Q: Regarding electronic waste and building new devices, could there be a skeme so that consumers can bring their old smartphone to the store manufacturer and have a discount, so that could boost recycling of materials?

Q: How could product lifetime extension be implemented in Europe? Is this about a kind of reverse guarantee that forces companies to innovate to provide longer lifetime? or is it about creating new standards?

Q: Can circular digital  economy, while creating jobs in the "refurbishment" part, cost jobs in the more general sense as in those ones which continuously create new devices today?

Q: How to address the problem that green regulations can be bypassed by basing ICT services mainly in countries that do not enforce them?

Q @ Emma & Ilias in particular: Is (will be) there any incentive - we spoke about labels, Stickers, Buttons in another session - where eg the EU would lend Support to climate neutral DCs?

Q: How about the paradox of being cybersecure by the updates that are being pushed and what Lousewies said: "Every bloody upgrade costs memory and slows down the device - "forcing" us to either forego upgrades or move towards a new device."

Q: Should government become more active in promoting sustainable consumer behaviour with regard to e-waste & data consumption? Just as they advice to "bring your thermos coffee" or to "quit smoking?"

Verifiable Claims has created the opportunity for individual sovereignty, inside a country's sovereignty, inside a union, inside international laws and norms. 

User sovereignty in both data and identity results in an atomic online existence, where individuals are indistinguishable from each other, and have equal rights and access to network resources.

It raises the issue of how we interact with each other when we are all equal.  From a governance perspective this is might be seen as unrealistically challenging, but that is not the case.

Consider the following scheme:  Alice obtains a credential from a regional issuer that affords her access to some arbitrary resource.  She does not need to apply.  She simply scans a QR code and agrees to follow rules to maintain access to the resource (it is essentially a permissionless privilege).  If the issuer revokes the credential, Alice loses access to the resource and reapplication is detectable.  On detection she can be held accountable for her actions.

If Alice owns the credential, she is essentially proving that she is “Honest under a Rulebook”.  She can prove it to any other network user without revealing any other aspect about herself and without communicating with the issuer.

This default-allow nature to obtaining one and only one credential from a network of issuers; facilitates a sort of whitelist of actors for a given transaction type.  It ensures there is appropriate accountability on infringement of a rulebook.  Accountability would be in various forms depending on the transaction type, but a person’s every indiscretion needn’t tattoo itself onto our online identities.

It can be thought of as proving yourself “currently honest under a given rulebook” and is possible due to Self-Certified Sybil Free Pseudonyms .

The model is extraordinarily powerful in that large networks of regionally bound institutions can assume that actors are honest until they are proven dishonest.  Without hyperbole, it is entirely possible for a network of institutions to efficiently provide privileged access to 7 billion people.

So, Alice wants to sell a designer handbag and Bob wants to buy it.  Alice proves to Bob that she is currently honest under an auction rulebook.  Bob uses a payment service. Alice ships the goods. Transaction complete.  If something goes wrong, Bob complains to the issuer of Alice’s auction privilege – <insert regional rights of appeal>

The devil is always in the detail; but it is important to note that the detail is about policy and not possibility.  The good people of EuroDIG and the IGF are therefore sorely needed, so I would appreciate your engagement as this is not technical theory - it is demonstrable today.

Transactional governance would promote market economies.  If the EU wants to drive the web into a specific direction; drive it towards highly competitive, open network utilities; operating under multistakeholder governance structures.  

It is my assertion that these networks will beat large corporations on scalability, advancement, and agility for most if not all business streams.

Thank you for taking the time to consider this.

My suggestion to the European Commission would be to participate more actively in existing fora such as EuroDIG and IGF, where government actors are also called upon to bring in issues through the 'Call for issues' (EuroDIG) or 'Call for Open Forums' (IGF).

I'm interested in your views on this matter.

Q: from a technical perspective, do you believe that 5G and beyond benefit from the proposed NewIP standards developments or will IPv6 and its successors suffice?

Q: So my (very direct Dutch) question to Cao Hui: How do you feel about everyone assuming that because Huawei or any Chinese company  is subject to Chinese law its technology would be abused by the Chinese Communist party for its political goals?

Q: how you can ensure The equivalent of today's "free to air distribution" of local contents  in the future 5g environment, if we want to keep our culture and diversity ? is this included in the télécoms players plan even if doesn't help to monetize… but has a lot of public value...

Q: Is broadcasting for emergency situations not aimed to technologies owned by every Citizen, meaning 2G, so that there is no one left behind?

However, not every person has all the knowledge and skills equally and hence a multi-stakeholder discussion is critical so as to identify all the issues, risks, commonalities, gaps and so forth that the internet throws up. 

An approach, would be to have a multi-stakeholder group such as IGF identify a policy or standard that needs "treatment" and then bring together a multi-stakeholder group that is very transparent in its discussion in to action. This process really has been in place with UN WSIS and before that with organizations such as the Internet Society. We should not underestimate the influence of the existing IGF process and we should probably strive to increase the inclusiveness ( including mind set) of the existing process as an immediate first action item that re-invent the wheel as it were.

For any standard development there are multiple layers of influencers. The public, the technical, the operational, the legal, financial, the user, the tester, etc. All these parties should be consulted if the end standard is to be robust in terms of its operations, uptake and usage etc. There is no point having a standard that only a few were party to and that then nobody wants to comply with. The buy-in starts bottom-up! Perhaps something like a pure democracy approach to public decision making should be tested for standard setting. However, the veto could be held by the technocrats for technical standards and the veto with the public policy makers for operational standards, for instance based on the main skills that each group has that is relevant to the standard.

As an accountant I am in a field that also establishes standards for the public and that mandates the public to conduct themselves in a defined manner. This is enshrined in the legal and policy framework of the country. I see in it the parallels to developing internet standards including standards for AI, IoT and other emerging technologies. Perhaps the professional bodies should be requested for some feedback on our current topic of conversation and asked to also detail as to how they approach standard setting within their bodies while ensuring an interest for the public. The internet family is a multi-disciplinary group, so this is what makes it unique vis-a-vis other standard setters such as lawyers, accountants, engineers etc. 

Ethics is key for all standard setters and I think that we should all start with developing a core course on ethics that all multi-stakeholder discussions participants should take. Not an exam but a course that open's our minds to receiving multiple view points, provides us with a set of principles or values to make judgements and recognizes that there are multiple value systems on the globe that impact the internet..

+ Very interesting discussion... thank you.

Amali De Silva - Mitchell

(member of organization team)

Please join the discussion during the session, ask questions or comment (via chat or audio/video) at 11:30 (CEST/UTC+02):

• https://2020.eurodig.org/day-2 (Track 2, "Studio Berlin")
  
• Live transcript of the session can be found here: https://www.streamtext.net/text.aspx?event=CFI-EuroDIG2

More detailed information can be found at the wiki page:

• https://eurodigwiki.org/wiki/Challenges_and_uptake_of_modern_Internet_standards_(including,_but_not_limited_to_IPv6,_DNSSEC,_HTTPS,_RPKI)_–_WS_11_2020

Org Team

Protection of children from sexual abuse and exploitation need to be reinforced in answer to the pandemic. Measures suggested comprise:

• A joint approach in national legislation based on international legal instruments e.g. Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) - Budapest Convention - Lanzarote Convention
• Increased resources for law enforcement
• Raising awareness for perpetrators’ strategies in times of lockdown when children’s screen time is increased
• Utilization of the potential of technology / Design of platforms and applications based on the principle of safety by design

In order to respect, protect and fulfil the rights of the child also in times of crisis it is necessary to broaden the perspective beyond the right to be protected.

The closing of schools has a huge impact on children’s right to education. The digital divide became more obvious in times of home schooling.

Civil rights of children such as the right to freedom of expression, access to information, the right to assembly and association, the right to be heard and the right to privacy are immensely affected in times of the pandemic.

Measures suggested comprise:

• Support for families in regard of infrastructure, devices and media literacy training.
• Awareness raising for children’s right to privacy also in their social environment and family.
• Declare internet access as a universal right based on UN-CRC Art. 2 – Non-discrimination and Art. 17 – Access to information

As overarching desiderata were stated:

• Increased research on the impact of the crisis on children’s rights also in regard of digitization
• Consideration of children’s needs in civil contingency plans
• Child protection and children’s Rights as an issue to be addressed by Internet Governance