[IGFmaglist] BPF on cybersecurity

Marilyn Cade marilynscade at hotmail.com
Fri May 27 11:39:07 EDT 2016


Thanks so much, Markus.


For the NRIs, we are aware that a trusted, resilient secure experience online is a deep interest already, and there is growing interest, both in the developed country/regions, and in the developing countries/sub regions, and regional Initiatives. 
Rather than say more, I suggest that Anja and I and others in the NRI Coordinators list review the relevant submissions we already have from the NRIs on their survey from last year and again this  year and discuss with the IGF Secretariat how best to share the information succinctly with the full list of NRI Coordinators. 
As usual, I would expect individuals from the NRIs who are engaged in this area to then individually sign up for the BPF. 
Thus, we act as a conduit for information but not an impediment to engagement! 
M
___On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 7:05 PM, Markus Kummer <markuskummer at outlook.com> wrote:



















Dear all,
Please find below a short summary record of yesterday's call, discussing a theme for a BPF related to cybersecurity. The Secretariat will create a new dedicated list, merging the lists used for last year's BPFs on spam and CSIRT. All interested MAG members are of course invited to join the new list!
Best regardsMarkus

1.    
On 24 May 2016 the IGF Secretariat organised a
call to discuss the 2016 IGF Best Practice Forum (BPF) on cybersecurity. The
invitation went out to the lists of last year’s BPFs on CSIRT and spam as well
as the MAG list. Purpose of the call was to work towards selecting a specific
cybersecurity related theme/topic to focus on in 2016 and to discuss the best
way forward for the work, building upon last year’s work. The webex recording
of the meeting can be accessed here: https://intgovforum.webex.com/intgovforum/ldr.php?RCID=be20af46ad7b17990e0b6e03cae3c6ec

2.     Meeting
participants were briefed that during the April IMAG meeting,
there was agreement that a 2016 BPF would be carried out on a cybersecurity
related topic/theme. The MAG meeting also acknowledged that the WSIS +10 review
process has produced an outcome document with a strong focus on "building
confidence and security in the use of information and communications
technologies", making an IGF BPF related to cybersecurity even more
relevant. 


3.     There
was a short briefing on some of the recommendations for future work stemming
from the CSIRTs and SPAM BPFs. The majority of the meeting then focused on how
the 2016 BPF work on cybersecurity could be carried out in the most effective
way and ideas for a specific theme/focus for the work.


4.     There
was general agreement that it would be useful if the work of the BPF could take
a long-term view, given the depth of ongoing discussions around cybersecurity
and the new 10-year mandate for the IGF. Participants also agreed that choosing
a topic which lent itself to the multistakeholder nature of the IGF, in which
participants from all stakeholder groups come together to talk about common
issues and challenges, would be ideal. There was also agreement that increased
efforts should be made to leverage the discussions taking place at National and
Regional IGF initiatives (NRIs) in the work of the BPF, by seeing how the work
of the BPF could feed into the NRIs, and vice-versa. 


5.     Some
topics that were suggested included, but were not limited to, DNSSEC, DNS
abuse, critical success factors in cybersecurity, responsible disclosure, tools
for prevention, privacy, BCP38 – protocol that helps mitigate DDoS,
enforcement, critical success factors and education and awareness. 


6.     An
emerging consensus amongst participants was that a theme that focused on
collaboration and cooperation amongst all actors working in the cybersecurity
field could be ideal. This would also fit the IGF model of bringing together
diverse actors to focus on common challenges. The BPF could then lend itself to
increasing cooperation and communication amongst the various actors including
law enforcement agencies, end-users, content providers, CSIRTS, policymakers,
etc.


7.     There
was agreement that further discussion on the theme and direction of the work
could take place online, and that an additional online planning meeting call
would help. The Secretariat will follow-up with details for such a
meeting.  


 









[1] http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/documents/igf-meeting/igf-2016/magmeetings/732-summary-igf-1st-oc-and-mag-meeting-4-6aprilfinal


 






 		 	   		  

_______________________________________________

Igfmaglist mailing list

Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org

http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org





_______________________________________________

Igfmaglist mailing list

Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org

http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org





_______________________________________________

Igfmaglist mailing list

Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org

http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org





_______________________________________________
Igfmaglist mailing list
Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org
http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org/attachments/20160527/4d4e6c7b/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Igfmaglist mailing list