APrIGF Document Platform

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.

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.

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.

Another type of fragmentation to consider is an institutional fragmentation, i.e. fragmentation approaches to the regulation of cyberspace and Internet space.

It may be helpful for readers to provide links to the surveys that “are showing a large decline in trust in the Internet”.

Please add ‘disability’ in third sentence after ‘gender’.

Please add ‘persons with disabilities’ in first sentence after ‘gender and religious minorities’.
There is cyberviolence against women with disabilities.

Please add ‘disability’ after ‘age’ in the third sentence. There are over one billion people globally.

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.

Not sure the right term is “transnational”. Question can be rephrased as: Does this needs to be regulated by International Law?