Difference between revisions of "Call for Topics 2019 - Technical Community"

From IGF-USA Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Created page with "{{#cargo_query: tables=Submission2019 |fields=Timestamp,_pageName=Submission Number,Submission,Issue_Areas,Comments,SG |where=SG HOLDS 'Private Sector' |order by=Timestamp...")
 
Line 2: Line 2:
 
  tables=Submission2019
 
  tables=Submission2019
 
  |fields=Timestamp,_pageName=Submission Number,Submission,Issue_Areas,Comments,SG
 
  |fields=Timestamp,_pageName=Submission Number,Submission,Issue_Areas,Comments,SG
  |where=SG HOLDS 'Private Sector'
+
  |where=SG HOLDS 'Technical Community'
 
  |order by=Timestamp ASC
 
  |order by=Timestamp ASC
 
  |format=dynamic table
 
  |format=dynamic table
 
  |details fields=Comments,Timestamp,SG
 
  |details fields=Comments,Timestamp,SG
 
}}
 
}}

Revision as of 14:49, 12 February 2019

Timestamp Submission Number Submission Issue Areas Comments SG
Timestamp Submission Number Submission Issue Areas Comments SG
2019-02-04 11:41:15 AM 2019 Submission 17 Cyber Threat Intelligence Capture and Response Cybersecurity I think the IGF might like to consider the current state of play on threat intelligence and how this critical area of WWW development might be developed to make the internet a safer place for everyone to interact with. Technical Community
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
2019-02-08 5:30:37 PM 2019 Submission 42 Principles Underpinning Norms for Cyberstability Cybersecurity · Public Core As part of its mission the Global Commission on the Stability of Cyberspace (GCSC, https://cyberstability.org) is documenting a set of principles that guide stakeholders in achieving cyber stability and that are the foundation for norms proposed by the commission. Norms such as "the Call to Protect the Public Core of the Internet" (https://cyberstability.org/research/call-to-protect/), and those published in the 'Singapore Norm Package"(https://cyberstability.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/GCSC-Singapore-Norm-Package-3MB.pdf) . During this session, members of the GCSC want to engage in a conversation with the US IGF community in order to inform their work. Technical Community
2019-02-11 8:44:39 AM 2019 Submission 45 Assume you will cover areas of cybersecurity policy, fake news vs. freedom of expression, GDPR vs. U.S. 'data as product' controversies, net Cybersecurity · Fake News · Freedom of Expression · Data Privacy neutrality status. Note: I am moving to Washington end February, interested in participating in committee once the chaos of the move is over. Technical Community
2019-02-11 9:08:50 AM 2019 Submission 48 The Politics and Ethics of Hacking Back Cyber Conflict Hacking back opens up a wide range of cyberdefense tools, including honeypots as well as proactive measures. The problem is a private company generally has no legal right to defend itself. Technical Community
2019-02-11 9:16:08 AM 2019 Submission 49 DNS Hijacking Cybersecurity · DNS Consider the following: https://cyber.dhs.gov/ed/19-01/. The bottom line here is that it's time for an upgrade of security employed to protect domain name registrations. Even DNSSEC is weakened by this category of failure. At least "important" domain names should consider registration security requirements. Technical Community
2019-02-11 9:23:47 AM 2019 Submission 51 Formalisation of the contributions of machine learning and advanced statistical analysis(AI) in development of internet services. AI There seems to be many applications of ML and AI that are not made clear to users and this is not only unfair but highly dangerous, especially where systems are showing signs of serious bias in the data they rely upon for their proper and accurate operation. Technical Community
2019-02-11 9:25:40 AM 2019 Submission 52 IDN Homographic Attacks Cybersecurity · DNS Consider the following: https://static.ptbl.co/static/attachments/191691/1540208800.pdf?1540208800. That presentation is somewhat technical but the concern is easily motivated and described. We need better user tools and applications that account for this directly, and they are possible. This is a universal acceptance issue. Technical Community
2019-02-11 11:16:01 AM 2019 Submission 55 The need to permit or enable political speech by private U.S. citizens, including paid ads, excluding businesses, non-citizens Freedom of Expression · Campaigns and Elections There is a need to permit political speech (intended to influence and electoral campaigns or ballot issues) by private citizens up to thresholds that require reporting to the FEC or a creation of a campaign or PAC. The response to 2016 foreign influence campaigns or election meddling by Russia, etc. has resulting in restrictions on platforms that are too tight/tighter than US federal election laws and many state laws require. A private US citizen should be able to buy an advertisment - or make a free post - with an appropriate disclaimer without having a campaign committee number. Additionally, platforms should do more to educate users on their opportunities to form campaigns and acquire the appropriate credentials in time to be able to express their personal political ideas before it gets to late in the political cycle to do so. A private citizen, for example, should be able to buy a $10-25 boost or traffic to a personal Youtube vlog that includes an endorsement for a specific vote on a ballot measure or local election, if that isn't prohibited or is left up to individuals and local campaigns to keep track of uncoordinated personal political expenditures or in kind contributions, under law. Technical Community