that of Nigeria, where Whatsapp was used to rapidly disseminate cybersecurity related news across a community of influencers. How do we see this working at an international level? Should each community share amongst themselves, or is there room for a multi-stakeholder body that aids in generating this level of awareness? Would it help address some of the communications issues we've identified around what it is that "cybersecurity" really means?
  
  
• Inclusive spaces of engagement: Several contributors referred to a study by the Freedom Online Coalition, which showed that most cybersecurity policy making spaces are not open to civil society. What are some concrete steps these bodies could take to become more inclusive to other stakeholder groups? Do you believe there are reasons why these spaces are more closed, and what could we expect if they were more open?
  
  
• Unnecessary contradiction: several contributors raised that there is a perceived gap between privacy and cyber security, while other indicators show that there is mutual reinforcement. This leads to the hotly contested debate spaces around encryption and anonymity. What is our way out?
  
  
• Tech vs Diplomacy: Quite often there appears to be a lack of engagement between the technical community and policy makers. At times it can even be dismissive of each other's contribution -- to engineers, code is often law. To policy makers, law helps define what the code should do or look like. A key outcome of the BPF is that stakeholders must understand, respect and trust each other's expertise and competences. When the issues are that basic and black and white, what can be done to meet these goals?
  
  
• Outcomes and next steps: As an outcome this year, we have a set of 10 guiding statements, which may be augmented after this meeting. Should this BPF take a proactive role in defining and implementing solutions for these problems in the future, or can we come up with a concrete set of actions for each stakeholder community, or perhaps even an owner to tackle some of these hard issues?

Agenda:

- Introduce the BPF/Overview of the work and introduce draft output (15 minutes)
- Presentation of BPF work/output (15 mins)
- Interactive discussion with panelists, discussants and other contributors to the work of the BPF on the draft output and way forward for the BPF (1 hour)

 Chair(s) and/or Moderator(s) and Speakers/Discussants:

• Markus Kummer, Coordinator for 2016 IGF BPF Cybersecurity (Chair)

• Segun Olugbile, Co-Coordinator for 2016 IGF BPF Cybersecurity

• Maarten Van Horenbeeck, Fastly, FIRST (Moderator)

Panel:

• Richard Leaning, RIPE NCC (Speaker)
• Isabel Skierka, Digital Society Institute (DSI) (Speaker)

• Kerry-Ann Barrett and Barbara Marchiori, Organization of American States (OAS) (Speakers)

• Grace Githaiga, KICTANet (Speaker)
• Matthew Shears, Freedom Online Coalition (FOC) (Speaker)

• Hiroshi Esaki, Graduate School of Information Science and Technology, The University of Tokyo (Speaker)

• All contributors to the BPF call for inputs will be invited to speak as discussants from the floor.

Can Law enforcement catch bad actors online anymore ?

Workshop co-organizer(s):

• Robert Guerra, Technical Community, SSAC Member, ICANN
• Jeff Bedser, Private Sector, iThreat Cyber Group

Description of the  workshop

The exhaustion of the IPv4 address supply has been predicted since the end of the 1980s. However, the large scale adoption of mobile devices and their associated IPv4 addressing needs accelerated the exhaustion timetable, and placed increased pressure on network operators to conserve IPv4 address.

This pressure has resulted in a marked increase in the use of technologies, such as Network Address Translation (NAT), that allow pools of addresses to be shared across multiple endpoints. These mechanisms enable the reuse of the limited pool of available IPv4 addresses, resulting in the number of connected endpoints vastly outnumbering the number of addresses in use in the public internet.

This has three important implications for Internet technology developers, and those who depend on certain behaviors of the technology.

Application designers need to consider the fact that an IP address does not necessarily identify an endpoint.

Law enforcement and forensic functions need to consider that an IP address alone may not be sufficient to correlate Internet activity observations with an endpoint; and even an IP address associated timestamp generally may not suffice.

Data retention mechanisms and policies that record or reference an IP address need to refactor their actions and requirements to consider that in increasingly large parts of the Internet, an IP address is merely a temporary identifier. Potentially large volumes of ancillary data are required to match an IP address to an endpoint.

Description of the plan to facilitate discussion amongst speakers, audience members and remote participants

The workshop will be organized as a facilitated dialogue. Led by the moderator, subject experts will debate and discuss the key questions and issues. Subject experts will give opening comments, after which the moderator will turn to those attending the session and invited experts in the audience to engage in facilitated dialogue.

In addition to the background documents and papers that will be prepared ahead of the IGF, additional articles of interest, commissioned blogs, reference materials and social media conversations will be published and distributed ahead of the workshop.

Workshop panelists/session experts

The experts listed below have accepted the invitation to participate in the session. They are drawn from the Law Enforcement, Government, Academia, Civil Society, The Technical Community and Private sector stakeholder groups. A facilitated dialogue will be organized so that these experts can bring their knowledge and perspective to discuss and debate the challenges brought by IPv4 exhaustion and the challenges and opportunities presented by IPv6 adoption.

(1) Jeffrey R. Bedser is the founder and CEO of iThreat Cyber Group www.ithreat.com. Mr. Bedser has led ICG on its journey from an internet investigative firm to a technology driven threat Intelligence Company. ICG was formed in 1997 as Internet Crimes Group. Mr. Bedser has been a facilitator, panelist and speaker for organizations such as POLCYB, ASIS International, Infragard, HTCIA, The Conference Board, ICANN and the FBI Training Academy at Quantico. Mr. Bedser has received media coverage on multiple occasions discussing topics surrounding cyber-crime and cyber security.

For the session, Jeff will help present an overview of the current challenges being faced by cyber investigators as IPv4 addresses are exhausted and the transition to a wider deployment of IPv6 takes place.

(2) Ben Butler has been with Go Daddy since 2001. In 2002, He formed the Go Daddy Abuse Department, and served as Director of Network Abuse for over 10 years. In this role, Ben helped create and enforce company and public policies dealing with every form of potential abuse that happens online, including spam, phishing, identity theft, copyright infringements, cyberbullying, child exploitation issues, and rogue internet pharmacies. He recently took on a new role as Director of the Digital Crimes Unit. Ben comes from a strong technical background including several years as a network and email administrator, and has experience in customer service, business management, and marketing.

Ben will bring a registrar perspective to the conversation and dialogue.

(3) John Curran is considered an Internet and telecommunications industry expert. Curran was one of the founding members and is the current President and Chief Executive Officer of the American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN), a Regional Internet Registry (RIR). He is also a Principal Associate at Isotropic, LLC., a cybersecurity and telecommunications service provider. Curran actively participates in the activities of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) and has served as co-chairman of the Operations and Network Management Area and member of IPng (IPv6) Directorate.

For the session, John will bring the North American Regional Internet Registry perspective to the conversation.

(4) Laura DeNardis is an American author and a globally recognized scholar of Internet governance and technical infrastructure. She is a tenured Professor and Associate Dean in the School of Communication at American University. She is a Senior Fellow of the Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI) and serves as the Director of Research for the Global Commission on Internet Governance. With a background in Information engineering and a doctorate in Science and Technology Studies (STS), her research studies the social and political implications of Internet technical architecture and governance.

Laura is an appointed member of the U.S. Department of State Advisory Committee on International Communications and Information Policy (ACICIP). She has more than two decades of experience as an expert consultant in Internet Governance to Fortune 500 companies, foundations, and government agencies.

For the session, Laura will bring an academic and research perspective to the conversation.

(5) Athina Fragkouli is the Legal Counsel at the RIPE Network Coordination Centre (NCC), where she is responsible for all legal aspects of the organisation. She defines the RIPE NCC legal framework, provides advice, and gives legal support for all RIPE NCC activities. Athina works with a variety of Internet stakeholders such as network operators, governments, and Law Enforcement Agencies (LEA). She also represents the RIPE NCC in a variety of fora such as technical meetings and EU-organised events.

Athina - Will bring a European Regional Internet Registry perspective to the panel. As well she will bring a rights based, european and privacy perspective to the conversation.

(6) Merike Kaeo is a recognized global expert in information security and author of “Designing Network Security.” Prior to joining Farsight Security, Merike served as Chief Information Security Officer for Internet Identity (IID), where she was responsible for maintaining IID’s vision and ensuring the company’s sensitive information and technologies are protected. Prior to joining IID, Merike founded Double Shot Security, which provided strategic and operational guidance to secure Fortune 100 companies. She led the first security initiative for Cisco in the mid-1990s. Merike is on ICANN’s Security and Stability Advisory Council (SSAC) and the FCC’s Communications Security, Reliability and Interoperability Council (CSRIC). She earned a MSEE from George Washington University and a BSEE from Rutgers University.

(7) Iranga Kahangama is a Policy Advisor for the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Currently, Iranga serves in the Executive Staff Unit of the Science and Technology Branch at FBI Headquarters in Washington, DC. Since 2015, Mr. Kahangama has been working on Internet Governance efforts with the Internet Corporation of Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) and Regional Internet Registries, i.e., ARIN, RIPE NCC, the Internet Engineering Task Force and other Internet Governance organizations, to foster Internet policies and practices that ensure effective international law enforcement investigations. Prior to joining the FBI, Iranga completed his Master degree in Public Policy from the Harvard Kennedy School of Government.

Iranga will bring a US and international law enforcement perspective to the conversation and dialogue.

(8) Dick Leaning has over 28 years’ experience in Law Enforcement, leading teams of investigators in the Metropolitan Police Service (London), UK National Crime Squad (NCS) and the Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA) and from 2009 within SOCA’s Cyber Crime Department. Dick has been the UK representative at the G8 High-Tech Crime subgroup of senior experts and Interpol’s European High-Tech Crime Working Group with responsibility for enhancing the abilities of law enforcement. Based in The Hague since September 2011, Dick joined the United Kingdom Liaison Bureau (UKLB) desk as a Europol Cyber Liaison officer, and has recently taken on the role of Seconded National

...

The primary purpose of cybersecurity awareness campaigns is to influence the adoption of secure behaviour online. Past and current efforts to improve cybersecurity practices and to promote inclusiveness and growth have not had the desired impact. It is important, therefore, to critically reflect on the challenges involved in improving cybersecurity behaviour for individuals. In particular, understanding how people perceive risks is critical to creating effective awareness campaigns.

This session aims to better understand the reasons why cybersecurity awareness campaigns often fail to change people’s behaviour. The speakers will discuss which factors are important to be considered when designing education and awareness messages (e.g. cultural and socio-economic factors) based on several examples from around the world and will try to identify possible metrics to measure the impact of cybersecurity awareness campaigns.

• Liina Areng, Head of International Relations, Information System Authority Estonia
• Dr Maria Bada, Oxford Martin Fellow, The Global Cyber Security Capacity Centre, University of Oxford @capacitycentre
• Kerry-Ann Barrett, Cyber Security Policy Specialist, Cyber Security Program, Organization of American States @OEA_Cyber
• Michael Kaiser, Executive Director, National Cyber Security Alliance @MKaiserNCSA

Participants will be invited to participate in a short survey which will contribute to the research of the Global Cyber Security Capacity Centre.

In order for the Internet to contribute to sustainable growth it needs to be safe(r) and reliable. This can only be achieved through cooperation beyond traditional boundaries. Hence one of the most heard mantras in Internet governance: “we” need to break down silos, i.e. find ways in which (different) stakeholders learn to trust each other and open themselves to cooperation through different sectors and across borders to make the Internet safer.

SIDN, the manager of the .nl domain, has been involved in a number of successful cooperative initiatives in the Netherlands. We further noticed that several initiatives around the globe have led to successful cooperation, while others struggle and/or falter. In order to make more initiatives successful, it has decided to spearhead the theme “opening silos” for this year’s IGF and bring together as many known initiatives as possible. In 2016 there are still many barriers to conquer. This includes the political level, but also practical cooperation between organisations.

This workshop brings together (public – private) initiatives from around the globe with the aim to identify the critical factors which have led to a breakthrough and thus to success. 

• This workshop will present best practices for others to learn from.
• The workshop will touch upon initiatives where cooperation is not or insufficiently taking off
• It will discuss the reasons behind non-cooperation in order to advise on potential ways forward.

Speakers provisionally confirmed:

We do not have speakers in the traditional sense. This is an open discussion with all in attendance. There are representatives from INhope, GSMA, SIDN, AbuseHUB, Cyber Green, RIPENCC, Stop!Think!Connect!, US State Department, FIRST, CIRTBR, universities, and many others present to share their views on this topic for others to learn from.

The IGF's primary focus is to highlight how the discussion around Internet governance can impact the SDGs. Simultaneously, there has been increased attention drawn to the role of cybersecurity and its place both within the Internet governance framework, as well as how increased cybersecurity capacity might impact economic growth both in developed and developing countries.

 However, there are conflicting views on whether these differing fields are operationally compatible. For example, working through governance frameworks to improve Internet penetration in developing countries would help achieve some aims of the development agenda, but could also erode global cybersecurity by increasing the number of users susceptible to malicious attacks. Additionally, there has not been clearly identifiable proof that actually increasing cybersecurity capacity will improve the economic advancement of a country, much less whether working in an Internet governance framework is the way to achieve this secure state.

This session aims to bring together individuals from different sectors who will provide arguments for a) the convergence of these three issues, b) reasoning for why they would be separate working streams, and c) provide stance on when security, development, and governance interact and when they do not based on examples.

WS126: Safe and Secure Cyberspace for Youth: Solutions for Asia and Africa (Friday, December 9, 09:00-10:30, @ Workshop Room 2)

【Overview】 How Can We Protect Youth Online?: Challenges v. Possible Solutions

The purpose of our workshop is to explore serious issues resulting from the rapid expansion of mobile broadband connections and the wide proliferation of smartphones across Asia and Africa. Our workshop introduces good practices to solve them, such as improving ICT literacy, setting-up Internet hotlines, and/or promoting the use of filtering services while respecting the freedom of expression and the right to know, in order to protect youth from illegal and harmful online contents and to promote the proper use of smartphones by youth. We strongly believe the workshop will help achieve inclusive and sustainable growth in developing countries.

The mobile-based network explosively increases the amount of data flow by which people’s standard of living can be improved. Ever more people are using social media for communication and expression, and in particular, it is no exaggeration to say that daily smartphone usage is indispensable for young people in order to share their opinions and pictures, sympathize or even mobilize to express their emotions via social media. 

While the importance of mobile-based communication is self-evident, this trend also gives rise to a negative effect, i.e., easy access to illegal and harmful online contents. Such access causes serious problems like fictitious or expensive claims, online bullying, online child sexual exploitation and abuse, and cyber racism. In worst case scenario, these problems show up in the real world and cause physical impacts. Since the contents remain in the cyberspace perpetually unless appropriate measures are taken, an urgent response to these issues is required.

【Agenda】

1. Opening Remarks

2. Presentations (1): From Institutional Perspectives

3. Presentations (2): From Youth Perspectives

4. Panel Discussion (1): Cross-Regional & Age Dialogue

5. Panel Discussion (2): Brainstorming Session on SDGs

6. Q&A Session (Again; if time allows)

7. Closing Remarks from All Panelists

【Diverse Panelists】 

-Dr. Makoto Yokozawa, Senior Consultant, Nomura Research Institute/Visiting Professor, The Graduate School of Informatics, Kyoto University

-Ms. Veronica Donoso, Executive Director, International Association of Internet Hotlines (INHOPE)

-Mr. Arsene Tungali, Co-founder & Executive Director, Rudi International

-Mr. Raymond Yang, Ambassador, NetMission.Asia 

-Ms. Shirley Wong, Representative, Hong Kong Youth Internet Governance Forum (HKYIGF)

*Unfortunately, Dr. Cisse Kane, President of African Civil Society on the Information Society (ACSIS) cannot join us. 

【Moderator】

-Mr. Kenta Mochizuki, Attorney at Law (New York), Public Policy & Corporate Governance, Corporate Management Group, Yahoo Japan Corporation

This workshop will debate the motion “This house believes that, in the interest of collective cybersecurity, technology companies should not allow government access to consumer data”. Two teams, of two to three speakers each, will present a three-five minute statement either in defense or against the motion which will address cybersecurity and related issues, including data protection, encryption, and the role of different stakeholders in protecting consumer and citizen security, as well as the security, stability and resilience of the internet. 

In response to a request by the FBI to unlock customer data from one of its devices to help a crime investigation, Apple recently stated “The U.S government is asking us to undermine decades of security advancements that protect our customers...with implications far beyond the case at hand”. This case, which made headlines around the world, brought to the fore some of the most pressing internet governance issues of the day. The internet can only be a driver for inclusive and sustainable growth if it is open, free and secure. The implications of such debates are undoubtedly shaping the future of the internet. But was Apple right or wrong - would cooperation with the FBI have made the internet, and by extension its users, less secure? By enabling an open and frank debate, this session aims to contribute to more informed discussions about cybersecurity and related issues which will shape the future of the internet and the exercise of human rights online worldwide for years to come.

Speakers provisionally confirmed:

Bergstein , Brian 
Lazanski , Dominique
Prakash , Pranesh 
Tropina , Tatiana