SEEDIG 2018 | Programme details

81, 82, 85, 84, 83, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 93, 95, 96, 97, 98** (see the list of proposals)

---

A look at national cybersecurity frameworks in SEE countries, roles and responsibilities of different stakeholders, and similarities and different approaches in building cybersecurity capacities. Plus a discussion on whether and how national frameworks could be aligned, whether there are successful examples of regional cooperation on cybersecurity matters, and how can such cooperation be enhanced.

---

Strategy, legal framework, defence mechanisms, caising awareness, Cooperation, CSIRTs, CIIP, safe Internet, cyber attack, cyber crime, policy, development, standards, ENISA, FIRST, TF-CSIRT, information share, trust, education, stability and security of the Internet, IoT devices, information security, information protection, information society

---

Cybersecurity has been a topic of discussion at SEEDIG since 2016. Last year, the dedicated session tried to answer two main questions: What are/should be the national strategic priorities when it comes to cybersecurity? And is there cooperation among stakeholders and countries in the main fields? It resulted from the discussions that, across SEE, ‘cybersecurity laws and strategies are adopted different from one country to another. One solution to this challenge might rest in engaging different stakeholders in high-level discussions, asking them to synchronise their policies.’ (SEEDIG 2017 Messages) The cybersecurity session at SEEDIG 2018 intends to continue this discussion, taking the aforementioned message as a starting point. The questions below are intended to guide the discussions. Mapping national cybersecurity frameworks

• What are the key elements of national cybersecurity frameworks in SEE countries? What do they have in common and what makes them different? A look at what national strategies and legal frameworks focus on and how these elements are addressed: protection of critical infrastructures; awareness raising and capacity building across the public and private sector, and among end-users; national bodies with responsibilities in the field of cybersecurity (CERTs, national cybersecurity coordinators); norms and rules for the private sector; public-private cooperation; etc.
• Are national stakeholders satisfied with these frameworks? If not, what are the shortcomings?

Venues for regional collaboration

• As the Internet does not know national borders, cybersecurity is not something that one country can ‘fix on its own’. Cooperation is key, both among countries, and among stakeholder groups. What can/should a strengthened cybersecurity cooperation mean across SEE?
• If national cybersecurity frameworks have shortcomings, can those be more effectively and efficiently addressed through regional cooperation? Can national frameworks be somehow aligned across the region? If so, in which particular areas? And how?
• What role can the EU cybersecurity framework and OSCE’s confidence building measures can/should play in this regard?
• Are there concrete examples of cybersecurity cooperation between SEE stakeholders? If so, can we build on them to enhance regional cooperation?

 

---

Building on the Cybersecurity Session from 2017, the session will be based on an exchange of experiences between the participants as well as opinions from the audience:

• Strong moderation
• Several commenters/resource persons
• Interactive polls for the audience
• Including participation from the audience in the debate
• Addressing commenters/resource persons only occasionally for reflections/comments
• Engaging online participants

 

---

Moderators:

• Aleksandar Acev, MKD-CIRT/Agency for Electronic Communications, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
• Vladimir Radunović, DiploFoundation, Serbia

Resource persons:

• Adel Abusara, Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), Serbia
• Michał Boni, Member of the European Parliament, Poland
• Gergana Petrova, RIPE Network Coordination Centre (RIPE NCC), Bulgaria/Netherlands
• Predrag Tasevki, IGF MKD, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

Online moderator: Sidorela Mema, Albanian Electricity Distribution, Albania Rapporteur(s):

• Andrijana Gavrilović, DiploFoundation, Serbia
• Oliana Sula, University ‘Aleksander Mosiu’ Durres, Albania

 

---

Cybersecurity Standards and Certifications https://www.enisa.europa.eu/topics/standards

---

• The possibility of cooperation between national Computer Emergency Response Teams (CERTs) of non-EU SEE countries and European Union Agency for Network and Information Security (ENISA) should be further explored.
• SEE countries should cooperate in cybersecurity amongst themselves, emphasising practical messages for an SEE digital agenda.
• A cybersecurity culture should be built in the region. To achieve it, SEE countries must raise awareness, educate citizens and cooperate regionally, which requires the partnership of all stakeholders.
• Regional and intergovernmental organisations do make an effort to put cybersecurity on the agenda in SEE. However, it should be complemented with coordination of internal, national, and regional efforts by other actors such as ministries, regulatory bodies, technical community and so on. SEEDIG as a multistakeholder platform can provide a unique space for such discussions and cooperation.

 

---

---

Team leads:

• Aleksandar Acev, MKD-CIRT/Agency for Electronic Communications, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
• Vladimir Radunović, DiploFoundation, Serbia

Team members:

• Marta Capelo Gaspar, European Telecommunications Network Operators’ Association (ETNO)
• Sabajete Elezaj, Albania
• Fotjon Kosta, Albania IGF/Ministry of Infrastructure and Energy, Albania
• Kristina Olausson, European Telecommunications Network Operators’ Association (ETNO)
• Tanja Pavleska, Laboratory for Open Systems and Networks, Jozef Stefan Institute, Slovenia
• Vladimer Svanadze, Internet Development Initiative IDI, Georgia
• Blerton Abazi, University for Business and Technology, Kosovo*

Contact points:

• Sasho Dimitrijoski (Executive Committee member)
• Jana Mišić (intern)