We are starting 2021 with a new format for exchange on hot topics. These 90 min virtual meetings will be organised in an ad-hoc manner and announced via our communication channels on a short notice. To stay informed please sign up for our Newsletter or follow us on twitter or Facebook.
EuroDIG Extra Vol. 3
EuroDIG Extra Vol. 2
EuroDIG Extra Vol. 1
Delay-Tolerant Network (DTN) – Follow up from EuroDIG 2021, Workshop 16
The session on Delay Tolerant Networks found great interest at EuroDIG this year and the organisers agreed to have a follow up on this emerging issue. Therefore, we organise an EuroDIG “Extra!” on 15th October 2021 from 15:00–16:30 UTC (17:00–18:30 CEST). Special guest will be Vint Cerf, Chief Internet Evangelist for Google. The InterPlanetary Networking Special Interest Group (IPNSIG) contributed to this topic with their thoughts on the development of a Solar System Internet and a related report was released recently:
“Strategy Toward a Solar System Internet For Humanity”
The session on Delay Tolerant Networks found great interest at EuroDIG this year and the organisers agreed to have a follow up on this emerging issue. Therefore, we organise an EuroDIG “Extra!” on 15th October 2021 from 15:00–16:30 UTC (17:00–18:30 CEST).
Special guest will be Vint Cerf, Chief Internet Evangelist for Google.
The InterPlanetary Networking Special Interest Group (IPNSIG) contributed to this topic with their thoughts on the development of a Solar System Internet and a related report was released recently:
Should the IGF+ be supported by a Multi-Stakeholder High Level Body (MHLB)?
We invited European Stakeholder on 3rd March 2021, 9:00 UTC to a Consultation on paragraph 93(a) of the Roadmap for Digital Cooperation and here in particular on the first recommendation of a “strategic and empowered multi-stakeholder high-level body”.
Paragraph 93 (a) reads as follows:
93. While discussions on the different digital architecture models proposed by the Panel are ongoing among stakeholders; the following ideas have emerged with a view to making the Internet Governance Forum more responsive and relevant to current digital issues. These include:
(a) Creating a strategic and empowered multi-stakeholder high-level body, building on the experience of the existing multi-stakeholder advisory group, which would address urgent issues, coordinate follow-up action on Forum discussions and relay proposed policy approaches and recommendations from the Forum to the appropriate normative and decision-making forums;
The agenda was formed around the questions that were prepared by the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs and the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) Secretariat, in collaboration with the Office of the Secretary-General’s Envoy on Technology:
- What do you consider should be priority functions of this multi-stakeholder high-level body, should it be established? And what would be the relationship between this body and the existing Multistakeholder Advisory Group of the IGF?
- What suggestions do you have on the governance structure and composition of this body (e.g., number of members, representation of stakeholder groups, regional balance, rotation of members)?
- How could this body be supported and funded?
- Any other comments on paragraph 93 (a)?
We did focus on Q1 of the survey and discussed the function of the MHLB and it’s relationship to the MAG.
- Opening and introduction, Sandra Hoferichter, EuroDIG Secretary General
- Presentation of the 3 approaches from the IGF Strategy Working Group, Giacomo Mazzone Member of the MAG WG
- Moderated discussion by Mark Carvell, Internet Governance Expert
Read the transcript of the session.
Around 40 participants coming from all stakeholder groups and across Europe participated in this session. The discussion was engaging and was summarised in two short paragraphs (one on the function and one on the relationship to the MAG). On this basis we invited to comment on our Commenting Platform, but no further comments were was received until the deadline 8 March 2021.
Our aim was to come up with a shared view from participants and make a submission to the IGF Consultation Process.
- Functions of the new body
- There was broad agreement among the EuroDIG Extra participants in support of the rationale for creating the MHLB to undertake specific functions as outlined in Paragraph 93a of the UNSGs Roadmap, in particular coordinating follow-up actions and relaying proposed policy approaches and recommendations to decision-making fora.
- None of the MHLB’s activities should draw attention away from the IGF or undermine its bottom-up, multistakeholder nature.
- By creating a table at the IGF for decision-makers from all stakeholder groups to have high-level discussions, the MHLB would serve to bridge the gap between discussions and decisions.
- There were tentative expressions of support, subject to further clarifying discussion, for the MHLB to address specific “urgent issues” as stated in Paragraph 93 A. This should be undertaken in full consultation and coordination with the MAG.
- There was support for the MHLB providing strategic inputs with the aim of helping to shape the IGF programme and long-term strategy. Participants emphasised, however, that the MAG should continue to have full authority and responsibility for the IGF’s programme development.
- The MHLB’s Relationship with the MAG
- There was general agreement on the need for the MHLB to have a strong linkage with the MAG rather than being a separate body.
- Differing views were expressed on how this linkage should be achieved, either as a single combined body (the smaller MHLB being part of the MAG), or by creating a layered governance structure with the MHLB supporting the MAG. There were several expressions of support for one or more of the three options developed by the MAG Working Group on Strengthening and Strategy, as providing the basis for a final decision.
- Participants agreed that it would be essential to ensure multi-stakeholder accountability and transparency for the MHLB’s membership nomination.
Individual proposals and comments worth recording
- The Chairs of the MHLB and the MAG should sit on both groups. The Technology Envoy should also have a seat on the MHLB. (DE)
- The MHLB should draw on the IGF’s extensive repository of expertise and knowledge when formulating its advice. (G. Mazzone).
- The accountability of the MHLB would be established by building on the MAG’s nominations system (Telefonica and CH).
- In order to ensure full diversity of geographical and constituency representation, the size of the MHLB’s membership needs to be 15-20 high ranking people with appointments made on a rotating basis (CH)
- The MHLB would have a valuable role in addressing specific major crises and emergencies and major global challenges such as climate change, and informing the Tech Envoy’s engagement across the UN system on these issues (AmaliDe Silva-Mitchell).
Recently we released the publication Media and Content: A Decade of Change – Coping with the digital shake-up. It is the first in a series of publications and the next edition on the cluster security and crime is already under way.
The actual political development, in particular with regard to the role of social media networks, is already calling for a continuation of the debate and we would not like to wait until the EuroDIG event In June but would like to invite you to a virtual EuroDIG Extra on 29th January 2021 from 10:00–11:30 CET on the topic of SoMe vs Politics: Who’s the Boss?
At the same day you are invited to a related event organised by Eurovisioni “Transformation of European communication space into a virtual space: which consequences in relationships between media and citizens”. This event is starting right after we finish and participation is possible via various channels, in 3 languages ITA-FR-EN. Get information about this event here.
SoMe vs Politics: Who’s the Boss?
Social Media as an important resource for political actors is old news since early 2000’s. Like fire or money, it is a good servant, but a bad master. At least this is what Donald Trump probably feels, now that his favorite tools have been taken away.
After the occupation of Capitol by a ragtag army egged on by the President, shutting him up as an emergency measure might have been the prudent thing to do. However, permanently banning him from Twitter and temporarily from various other platforms has raised questions around the world, including from political leaders who since a decade have grown accustomed to these convenient channels they can use to speak directly to voters and citizens, instead of using traditional media as an intermediary.
Since 2008, European Dialogue on Internet Governance – EuroDIG – has tackled key contemporary issues related to the Internet at its annual sessions. But with the quickening pace of development of all things digital, a year can be a long time. That is why EuroDIG Extra is now launched to fill the gaps, taking advantage of the virtual conference tools that have served EuroDIG well during the pandemic.
The first EuroDIG Extra will take up long-standing but little discussed problems in the dynamics between Social Media giants and political powers that be, that banning Trump has now thrown wide open.
- Intro: Welcome and introduction (Sandra Hoferichter, EuroDIG) 5′
- Summary of the publication “Media and Content: A Decade of Change” (Yrjö Länsipuro, EuroDIG Member) 5′
- Presentation of the panel (Yrjö). 5′
- Summary of events that lead to banning Trump from Social Media Networks (Maria Stasi, Article 19) 10′
- Reactions from European politicians (Miapetra Kumpula, Member of the European Parliament) 10′
- Right or wrong? (Maria, all) 15*
- Questions and comments from the chat (Michael Oghia, Global Forum for Media Development) 10′
- Twitter vs traditional journalistic media as politicians’ pulpit (Miapetra, all) 10′
- Impact on DSA, DMA and other European regulation efforts (Miapetra, all) 10′
- Announcement of the “Eurovisioni” event starting 11:30 (Yrjö) 5´