October 26, 2020 at 9:42 am
Technology is neither”the panacea” nor the primary reason for the crisis of trust. Technology, which should remain neutral by default, is not what causes many risks in cyberspace, but the malicious use of technology.
See in context
October 26, 2020 at 9:41 am
It would be helpful to clearly state that there are different types of attribution (political, legal, and technical), and each type of attribution has its own challenges and requires different approaches/discussions.
October 26, 2020 at 9:39 am
Are developing countries only should be given support? Many economically developed countries have not developed their legislation to ensure lawful access to encrypted materials, and therefore, a dialogue to assist both developing and developed countries seems important.
October 26, 2020 at 9:38 am
Another type of fragmentation to consider is an institutional fragmentation, i.e. fragmentation approaches to the regulation of cyberspace and Internet space.
October 26, 2020 at 9:35 am
It may be helpful for readers to provide links to the surveys that “are showing a large decline in trust in the Internet”.
October 26, 2020 at 7:53 am
Please add ‘disability’ in third sentence after ‘gender’.
October 26, 2020 at 7:49 am
Please add ‘persons with disabilities’ in first sentence after ‘gender and religious minorities’.
There is cyberviolence against women with disabilities.
October 26, 2020 at 7:43 am
Please add ‘disability’ after ‘age’ in the third sentence. There are over one billion people globally.
October 22, 2020 at 5:53 am
A closing paragraph is needed, also to reflect how the Synthesis Document can help to connect APrIGF with the global IGF, also to include statistics of how many people registered and participated at the APrIGF and general statements about the success of the event and the vibrancy of the community.
October 22, 2020 at 5:50 am
Not sure the right term is “transnational”. Question can be rephrased as: Does this needs to be regulated by International Law?