Call for Topics 2019 - IG

From IGF-USA Wiki
Revision as of 13:08, 13 February 2019 by Dustin Phillips (talk | contribs)
Jump to: navigation, search

Timestamp Submission Number Submission Issue Areas Comments SG
Timestamp Submission Number Submission Issue Areas Comments SG
2019-01-28 2:29:53 PM 2019 Submission 3 Internet of Things - Where is it at policy-wise and what is needed for industries to confidently develop the technology IG Would also be curious to hear about what aspects of IoT overlap with more traditional Internet governance topics Civil Society / Academia
2019-01-29 10:02:02 PM 2019 Submission 7 The 50th anniversary of the first message sent on ARPAnet and using the past to understand the future. IG It would be helpful to discuss role of institutional memory in assisting in the creation of a more diverse and robust IG community. This can be a methods and analysis discussion that can be woven through all the discussions. Civil Society / Academia
2019-02-04 8:25:03 PM 2019 Submission 23 Nermundial review IG A discussion on how the alternate format of Netmundial in effect complements the pursuits of the IGF Civil Society / Academia
2019-02-04 8:32:58 PM 2019 Submission 24 Building global Trust in the Multistakeholder process by exemplary balance. IG Does it require a profound Accountability mechanism to promote Trust in the Multistakeholder process? Civil Society / Academia
2019-02-06 8:42:20 AM 2019 Submission 30 Information Technology governance IG Civil Society / Academia
2019-02-07 4:44:40 PM 2019 Submission 39 Digital Cooperation - implications for future of IG engagement IG This could be a town hall approach, similar to what we did with WSIS+10 and include HL panelists and the broader community responding to their recommendations. Private Sector
2019-02-07 5:47:52 PM 2019 Submission 41 Is the Current Governance System of the Internet a Viable and Sustainable Model for Other Institutions? IG The United States has just experienced the longest government shutdown in its history. And, it occurred while the United Kingdom was mired in BREXIT indecision. It is an understatement to say that democratic institutions across the globe are being tested like never before. In the midst of dire concerns and predictions, might the democratic models of Internet governance afford a beacon of hope for other types of global democratic governance? And if so, are they are transferable? And are they even sustainable? The so-called Internet ecosystem is made up of largely voluntary organizations, such as the Internet Society (ISOC), the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), and others. They are largely dependent on volunteers who help keep the network of networks stable, secure and resilient. Quite simply, the Internet works. Furthermore, it works well, exemplified by a global reliance on the Internet for commerce, communication, education and information. That is not to say that a bottom up, multiple stakeholder model is a thing of beauty. Like other democracies, it is messy and very slow. But it works and works well because its little-known foundation of democratic governance works. However, the democratic rule of the Internet is about to face some of its own challenges. As the original founders of the Internet governance organizations age and ultimately leave their positions, is there enough interest among young people to assume the vital functions that keep the Internet open, functional and free? This panel will explore not only the democratic rule of the Internet today but the challenges in keeping it sustainable into the future. Panelists will consider whether the democratic models that helped launch the Internet need to be up-dated or altered, and if so, how? Technical Community
2019-02-11 9:05:55 AM 2019 Submission 46 Internet of Things Governance IG Norms of Internet governance (open standards, multistakeholder coordination, immunity from intermediary liability) are being challenged by cyber- physical systems. At the same time, these systems are creating unprecedented security and privacy problems with cascading effects on the entire Internet. What needs to happen now? Civil Society / Academia
2019-02-11 9:20:26 AM 2019 Submission 50 1 IoT security

2 Importance of collaboration for rural & remote access 3 Unintended consequences of regulation

4 Impacts of consolidation
IG 1) There is a growing, global call for IoT security, and in many countries it is an area without partisan disagreement. Governments, civil society, technologists, and others are actively working together to ensure that users are protected from malicious attacks and botnets are prevented. The Canada, Senegal, France and many others have take a multistakeholder approach to IoT security, enlisting the help of all stakeholder groups to ensure they do their part. In the United States, home to one of the largest markets for IoT devices in the world, there is no comprehensive plan, label, or education campaign for IoT security. What can the stakeholders present for the IGF USA do to push forward in this space? Links: 2) In 2018, over half the world's population was said to have access to the Internet. And while that is a milestone to be celebrated, it makes the difference between those with and without Internet access even more stark. In the United States, rural, remote, and Indigenous communities are significantly less likely to have access to the Internet than their urban and non-Indigenous counterparts. And they can't get access alone. It will take coordination and collaboration between all stakeholder groups -- from local community members, to technology experts, civil society, the federal government, and more working together to close the digital divide in the US. This is a topic that was discussed at length at the 2018 Indigenous Connectivity Summit, and it will be discussed again at the 2019 Summit in Hawaii. This session could highlight times when collaboration has led to robust connectivity solutions in rural and remote areas, and what more the stakeholders in the room could do to ensure rural broadband is a reality. Links: 3) Today, almost every country in the world is currently in the business of “regulating the Internet.” But regulation of the Internet can have unintended consequences. One such consequence is extra-territorial application. Another one is how regulation can impact the infrastructure of the Internet, challenging the characteristics of its original design. This becomes particularly important for what it means for a resilient, global Internet. The Internet was not designed to recognize physical boundaries or to comply with only one actor’s rules. Resiliency is ensured through diversity of infrastructure and this diversity comes from nodes located globally, in different parts of the world. Internet regulation that is unfocused, uninformed and disproportionate can provide the wrong incentives for state actors to engage in a regulatory race that will only result in a fractured, less resilient Internet. As the United States considers new regulations on privacy, security, and other important issues, this workshop will seek to advance a conversation about how policy makers should balance the need for user protection with the need to protect the integrity of the infrastructure of the Internet. Links: 4) Consolidation is not a new phenomenon, but often an expected evolution as industries and markets mature. Opportunities to reduce costs, expand market share, and enhance scalability are intrinsic incentives in any economic domain where companies acquire competitors or subsume parts of the production chain. Globally, trends of consolidation in the Internet Economy – including growing forces of concentration, vertical and horizontal integration, and fewer opportunities for market entry and competition – may shape not just the ways in which the Internet is used by people around the world, but its future technical evolution in the next three to five years. Today, such trends of consolidation are visible in almost all parts of the Internet economy, from access provision to services at the application layer. Looking from the national to the global level, what are the underlying drivers of these trends? What are the implications for the Internet’s technical evolution and its users? Links: None / Other
2019-02-11 10:44:40 AM 2019 Submission 54 How can the public (individuals, organizations) force international bodies (UN, ITU, etc.) to allow participation in Internet governance. IG Civil Society / Academia
2019-02-11 2:05:20 PM 2019 Submission 62 The UNHLP on Digital Cooperation is due to issue its report in May 2019. Should this impact US internet governance long-term strategies? IG Private Sector
2019-02-11 4:14:06 PM 2019 Submission 72 Limits on national approaches to Internet policy and necessity of multi-level policy coordination and policy processes. IG Civil Society / Academia