Lucie Krahulcova, Policy Analyst, Access Now, Brussels Office
Catherine Garcia-van Hoogstraten, Lecturer & Researcher in Data Governance, Public Sector Innovation, e-Governance, Cybersecurity, Faculty of Public Management, Law and Security - The Hague University of Applied Sciences (THUAS)
Manon van Tienhoven, Advisor, Global Forum on Cyber Expertise
Robert Collett, Head of Capacity Building, Prosperity and Cyber Crime, UK Foreign Office
Cybersecurity capacity building has now permanently entered the policy agenda of major international and regional organisations - such as the UN, ITU, the Commonwealth, the African Union Commission, the European Union, and the Organisation of American States. The Global Forum on Cyber Expertise (GFCE) was created in 2015 with the aim to ensure better coordination between donors and partner countries as well as provide actionable support to countries and regions in need of assistance. In 2017, the GFCE has adopted the Delhi Communiqué on a GFCE Global Agenda for Cyber Capacity Building which establishes a general framework for the GFCE community activities globally. However, after a period of reflection about the policy, the cybersecurity capacity building community is now confronted with practical challenges linked to the implementation of the initiatives. One of the main challenges is to strengthen multistakeholder cooperation on cybersecurity capacity building, in particular through a joint engagement between the governments, the private sector, and civil society organisations. With an increasing involvement of the private sector and CSOs in an area traditionally reserved for the governments, it is essential to reflect on their respective roles and how various types of public-private-civil partnerships (PPCPs) can support this process. This question is particularly pertinent at the time when both governmental and non-governmental organisations compete for resources and expertise.
Round Table - 60 Min
The speakers to the panel belong to different stakeholders groups – civil society, academia, technical community, and private sector. In this way, different perspectives on the role of the multi-stakeholder community in cyber capacity building is discussed by different stakeholders groups. The discussant, based on their experience, will be challenged to discuss issues on global cooperation on cyber security, including cyber diplomacy engagements, and multi-stakeholder interests in cyberspace. Chair Patryk Pawlak, Brussels Executive Officer, EU Institute for Security Studies; Co-Chair of the Advisory Board of the Global Forum on Cyber Expertise Speakers: Klee Aiken, External Relations Manager, APINIC Daniela Schnidrig, Programme lead, Global Partners DIgital Karry-Ann Barnett, Cyber Security Policy Specialist, Cyber Security Program at the Inter-American Committee against Terrorism, Organisation of American States Nayia Barmpaliou, Policy Coordinator / Programme Manager for Cyber and Organised Crime, European Commission
Diversity is taken into account in the selection of discussants, moderators, and organisers. Gender balance is respected and preference is given to women in the panel. Discussants work in developing countries and belong to different stakeholders groups.
This session will provide an opportunity for the exchange of views between the Advisory Board of the Global Forum on Cyber Expertise and a broader stakeholder community. Following a brief presentation of the GFCE and the role of the Advisory Board in strengthening cyber capacity building (CCB), the speakers and participants will discuss the ways in which governments, the private sector and civil society organisations can build more effective and sustainable partnerships. In order to strengthen public-private-civil partnerships for cyber capacity building, the main question that this roundtable aims to address is: What lessons can we draw from the current and past engagements between various stakeholders regarding cooperation on cyber capacity building? In addressing this question, the speakers and the audience will be asked to take into account different perspectives, including the regional specificities, linguistic conditions, gender dimension, or the overall nature of stakeholder approaches in a given context. Following the discussion between the panelists, the moderator will open the discussion to the audience members that can either make specific questions to the speakers or to provide their own comments, opinions or to share their own experience. At the same time, questions and contributions are collected from remote participants and are shared in real time with the participants to the roundtable.
EU Institute for Security Studies
Research ICT Africa
EU Institute for Security Studies
The moderators (offline and online) supported by the round table organisers, will involve discussants and the public in the debate, and will facilitate the discussion on the topic of the round table. Specifically, in order to optimise the time and to assure fair participation of both online and offline participants, the debate will unfold in the following way: Suggested Agenda (60 minutes): a. Opening: presentation of the round table and policy questions (5 minutes) b. Panelist remarks (5 minutes each: 20 minutes in total) c. Discussion (20 minutes), including comments and questions from remote participants d. Closing remarks from panelists (2 minutes each: 10 minutes in total) e. Wrap-up (5 minutes)
As recommended by the MAG, the organising committee of the Round Table will train an online moderator who will assume responsibility for giving online attendees a separate queue and microphone, which will rotate equally with the microphone in the room. The on-site moderator of the round table will keep the online participation session open and will be in close communication with the workshop’s trained online moderator to share the online questions and interventions in the on-site room. The trained online moderator will collect opinions, questions and comments during the roundtable and the most relevant contributions to the discussion will be shared among the participants to the roundtable.
- Session Type (Workshop, Open Forum, etc.): Round Table
- Title: Public-Private-Civil Partnerships in Cyber Capacity Building
- Date & Time: 14 November, 2018 - 11:00 to 12:00
- Organizer(s): Enrico Calandro, Research ICT Africa and Patryk Pawlak, EU Institute for Security Studies
- Chair/Moderator: Patryk Pawlak, EU Institute for Security Studies
- Rapporteur/Notetaker: Enrico Calandro, Research ICT Africa
- List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/ transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer):
Speaker 1: Daniela Schnidrig, Global Partners Digital
Speaker 2: Kerry-Ann Barrett, Intergovernmental Organization, Latin American and Caribbean Group (GRULAC)
Speaker 3: Lucie Krahulcova, Policy Analyst, Access Now, Brussels Office
Speaker 4: Catherine Garcia-van Hoogstraten, Lecturer & Researcher in Data Governance, Public Sector Innovation, e-Governance, Cybersecurity, Faculty of Public Management, Law and Security - The Hague University of Applied Sciences (THUAS)
Speaker 5: Manon van Tienhoven, Advisor, Global Forum on Cyber Expertise
Speaker 6: Robert Collett, Head of Capacity Building, Prosperity and Cyber Crime, UK Foreign Office
- Theme (as listed here): Cybersecurity, trust, and privacy
- Subtheme (as listed here): Cybersecurity best practices
- Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion. [150 words or less]
- Public-private partnerships in cyber capacity building are one of the key conditions for successful initiatives. However, the roles of respective actors and their potential contributions to the process still need to be clearly defined. What mechanisms exist to ensure effective and efficient distribution of tasks and responsibilities?
- Initiatives based on multistakeholder engagement should be at the centre of any potential engagement. This, however, is not always the case.How can we ensure that legitimate interests of the civil society organisations are adequately addressed in such partnerships?
- Please elaborate on the discussion held, specifically on areas of agreement and divergence.
The session provided a good opportunity for sharing experiences of different actors with the process of the cyber capacity building. The session has reaffirmed the strong need for a more organised and explicit recognition of the civil society organisations in the cyber capacity building efforts. Several speakers stressed the growing importance of the CSOs – not only as the target of the capacity building efforts but also as a real partner in the process. Their increasing role in providing legitimacy to the whole process was also underlined with some speakers suggesting governments and private sector becoming surprisingly dependent on the civil society organisations. Yet, some of the speakers expressed doubts whether the existing set up is a partnership of the equals. Differences in how different groups define cyber security and approach capacity building in this domain were listed as potential reasons for a variety in types of the emerging partnerships.
- Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps.
The challenge of bringing to the conversation organisations from the Global South was mentioned. It would, therefore, be useful to consider ways and mechanisms how to engage more with the organisations based in the Global South.
- What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue?
The role of the IGF was a platform for multistakeholder engagement was clearly stressed. As such, it provides one of the avenues for building better partnerships between various actors.
- Please estimate the total number of participants.
We estimate the total number of participants at 50-60 people.
- Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present.
We estimate that the majority of participants was female.
- To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion?
Gender issues were not mentioned during the session.