D.1.2 Transatlantic ICT Forum Workshop Reportdiscoveryproject.eu/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/... · The report on the Transatlantic ICT Forum Workshop (D6.1) summarises: 1. The detailed

D.1.2 – Transatlantic ICT Forum

Workshop Report (Updated Version, March, 2017)

Grant Agreement number: 687780

Project acronym: DISCOVERY

Funding Scheme: Coordination and Support Action

Due date: 1/07/2016

Actual date: 12/12/2016

Document Author/s: INMARK, WIT, NordForsk, EACCNJ, OCAD

Version: 1.1

Dissemination level: PU

Status: Final

This project has received funding from the European

Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 687780

Copyright © DISCOVERY Consortium 2016 – 2017

Transatlantic ICT Forum Workshop

WP1_D1.2 DISCOVERY Page 2 of 75

Document History

Version Date Comments Author

0.1 21/11/2016 Structure of Deliverable Yolanda Ursa (INMARK)

0.2 25/11/2016 First Version

Yolanda Ursa, Xianshu Zeng

(INMARK), Paolo Martínez

(FUTOUR)

0.3 29/11/2016 Input and comments to first

version

Jostein Sundet (NordForsk),

Jim Clarke, Brid Walsh (WIT),

Camille Sailer, EACCNJ

0.4 02/12/2016 Additional inputs

Jostein Sundet (NordForsk),

Jim Clarke, Brid Walsh (WIT),

Camille Sailer, EACCNJ, Silvia

de los Rios, UPM

1.0 9/12/2016 Final Version

Yolanda Ursa (INMARK), Jim

Clarke (WIT); Camille Sailer,

EACCNJ

1.1 30/3/2017 Updated version, March, 2017

Frances Cleary (WIT); Camille

Sailer(EACCNJ); Jim Clarke

(WIT); Vera Roberts (OCAD);

Brid Walsh (WIT); Xianshu

Zeng (INMARK); Yolanda

Ursa (INMARK).



TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ACKNOWLEGEMENT .................................................................................................................. 5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................. 6 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 10 2. WORKSHOP ORGANISATION ......................................................................................... 11 2.1 The programme ............................................................................................................... 11

2.2 Profile of the participants ................................................................................................. 11

2.3 Online Multichannel Dissemination Plan ......................................................................... 11

2.3.1 Pre-event Promotion ................................................................... 11 2.3.2 During Event Broadcasting .......................................................... 14 2.3.3 Post Event Follow up ................................................................... 14

2.4 Workshop Dissemination Materials ................................................................................. 14

2.5 Social Media Impact ........................................................................................................ 14

3. DAY 1 - TRANSATLANTIC ICT FORUM WORKSHOP .................................................... 16 3.1 Keynote session .............................................................................................................. 16

3.1.1 Welcome address ....................................................................... 16 3.1.2 Keynote speakers ....................................................................... 16 3.1.3 The Transatlantic ICT Forum ........................................................ 18 3.1.4 PICASSO project ........................................................................ 18

3.2 Introduction to DISCOVERY Working Groups ................................................................ 18

3.2.1 ICT Policy & Regulations Working Group ........................................ 18 3.2.2 Funding Mechanisms Working Group............................................. 19 3.2.3 Cybersecurity Working Group ...................................................... 19

3.3 Panel Session 1: Digital Economy Trends, Capital Market Financing and IPR .............. 20

3.3.1 Focus, chair and panellists ........................................................... 20 3.3.2 Topics and questions .................................................................. 20 3.3.3 Key Takeaways .......................................................................... 22

3.4 Panel session 2: How to promote best practices and what are current obstacles in joint ICT collaboration between Europe, the US and Canada ............................................................ 22


3.5 Panel session 3: Research on the Wider Scope of Cybersecurity .................................. 24


4. DAY 2 - TRANSATLANTIC ICT FORUM WORKSHOP .................................................... 29 4.1 Description of co-creative methodology .......................................................................... 29

4.1.1 Serious Play and Lego ................................................................. 29 4.1.2 Lego Serious Play in Transatlantic ICT Forum Workshop ................. 30

4.2 Break Out Group Sessions .............................................................................................. 31

4.2.1 Group 1: ICT Policy and Regulations ............................................. 31 4.2.2 Group 2: Funding Mechanisms ..................................................... 33 4.2.3 Group 3: Cybersecurity ............................................................... 34

4.3 Role Playing: Stakeholder cross questioning .................................................................. 39

5. MAIN OUTCOMES AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR POLICY MAKING ...................... 41 6. CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................. 45 ANNEX 1 –TRANSATLANTIC ICT FORUM WORKSHOP AGENDA ........................................ 47 ANNEX 2 – LIST OF TIF WORKING GROUP MEMBERS ......................................................... 50



ANNEX 3 – BIOS OF SPEAKERS .............................................................................................. 52 ANNEX 4 – LIST OF PARTICIPANTS ........................................................................................ 59 ANNEX 5 – TRANSATLANTIC ICT FORUM PRESS RELEASE ............................................... 61 ANNEX 5 – REGISTRATION PAGE ........................................................................................... 62 ANNEX 7 – NEWS ABOUT THE EVENT ................................................................................... 64 ANNEX 8 – POST EVENT FOLLOW UP WEB AND NEWSLETTER ........................................ 66 ANNEX 9 – DISSEMINATION MATERIALS ............................................................................... 67 ANNEX 10 – PICTURES ............................................................................................................. 70 ANNEX 11 – PRESENTATIONS................................................................................................. 72 ANNEX 9 – CLOSING REMARKS FOR DISCOVERY INNOVATIVE WORKSHOP ................. 73



ACKNOWLEGEMENT For Transatlantic ICT Forum Working Groups Members DISCOVERY would like to express its special thanks to the members of Transatlantic

ICT Forum for their participation and input to the report.

Alberto Leon – Garcia, Scientific Director, NSERC Strategic Network for SAVI

Benoit Van Asbroeck, Partner at Bird & Bird

Camille Sailer, President and CEO, EACCNJ

Claudio Caimi, Coordinator and Programme Manager, HPE

Dan Caprio, Chairman, The Providence Group

Evangelos Markatos, Head of The Distributed Computing Systems Laboratory,

Forth

Fabio Martinelli, Senior Researcher, IIT-CNR

Henriette Krimphoff, Senior Scientific Officer at DLR-PT

James Clarke, Programme Manager, WIT TSSG

James Gumble, Business Intelligence, XPAND

Jostein K. Sundet, PH.D., Special Adviser, NORDFORSK

Jacques Bus, Secretary General at Digital Enlightenment Forum

Jutta Treviranus, Professor and Director, Inclusive Design Research Centre

(IDRC) At OCAD University

Maarten Botterman, Founder and Director, GNKS

María F Cabrera Umpierrez, Innovation Director, UPM

May D. Wang, Professor, Georgia Tech

Menouer Boubekeur, Manager, United Technologies Research Center

Nick Wallace, Senior Policy Analyst, Center For Data Innovation

Yolanda Ursa, DISCOVERY Project Coordinator, INMARK



EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The report on the Transatlantic ICT Forum Workshop (D6.1) summarises:

1. The detailed presentations and panel discussions of the DISCOVERY

Transatlantic ICT Forum Workshop held in Brussels on 16-17 November

2016, hosted by EC DG CONNECT on the first day and the Embassy of

Canada on the second day.

2. The Key Recommendations coming from the Discovery Working Groups

panel sessions on day 1 and 2, as an output of the event, actively feeding

and linking into future planning activities of the DISCOVERY project fostering

real impact.

The mission of the DISCOVERY project is to support productive dialogues between

Europe and North America (both the US and Canada) and foster cooperation in

collaborative ICT Research & Innovation under Horizon 2020 and American and

Canadian funding programmes. The project also aims to stimulate innovation

partnerships amongst industry, research and academia by reinforcing mutually

beneficial networking and by providing an original partner and projects search tool

that DISCOVERY members have designed.

Alongside the organisation of the ICT Discovery Labs and Capacity Building

Workshops throughout the two-year implementation of DISCOVERY, the project’s

inventive vision has been to promote bi-regional collaboration in ICT priority areas

of strategic interest. Through the successful implementation of the cornerstone of

the DISCOVERY project - the Transatlantic ICT Forum and Workshop - a critical

foundation of the project’s over-arching goals has been constructed and will be

sustained well beyond the life of the project grant.

The Transatlantic ICT Forum has now been firmly established as a unique platform

to benefit policy debate and provide expert opinions and recommendations related

to transatlantic dialogues for ICT Research and Innovation (R&I) cooperation

between Europe and North America (US and Canada).

The Transatlantic ICT Forum focuses on three key thematic areas in ICT:

1. Funding mechanisms for ICT R&I;

2. ICT policy and regulations; and

3. Cybersecurity.

The Forum capably leverages the unique knowledge and experience of selected

European, US and Canadian specialists in the relevant themes. Well over 40

professionals with highly-relevant credentials in the project’s subject matter areas

are dedicated members of the Transatlantic ICT Forum.

The Transatlantic ICT Forum and Workshop in Brussels attracted influential

speakers from the ICT arena representing Europe, the US and Canada and

stimulated the attendance of around 50 participants from 14 countries. This

welcome international setting was fashioned to elicit the highest degree of

thoughtful discussion and generation of results. The 2-day event showcased the

strong momentum in transatlantic cooperation now underway through the efforts of

DISCOVERY in the field of ICT research and innovation, as well as the potential to

collaboratively advance original perspectives in this sector.

The first day of the forum was designed with three main panel sessions of Working

Group experts prompted by topics and questions to stimulate active debate,



discussions, and most importantly to identify clear recommendations, conclusions

and ways forward. Day 1 consisted of the following panel sessions.

Panel Session 1: Digital Economy Trends, Capital Market Financing and IPR

This session focused on questions relating to efficiencies, market regulations, costs,

red tape, data protection, impact of regulations regarding data protection, security

and border crossing on the fragmentation of ICT markets, Innovation and High-

Level IPR.

Key Conclusions to feed into DISCOVERY future planning:

• Privacy is not data protection. Privacy as a fundamental right should be

balanced with other important ICT related technologies and goals in society,

such as 5G, and Next Generation Internet (NGI).

• There is heavy red tape in international cooperation, 3,828 different

combinations of legal expertise required to operate in the markets of EU,

Canada and the US to begin with. It´s important to have a mechanism or a kind

of service that is able to select and pinpoint the regulations that are needed for

a business to enter a new market.

• Enhanced data flows across international borders are needed in transatlantic ICT

cooperation.

Panel session 2: How to promote best practices and what are current

obstacles in joint ICT collaboration between Europe, the US and Canada.

This session focused on how to promote best practices in ICT research

collaboration, and what we know works in earlier and ongoing ICT projects.

Obstacles to good international collaboration were also discussed. Topics also cover

the best ways to promote collaborations over the Atlantic, and the conditions for

transatlantic collaborations.


• Excellence, trust and resources are three keys success factors in achieving

international cooperation.

• Decision makers and action takers are needed to make collaborations

successful.

• Funding Agencies should facilitate Trans-Atlantic ICT R&I collaboration in areas

of added value, for instance, excellence, pooling of competence, and disruptive

technologies.

Panel session 3: Research on the Wider Scope of Cybersecurity.

Here the focus was to identify active cybersecurity initiatives and platforms in the

EU, US, and Canada, identification of key technical challenges across the

jurisdictions, and barriers currently limiting the impact for such challenges.

Technical discussion ensued relating to IoT, Smart Cities, security and privacy

challenges and the impact on the citizen and society.


• Security of legacy systems must be addressed, especially in cyber physical

embedded systems.



• There is a need for better data analytics capabilities to be able to differentiate

between a fault and an attack.

• Privacy related topics were of significant interest and the potential opportunity

of some alignment or harmonisation of the data protection laws across the

Atlantic in cooperation with the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation

(GDPR).

• There is a need to cooperate across borders, especially in relation to cyber

defence, cybercrime, and dealing with cyber-attacks, including sharing of attack

information between countries.

Motivated by speaker presentations and the ensuing discussions with attendees,

the Forum shone a spotlight on the merits of cooperation amongst European, US

and Canadian thought-leaders in: data-driven innovation, data privacy and

protection on both sides of the Atlantic; how to best select and craft the most

streamlined international ICT policies while maintaining societal protections; the

sharing of experiences about how to get funds for collaborative ICT projects; and

the global cybersecurity scenario and challenges confronted and potential solutions

in this realm.

The second day of the Transatlantic ICT Forum delved deeper into the discussions

stemming from the first day to progress towards the identification of key

recommendations from each DISCOVERY Working Group. A sample of 2 key

recommendations coming from each Working Group is listed as follows:

1. ICT Policy and Regulations:

• Recommendation 1: ICT Policy making process should be more human-centric

based. As increasingly emerged, disruptive ICT technologies applied such as

IoT and smart cities technologies, should be designed and developed to be more

human-centric; thus, the policy relating to their application should orient to the

same direction as well.

• Recommendation 2: ICT technologies in the digital age cannot be well

established without transparency and trust. Therefore, policy making in this era

should take into account the different perspectives of those two elements

amongst regions.

2. Funding Mechanisms:

• Recommendation 1: Funding mechanisms for transatlantic collaboration should

leverage common views/priorities: sharing ideas between continents,

interoperability, accessibility, transparency, collaboration and stability.

• Recommendation 2: Transatlantic funding schemes should support bottom up

innovation. This includes the support of diversity that comes from multiple

places and perspectives.

3. Cybersecurity

• Recommendation 1: It’s important not to think in terms of one unique security

model, we must have interoperable models, which incorporate political models

and incorporate knowledge sharing throughout.



• Recommendation 2: We are now dealing with such large amounts of data, which

cannot all be protected; therefore, we need systems in place to account for the

principle of the ideas in which there could be a hybrid model that is adjustable

and interoperable, for example, where it is possible to empower the users to

negotiate a comprehensive privacy and cybersecurity platform. Different cultures

have a different view of privacy and security, and we need to work together to

somehow reconcile this in our action plans.

A specific action plan to utilise the outcomes, conclusions and key

recommendations has been identified and is in place with the DISCOVERY

consortium and Forum members to effectively plan for the creation of substantial

impacts of relevance. This action plan contains the following steps and action items:

1. Identify stakeholders (Gov’t, Policy, R&I, industry, PPP’s, …); 2. Contact stakeholders; 3. Ask for inputs on their priorities (technology and policy); 4. Prepare EU-North America Action Plan on ICT Policy/Regulations; Funding

Mechanisms and Cybersecurity R&I activities; 5. Begin steps to implement the Action Plan.

The event closed with a uniform sense amongst speakers and participants of having

created, both meaningful progress for DISCOVERY’s objectives and coupled with

strong engagement, identification of key recommendations and key findings.

There were also pledges of future commitment from the industry representatives,

researchers, innovators and policy makers attending the event.



1. INTRODUCTION The first Transatlantic ICT Forum Workshop was held in Brussels on 16 and 17

November 2016, hosted by the EC DG CONNECT and the Embassy of Canada. The

objectives of the 2-days event were to:

- Present the Transatlantic ICT Forum to a wider range of experts and

stakeholders.

- Share the initiatives and activities of the DISCOVERY Working Groups on funding

mechanisms, ICT policy and regulations and cybersecurity.

- Explore the way to create synergies and engage in the political dialogue on ICT

between Europe and North America.

The workshop gathered around 50 experts and stakeholders from Europe, the US

and Canada, including the DISCOVERY partners (INMARK, UPM, WIT, NordForsk,

HPE, Georgia Tech, EACCNJ, OCAD and University of Toronto); members of the

Transatlantic ICT Forum, like the Center for Data Innovation, Bird & Bird, GNKS,

Xpand International, Ericsson, Digital Enlightenment Forum, FORTH, IIT-CNR, The

Providence Group, and United Technologies Research Center; partners of

collaborative projects PICASSO and BILAT USA 4.0; and representatives from the

EC DG CONNECT and the Mission of Canada to the EU.

The Transatlantic ICT Forum Workshop consisted of two days. Day 1 included

keynote presentations on the broad subjects of ICT policies and data-driven

innovation, followed by three panel sessions on the topics of the Forum:

- Panel Session 1: Digital Economy Trends, Capital Market Financing and IPR.

- Panel session 2: How to promote best practices and what are current obstacles

in joint ICT collaboration between Europe, the US and Canada.

- Panel session 3: Research on the Wider Scope of Cybersecurity.

Day 2 was devoted to parallel break-out sessions on those topics identified as key

drivers for successful ICT collaboration from the previous day´s sessions. The

workshop adopted a mix of facilitation techniques and Lego® Serious Play®

method to facilitate the break-out group process and stimulate the discussion and

creative problem solving around the main challenges for EU-North America

collaboration in ICT R&I and to focus on recommendations for future collaboration.

Break-out topics and challenges were the following:

- Break-out Group 1. How to move forward to ICT policy dialogues to reduce

excessive regulatory costs and streamline processes to optimize efficiencies.

- Break-out Group 2. Strategic areas and topics for future joint funding calls from

EU-US and EU-Canada resources.

- Break-out Group 3. Cybersecurity and privacy in EU-US-Canada R&I cooperation.

The following sections describe the Transatlantic ICT Forum workshop organisation,

main outcomes and conclusions of the event.



2. WORKSHOP ORGANISATION

2.1 The programme

The first day of the workshop at the European Commission DG CONNECT consisted

of conference sessions on relevant topics for EU-North America cooperation in ICT

R&I, followed by three panel discussions led by the chairs of the Transatlantic ICT

Forum Working Groups. The second day of the workshop at the Embassy of Canada

was organized as a co-creative and collaborative-innovation parallel break-out

sessions, with two facilitators from FUTOUR and the Duck Academy, supported by

LEGO and Serious Play techniques.

The agenda can be found in ANNEX 1.

2.2 Profile of the participants

The Transatlantic ICT Forum workshop was attended by around 50 participants

from 14 countries (US, Canada, Belgium, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Ireland,

Netherlands, Norway, Spain, UK, Mexico and China). The attendees were

stakeholders representing the industry (40%), universities and research centres

(30%), and policy makers from government institutions (17%) and leading Think

Tanks (13%).

Keynote speakers and panellists involve senior policy analysts, policy influencers

keen on facilitating transatlantic ICT collaboration, and high-level experts whose

technical background covers data-driven innovation, data privacy, IP,

cybersecurity, IoT (Internet of Things), eHealth, big data in digital health, CPS and

smart cities, and international cooperation in research and innovation. The

biographies of the speakers can be found in ANNEX 2 and the list of participants in

ANNEX 3. The profile demonstrates a high level of international participants, from

government, academics and the industry.

2.3 Online Multichannel Dissemination Plan

In order to maximize the media exposure and impact of the Transatlantic ICT

Forum Workshop, we have developed a dissemination plan to be implemented in

three stages of the event: pre-event promotion, broadcasting during event and

post-event follow-up.

2.3.1 Pre-event Promotion

Before the event organization, we prepared a press release (ANNEX 4) about the

Transatlantic ICT Forum, which functions as a backgrounder offering all the

pertinent details about the objectives of the Transatlantic ICT Forum and its three

Working Groups, which serves as the basis of the Workshop. This press release was

published on the DISCOVERY website and was disseminated through our social

media network, namely Twitter, LinkedIn and Facebook.

The multichannel pre-event dissemination masterplan integrates online

dissemination through CORDIS, DISCOVERY social media networks and newsletters

powered by Mailchimp, and news mentions of our partners and interested parties.

The whole pre-event dissemination was run for 3 weeks, starting from Oct. 24.



Each week was given a different focus so as to maximize exposure and attract more

registration. The whole plan is laid out in the table below.

Phase Keywords DISCOVERY

Webpage Twitter Newsletter

Facebook LinkedIn

Phase1: Oct. 24-31

First call for registration and draft agenda

Press release, banner, and news

Link to registration and draft agenda

Brief overview with registration link

Event created in Facebook page and shared among groups

Invitations to LinkedIn group

Phase2: Nov. 1-7

Speakers bios Dedicated webpage of agenda and bios of speakers.

Meet our speakers’ tweets, pictures and link to bios

Speaker bios Agenda and speakers’ bios

N

Phase3: Nov. 8-13

Last Call to register

Link to register, pictures of merchandising materials

Final agenda and speakers

Pictures of merchandising materials

The multichannel platforms used are described below, in a chronological manner.

• Transatlantic ICT Forum Workshop Branding

We started our pre-event dissemination with the design of a keynote digital flyer,

with the date and venues of the workshop and ready to be disseminated in any

platform. Then, we developed a tagline to set up our drumbeat message:

Permanent Dialogue Platform to Support Transatlantic ICT R&I Cooperation.

Figure 1- Keynote digital flyer

• DISCOVERY Website Homepage Banner

Focused on this tagline, we set up an event banner in the homepage of the website,

which is directed to a news page, titled Save the Date: Transatlantic ICT Forum



Workshop Brussels, about the overall briefing of the event, topics to be addressed

in the event and professionals that would be interested to attend. At this stage, a

draft agenda was also included in the news.

• Registration System

Having laid out the basic background information, we set up our event in Eventbrite.

Due to limited seats in our venues, the number of seats for registration was limited

to 70, and 10 additional seats for the waiting list. Once the event was published in

Eventbrite, the registration link was promoted in multiple platforms. By the date of

the event, the 70 seats were sold out, and 7 people in the waiting list. Having

unleashed people in the waiting list, we reached a total registration of 77

participants (ANNEX 5).

• Social Media Syndicated Promotion

We have fully mobilized the potential of DISCOVERY social media networks, i.e.

Twitter, Facebook and LinkedIn Groups related to ICT.

On the DISCOVERY twitter, we published 14 tweets about pre-event dissemination,

with high impact. The top tweets examples can be found in ANNEX 7. In

DISCOVERY Facebook page, we published the Transatlantic ICT Forum Workshop

Brussels as an upcoming event. This post was shared in other Facebook groups

such as Horizon 2020, Framework Programme for Research and Innovation,

Brussels Events, etc. Our collaborators ENoLL, BILAT USA 4.0 and FOTOUR also

helped publish our event to maximize impact.

• CORDIS Publication

The Transatlantic ICT Forum Workshop was published in the News & Events of

CORDIS website in October 26. We published this relevant news in DISCOVERY

website, Twitter, Facebook and LinkedIn. The CORDIS tweets earned 551

impressions and 17 engagements.

• Dedicated Webpage

We developed two dedicated pages within our DISCOVERY website to provide

timely updated version of our agenda and the bios of speakers.

• Personalized Newsletter sent through Mailchimp

We used “Mailchimp” to send personalized rich media content newsletters. In the

first week, the newsletter included key elements such as our keynote digital flyer,

our partners and introduction to our three working groups. A 1st reminder was sent

with the overall briefing about the Transatlantic ICT Forum with a highlighted call to

action button “Register Now!”. 2nd and 3rd reminders were sent with updated

information on confirmed speakers and the highlights of the event (ANNEX 6).

The newsletters were distributed through a mailing list of 350 relevant contacts in

EU, US and Canada.

• News Mentions from Partners and Collaborators

Thanks to our collaborators and the endorsement from CORDIS, our event earned 4

other publications at PICASSO project, ENoLL, Politieke monitor and Αρχική

websites. The media exposure was significantly increased thanks to this effort. For

more information please refer to ANNEX 7.

http://cordis.europa.eu/event/rcn/147838_en.html

http://discoveryproject.eu/transatlantic-ict-forum-workshop/

http://discoveryproject.eu/transatlantic-ict-forum/speakers/

http://www.picasso-project.eu/2016/10/12/discovery-project-organises-transatlantic-ict-forum-workshop-on-nov-16-17-2016/

http://openlivinglabs.eu/event/transatlantic-ict-forum-workshop

https://www.politiekemonitor.nl/9353000/1/j9tvgajcor7dxyk_j9vvioaf0kku7zz/vk8pcuuxb6so?ctx=vg9pjpw5wsz1&start_tab1=10

http://www.montesquieu-instituut.nl/id/vk8pcuuxb6so/agenda/transatlantic_ict_forum_workshop?ctx=vg9pjpw5wsz1



2.3.2 During Event Broadcasting

During the first day event, we activated live tweeting to capture the essence of the

speeches from our keynote speakers and panellists, and to highlight engagement in

the Q&A session. Also, pictures and tweets of the second day interactive and

innovative workshop were posted. Thus, we have had energetic tweet engagement

among DISCOVERY, Canada in EU, FUTOUR and our participants tweet accounts.

2.3.3 Post Event Follow up In order to keep the momentum, we have created two dedicated pages for the

presentations from our speakers and pictures we took during the event. A

newsletter with a brief summary of the event and the access to those two

webpages, were delivered to the participants, as well as to registered people and

contacts that have shown interests in our event but could not attend. (ANNEX 8)

As a result of the event, the Transatlantic ICT Forum is gaining more members in

the three Working Groups on ICT Policy and Regulations, Funding mechanisms and

Cybersecurity. From the networking of our event, we also increased the members

of our LinkedIn group.

2.4 Workshop Dissemination Materials

We prepared a set of DISCOVERY dissemination materials besides all the online

promotion to facilitate the event. The dissemination materials set includes a roll up

about the Transatlantic ICT Forum, a bag with the DISCOVERY logo, final agenda,

bios of speakers, A4 sized flyer about DISCOVERY project and A5 sized flyer about

the Transatlantic ICT Forum, A6 sized notebook, badges and business cards of

DISCOVERY partners. All the materials can be found in ANNEX 9.

2.5 Social Media Impact

The chart below summarizes the general performance of the syndicated social

media pre-event promotion. The number of impressions show the reach and

popularity of the Transatlantic ICT Forum event. The engagement rate and link

clicks show that our event is of personal interest, which also send traffic to our

website while at the same time contribute to position our account as a credible one.

Retweets and number of invitations in Facebook have earned further exposure for

our workshop to non-followers. They represent also the public endorsement to our

event.

Event Stage Twitter Facebook LinkedIn

Pre-event Promotion (3 weeks)

Number Number Number

Post 4/week Post 1 Invitations sent to LinkedIn Groups related to ICT

15

Impressions 2

Engagement Rate 2% Interest 30

Link Click 18 Going 6

Retweets 41 Invitation 6

Likes 74 Earned 3

Impressions 5900 Dissemination

Post 103

Engagement Rate 2.3%

http://discoveryproject.eu/downloads/transatlantic-ict-forum-workshop-downloads/

http://discoveryproject.eu/transatlanticictforumpicturegallery/



During Event Broadcasting (4 days)

Link Click 16 N/A

Invitations sent to experts to join the DISCOVERY LinkedIn Group

17

Retweets 45

Likes 166

Impressions 10800

Post Event Follow up

Mailchimp 350 recipients



3. DAY 1 - TRANSATLANTIC ICT FORUM WORKSHOP

3.1 Keynote session

The event was opened by Yolanda Ursa, DISCOVERY project coordinator, who

welcomed the participants and introduced the speakers and the setting of the

event. She highlighted DISCOVERY commitment to support dialogues between

Europe, the US and Canada, and to enhance transatlantic cooperation in ICT

priority areas of common interest, like Cybersecurity, Internet of Things (IoT), High

Performance Computing, Big Data, eHealth and many others.

3.1.1 Welcome address

We received a warm welcome by our hosts from the EC DG CONNECT and the

Embassy of Canada. Jean-Yves Roger, DG CONNECT International Cooperation Unit,

focused on the importance of policy dialogue and economic and research

cooperation between Europe and North America. Christer Hammarlund, DG

CONNECT Cyber Defence Officer, addressed cybersecurity, one of the hot topics in

transatlantic dialogues for ICT cooperation. Michael Willmontt, First Secretary,

Science and Technology at Mission of Canada to the European Union, focused on

the long-standing bilateral cooperation between Canada and Europe in science and

technology and the relevance of ICT for future cooperation.

Jean-Yves Roger Christer E. Hammarlund Michael Willmontt

3.1.2 Keynote speakers

Nick Wallace, Senior Policy Analyst, Center for Data Innovation. Nick is well-known

as an expert in data-driven innovation and contributes to promote policy ideas to

capitalize on the economic and social benefits that data-driven innovation can offer.

He focused on privacy and stated: "I sometimes hear it said in Brussels that privacy

is something Europeans care about more than other people. That there’s something

quintessentially European about the notion of a fundamental right to privacy, to

safeguards from intrusion, to a private life. I don’t think that’s true at all. I think

there’s something awfully pompous and parochial about that claim. But I do think

there’s a difference of opinion about what constitutes a threat to privacy. I think

there’s something very harmful about the impulse to lock down reuses of personal

data before we’ve decided what the threat actually is, or even imagined what it

might be. It means banning reuses of data that don’t harm privacy, but do good

things. It also means needlessly blocking transatlantic data flows”.

He also referred to the need of a common understanding of privacy and said “the

General Data Protection Regulation - GDPR rests on the idea that any repurposing

of personal data not agreed to in advance is already a violation of privacy all on its



own. I think that’s a complete redefinition of privacy. I think it’s stretching the

definition of that word to the point of meaninglessness. But what I don’t hear

people talk about in this town is what privacy is—the word gets thrown around as

though everyone is already in agreement. Instead of parochial talk about European

values or European standards, we need to work towards a common understanding

of privacy that will support greater transatlantic cooperation."

Benoit Van Asbroeck, Partner at Bird & Bird. He has a great reputation as a lawyer

and has exceptional expertise in Intellectual Property practice and ICT related

subjects. He focused on Legal challenges in a data-driven environment, covering a

number of key issues like EU data-driven strategy, GDPR & Challenges when

confronted to data, Security & Cyber-security (NIS), Anonymization and

pseudonymisation, ownership of data.

He quoted from the EC Communication "Towards a thriving data-driven economy"

and highlighted that while the Big Data market was expected to grow worldwide to

USD 16.9 billion in 2015, “the EU had been slow in embracing this revolution … and

must "make sure that the relevant legal framework and the policies, such as on

interoperability, data protection, security and IPR are data-friendly, leading to more

regulatory certainty for business and creating consumer trust in data technologies."

Regarding the challenges of the General Data Protection Regulation that will enter

into application on 25 May 2018, Benoit emphasized “the efforts to regulate

personal data in a digital age and the new and existing data protection rights and

principles that are difficult to reconcile with a data-driven environment”. He also

referred to the new NIS Directive that is difficult to reconcile with the GDPR

requirements, especially in a big data context”, as well as the difference between

anonymisation & pseudonymisation and the importance under the GDPR. He

pointed out the challenges of proprietary rights in data and concluded by saying

that “contractual arrangements are the solution to ownership of data”.

Camille Sailer Nick Wallace Benoit Van Asbroeck Yolanda Ursa



3.1.3 The Transatlantic ICT Forum

The DISCOVERY’s Transatlantic ICT Forum in the context of EU-North American

policy dialogue was introduced by Camille Sailer, President of the European

American Chamber of Commerce - New Jersey EACCNJ, and partner of DISCOVERY

and chair of the Transatlantic ICT Forum. Camille set the context for transatlantic

cooperation in ICT recognizing that the future holds many uncertainties of all kinds.

She pointed out that “our bilateral relationship is still second to none but the

transatlantic bridge needs more high speed lanes – homologation in IPR, standards,

transfer pricing, better scale up ecosystems. She also mentioned specific challenges

to face and stated that “Age of Information has given way to the Age of Disruption,

most of it positive – failure is not a 4 letter word, in Europe it is, and that chills

innovation – other chills on the environment, TTIP is languishing, Apple tax ruling

for ops in Ireland, differences in privacy vs security, Brexit and the overall

directions the EU is taking on economic progress including integration of migrants,

and maybe of most concern, while EU public investment in R&D is about 1 % of

GDP similar to that in America, private sector investment in R&D is just 57% of the

U.S. level”.

She concluded by highlighting the relevance of the U.S. and Europe markets, which

will remain the cornerstone of collaboration, and said “no other commercial

connection is so fully integrated. Our transatlantic economic relationship generates

$5.5 trillion in total sales each year and employs more than 15 million individuals

on both sides of the Atlantic, frequently in higher-paying jobs that are the hallmark

of international business. For example, on an historic cost basis, U.S. investment in

Europe was nearly 15 times larger than in the BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, China)

club, and nearly 4 times larger than in all of Asia at the end of 2013. There are

many more ways of looking at the picture but all show that Europe is the clear

favourite of American companies because of its 500 million-plus affluent consumers

and great demand for U.S. products and services”.

3.1.4 PICASSO project

Svetlana Klessova, coordinator of PICASSO project made a presentation of the

project targeting ICT policy and research and innovation for a smart society, with

focus on key enabling technologies related to societal challenges: 5G Networks, Big

Data, Internet of Things and Cyber Physical Systems. She emphasized the

synergies with DISCOVERY to reinforce EU-US collaboration in ICT R&I.

3.2 Introduction to DISCOVERY Working Groups

Three Working Groups have been set up to advise the project team in the

production of input (analysis) papers on key thematic areas in ICT – funding mechanisms for ICT R&I, ICT policy and regulations and cybersecurity. The input papers will be published and presented to EU-North America policy dialogue

stakeholders in the field of ICT. These papers will form the basis for further work

conducted through the Transatlantic Forum, which it is envisaged will continue in

the long term as a permanent advisory body of EU-North America experts.

3.2.1 ICT Policy & Regulations Working Group

Chaired by Camille Sailer, EACCNJ, the WG brings together policy makers and

industry representatives from both side of the Atlantic. It addresses areas of

common interest to tri-party EU, Canada and US policies: regulatory frameworks,



IPR, market regulations, data protection, secrecy requirements and standards. The

WG will move forward outcome-oriented dialogue and ultimate results to reduce

excessive regulatory costs, identify unnecessary red tape and streamline processes

to optimize efficiencies and avoid divergent policy approaches. The Input Paper on

ICT Policy and Regulations will look at standards, regulations, market fragmentation

and ICT accessibility, with recommendations to the political dialogue on regulations.

The two-day Transatlantic ICT Forum furthered the goals of the Working Group by

assembling a variety of perspectives on these issues during the first day and then

delving deeper into solutions and policy recommendations on the second day.

3.2.2 Funding Mechanisms Working Group

The purpose of the Funding Mechanisms Working Group is to bring forward

recommendations for the research community and funders in Europe and North-

America for how to increase and strengthen the transatlantic ICT research

collaboration. In the two meetings arranged by DISCOVERY in 2016, the capacity

building workshop and the ICT Discovery Lab held in Toronto, it was identified that

there are some very general challenges that need to be addressed. These are

about IPR, access and ownership of data and personal data, and security using and

moving data.

The Working Group (WG) is chaired by Jostein Sundet, NordForsk, the WG brings

together representatives from funding agencies, ICT researchers, ICT users (HPC,

medicine/bio-informatics, Internet-of-Things (IoT), Big-data). Its goal is to identify

main programs and funding instruments that support and enhance collaboration in

ICT research and innovation between Europe and North-America.

Recommendations on how to reinforce and strengthen the collaboration over the

Atlantic will be at the core of the Input Paper written by the WG, but also access to

programs, priority funding areas and eligibility conditions are also addressed. The

Input Paper on Funding Mechanisms will provide recommendations to funders in

Europe, US and Canada and will promote better and more efficient ways of funding

research collaborations between the two regions.

3.2.3 Cybersecurity Working Group

Chaired by Jim Clarke, WIT, the WG brings together experts connecting to a broad

network of researchers and innovators involved in projects, initiatives and platforms

related to cybersecurity in the EU, US and Canada. The WG aims to identify

cybersecurity technological gaps and issues currently existing in Europe, US and

Canada pointing out the common challenges and threats experienced by research

and industry bodies. The Input Paper on Cybersecurity will formulate

recommendations to the political dialogue on cybersecurity, in particular to the EU-

US Cyber Dialogue in order to address and target the identified challenges, gaps

and issues. The WG has already written a draft position paper, which can be found

at http://discoveryproject.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/DISCOVERY-Position-

Paper-on-Cybersecurity.pdf.

The position paper identifies a number of key priority areas for EU and North

America cooperation, as summarised in Figure 1.

http://discoveryproject.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/DISCOVERY-Position-Paper-on-Cybersecurity.pdf

http://discoveryproject.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/DISCOVERY-Position-Paper-on-Cybersecurity.pdf



Figure 2- Priority topics from the Cybersecurity WG

3.3 Panel Session 1: Digital Economy Trends, Capital Market Financing and IPR

3.3.1 Focus, chair and panellists

The objectives of the panel included: understanding of the disruptions represented

and confronted by the ICT sector; how access to capital and public sector funding

operates; barriers to overcoming market fragmentation such as standards and

regulations; and opportunities to improve IPR.

Chair: Camille Sailer, EACCNJ

Panellists:

- Maarten Botterman, Founder and Director of GNKS Consult, Netherlands

- James Gumble, CEO and Founder of Xpand International, UK

- Rene Summer, Director Government & Industry Relations at LM Ericsson

- Alberto Leon-Garcia, Scientific Director of NSERC Strategic Network for Smart

Applications on Virtual Infrastructures (SAVI), University of Toronto, Canada

Maarten Botterman Rene Summer Alberto Leon-Garcia James Gumble

3.3.2 Topics and questions

1. Efficiencies, market regulations, costs, red tape

2. Data protection

3. Impact of regulations regarding data protection, security and border crossing on

the fragmentation of ICT markets

4. Innovation and High-Level IPR

Camille set the stage for the two-day Forum by noting that -- still but the picture

may be shifting - American companies favor Europe for investment and commercial



ties because of its 500 million-plus affluent consumers and great demand for US

products and services. However, many on both sides of the Atlantic do not realize

that the "united" in United States and "union" in European Union frequently reflect

more the exception in the rule for consistent and uniform regulations, incentives

and policy direction and implementation among individual American states and EU

member states.

James explained that a framework needs to exist to be able to inform the

international end points of the relevant sectors to the relevant legal and policy that

impacts them. At the moment, this does not exist, and that is problematic. James

noted that he has spent time looking at international collaboration and there are

conflicting and matching standards for tagging and making data become consistent.

James pinpointed 3 major problems that need to be overcome:

1. Location tracking (Accurately tracking the geographic areas that issues and data

apply to). Locations are handled best via UN LOCODES

2. Industry tracking (Accurately tracking the sectors). This is currently in process

of being harmonised via 2 standards - however a cross referencing index is

something that could be developed as the international harmonisation is not

likely to conclude properly within the next 5 years and some countries within

the EU / Canada /U.S. are not included within this harmonisation. Introducing

completely new or different industry standards would not be welcomed or

accepted; however, an index used to match existing standards / codes would be

beneficial.

3. Open Data Frameworks (Making the information easily and consistently

available from each region). Open Data platforms can be used to track the

solutions for international collaboration. This would be recommended for large

projects with multiple collaborative partners.

Whatever solution is proposed for international collaboration should be able to track

the location it applies to, the sector that it is relevant to and be able to be updated

and collaborated internationally. James emphasized that there over 3916 cross-

regional differences in legislation/eligibility that need to be tracked per item.

The solution isn’t to have this information as a static format because this

information is constantly evolving.

Maarten explained that prominent features on the Transatlantic Agenda and more

visible to many with the take-down of “Safe Harbor”, replaced by “Privacy Shield”

as of 1 August 2016, are:

• Compliance still self-certified.

• Enforcement (policy vs practice) remains with US Department of Commerce.

• EU annual review and EU citizens’ power to sue USG.

• Is ‘mass surveillance’ (Schrems/Yahoo) issue resolved?

• Art29 WP has suspended legal action for a year.

• ITC touches upon many ways how U.S. companies engage with EU

markets and collaborate with EU firms when personal data is involved.

• Policies specifically affected include: Trade policy, surveillance and other

bulk action.

Maarten described the caveat that privacy and data protection are not the same

things.



3.3.3 Key Takeaways

• New technologies allow us to respond to today's challenges and solve problems

in a way that has never existed before.

• Interoperability and standards are important in transatlantic ICT cooperation.

• Privacy is not data protection. Privacy as fundamental rights should be balanced

with other important goals in society such as 5G, future internet and other

social rights.

• Europe’s default position is prohibition. There is a lack of balance between

legislation and business.

• There is heavy red tape in international cooperation, 3828 different

combinations of legal expertise required to operate in the markets of EU,

Canada and the US to begin with. It´s important to have a mechanism or a kind

of service that is able to select and pinpoint the regulations that are needed for

a business to enter a new market.

• Data flow across International borders should be enhanced.

3.4 Panel session 2: How to promote best practices and what are current obstacles in joint ICT collaboration between Europe, the US and Canada


In this panel the discussion was on how to promote Best Practices in ICT research

collaboration, what we know works in earlier and ongoing ICT projects. Obstacles

to good international collaboration were also discussed.

Chair: Jostein Sundet, NordForsk

Panellists:

- Maria Fernanda Cabrera, Innovation Director of Life Supporting Technologies

(LifeSTech) research group, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid (UPM)

- Henriette Krimphoff, DLR, BILAT USA 4.0

- May D. Wang, Biomedical Engineering, Georgia Tech and Emory University

- Jutta Treviranus, Professor and Director, Inclusive Design Research Centre

(IDRC) at OCAD University, Toronto, Canada

The panel had a vigorous and interesting discussion of experiences of both funders

and researchers on international collaboration. Each of the panellists were asked to

describe how they view international collaboration, what funding schemes they

have used and further what are, in their view, conditions for success to attract

funding. Comments from the public was also received. Of particular interests were

the very specific and practical suggestions to better the collaboration. Primarily this

was about the knowledge and availability of funding that can be utilized in the

research process.



Henriette Krimphoff, Jostein Sundet, Maria Fernanda Cabrera, May D. Wang, Jutta Treviranus

The leader of the panel asked if a limited budget that will only cover the so-called

“meeting place” functions as arranging workshops and cover travel and

accommodation for participants is sufficient. For researchers and research groups it

is also important to have a more uniform view of data policies and ownerships, and

it was well argued that both views, of the EC and US, made this unnecessarily

complicated when socio-economic data was approached. The outcome of the panel

will be included in the recommendations from the Funding Mechanisms Working

Group.

The main questions and conclusions are listed below.


• What are the best ways to promote collaborations over the Atlantic - and when

is it useful to do so?

• What are conditions for collaborations to work over the Atlantic Ocean.

• What are obstacles for this collaboration

• Examples of best practices

• Do the challenges differ in the regions (Europe, US, Canada)?

• Funding streams are a challenge, what can be done to make the funding

streams from the different regions coincide (alignment of funding) – is it

realistic to think they will?

• What are current funding possibilities for collaborative work apart from research

funding (e.g. meetings, travel, other)?

• There are challenges with the IPR (Intellectual Property Rights) how they are

dealt differently with in Europe, US and Canada.

• There are challenges with the ownership of own data/information.

3.4.3 Key Takeaways

- Excellence, trust and resources are three keys success factors in achieving

international cooperation.

- Decision makers and action takers are needed to make collaborations

successful.



- Funding Agencies should facilitate Trans-Atlantic ICT R&I collaboration in areas

of added value, for instance, excellence, pooling of competence, and disruptive

technologies.

- Important factors for successful (existing or earlier) collaborations include open

sciences, data and standards.

- Funding travel grants for researchers across the Atlantic could also facilitate

international collaboration.

- Main obstacles are associated to the lack of cynchronisation of funding

programmes, administrative burden, IPR issues, and policy disconnection. There

is an obvious obstacle in the funding programmes that hinders sound interaction

between Industry and research for tansatlantic collaborations.

- Joint calls, common rules, evaluation criteria and eligibility criteria represent

important approaches to reinforce transatlantic collaboration.

- In terms of getting patterns, Europe is much faster than the US.

- Digging into Data – get EU, US and Canada to set up projects around the “Big-

Data” theme. One can look at priorities the Research Data Alliance (RDA) that

have set up several priorities that also applies to highly relevant research

questions.

- Suggestions for new possible projects should be as concrete and lean firmly

against the Grand Societal Challenges.

3.5 Panel session 3: Research on the Wider Scope of Cybersecurity


The focus of this panel included the wider scope of security, privacy and trust

related to Internet of Things (IoT) / cyber security with regard to citizens and smart

cities; harmonisation and cooperation of key EU and US and Canada cybersecurity

initiatives; importance of cybersecurity innovation clustering; and approaches

undertaken in EU, US and Canada towards research and innovation in these topics,

and the strong need for transatlantic cooperation as a way forward.

Chair: James Clarke, Waterford Institute of Technology (WIT)

Panellists:

- Claudio Caimi, HP Enterprise

- Christer E. Hammarlund, Unit H.1: Cybersecurity & Digital Privacy, European

Commission, DG Connect

- Menouer Boubekeur, Strategic Business Development, PI Cyber Physical

Systems, United Technologies Research Center, Ireland

- Dan Caprio, Co-Founder, Chairman, The Providence Group, US

- Fabio Martinelli, Senior researcher and leader of the cyber security project at

CNR, Italy

- Evangelos Markatos, Head of the Distributed Computing Systems

Laboratory, Foundation for Research and Technology (FORTH), Greece

- Jacques Bus, Secretary General, Digital Enlightenment Forum (DigEnlight),

Netherlands.



Christer E. Hammarlund, Menouer Boubekeur, Jim Clarke, Dan Caprio, Fabio Martinelli, Evangelos Markatos, Jacques Bus (missing from photo: Claudio Caimi)


Q1. What initiatives/platforms are there in your jurisdictions dealing with

cybersecurity and what is in their programme for international cooperation with EU,

US and Canada?

Q2. In relation to key technical cybersecurity challenges (2 inter-related questions):

A. From your perspective, what are 1-2 key Technical Cybersecurity challenges or

concerns within your jurisdiction (EU, US, Canada)?

B. what do you see as barriers to addressing these challenges without the help from

within other jurisdictions (EU, US, Canada) to address these challenges?

Q3. At global level, we are seeing the evolution of Smart Cities, leveraging cloud,

IoT, big data technologies with smart energy meters, smart appliances, intelligent

transport modes etc. With the emergence of such smarter technologies and

products into our everyday life, this also brings challenges relating to security and

privacy. Can you please state and discuss your views on how we can work together

globally to achieve a safe and secure digital environment while achieving significant

amounts of innovation.

Q4. From a Citizen / Society point of view, what needs to be completed to enhance

awareness of current and future cybersecurity threats, and better protection

measures in relation to information and personal data, how can we act now to

protect the citizen?

Q5. What can the H2020 DISCOVERY project do to help you in your endeavours for

building up international cooperation in cybersecurity, and increasing innovation in

these challenging R&I areas related to cybersecurity?

3.5.3 Key Takeaways

The following takeaways provide an overview of the answers and discussions raised

during the panel session addressing the questions and topics highlighted in section

3.5.2.



Initiatives and Platforms

Q1. What initiatives/platforms are there in your jurisdictions dealing with

cybersecurity and what is in their programme for international cooperation with EU,

US and Canada?

There are a number of highly relevant

activities related to cybersecurity and

they are all active with international

cooperation on both sides of the

Atlantic.

Those presented below are a selection of

EU and US and Canada:

At European Level

Name Initiative Focus

cPPP, ECSO Contractual public private partnership on cybersecurity

(cPPP) and supporting organisation The European Cyber

Security Organisation (ECSO)1, which recently published a

Strategic Research and Innovation Agenda (SRIA)2.

Cloud28+ Cloud28+ 3 is an open community of Cloud Service

Providers, Cloud Resellers, ISVs, Systems Integrators and

government entities dedicated to accelerating enterprise

cloud adoption. Cloud 28+ is actively engaging with the

global communities especially in areas related to cloud

security.

Digital Enlightenment

Forum Digital Enlightenment Forum (DigEnlight) 4 is a value-

driven non-profit association which stimulates and

organises multi-disciplinary cooperation, debate and policy

development aiming at an innovation-driven and

sustainable evolution of digitisation in a society respecting

human values.

PROTASIS PROTASIS project5 (Restoring Trust in the cyber space: a

Systems Security Proposal) is an EU Marie Skłodowska-

Curie Action that expands the reach of the FP7 SysSec6

project to the international community via a joint research

program in the area of Systems Security. Through a novel

international and inter-sectoral program the participants

will advance the state-of-the art in the area of security and

privacy and will sharpen their skills using the most

advanced methods for cyberattacks and malware.

Specifically, PROTASIS uses RISE (Research and

Innovation Staff Exchange) for staff and PhD students

exchanges between Europe and US.

PICASSO PICASSO 7 project, a sister project of DISCOVERY in

H2020, as presented in the morning, is looking at EU-US

collaboration on a number of verticals, including 5G

1 http://www.ecs-org.eu/ 2 http://www.ecs-org.eu/documents/ecs-cppp-sria.pdf 3 http://www.cloud28plus.eu/ 4 https://digitalenlightenment.org/ 5 http://www.protasis.eu/ 6 http://www.syssec-project.eu/ 7 http://www.picasso-project.eu/

http://www.ecs-org.eu/

http://www.ecs-org.eu/documents/ecs-cppp-sria.pdf

http://www.cloud28plus.eu/

https://digitalenlightenment.org/

http://www.protasis.eu/

http://www.syssec-project.eu/

http://www.picasso-project.eu/



networks, Big Data, IoT/ Cyber physical systems, and

policy, all of which have a cross cutting connection with

cybersecurity.

CINI, CNR, SERENITY

A number of EU national initiatives were also highlighted in

the panel, including CINI National Cyber Security Lab

(promoting the NIST framework in Italy) and the

cybersecurity initiative run by National Research Council of

Italy (CNR) 8 and the Irish Security Research Network

(Serenity), which is composed of over 500 experts in

cybersecurity related research and industry, both of which

have global cooperation high on their agendas.

At US/Canada Level

Name Initiative Focus

NIST NIST Cybersecurity Framework (full name Framework for

Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity, 2014) 9

was initially designed for areas of critical infrastructures

and deals with areas related to risk management and

guidance for small business. The Framework was created

through collaboration between government and the private

sector, using a common language to address and manage

cybersecurity risk in a cost-effective way based on

business needs without placing additional regulatory

requirements on businesses.

US Presidents Commission on Enhancing

Cybersecurity

The [United States] President's Commission on Enhancing

National Cybersecurity10 was formed on April 13, 2016 to

develop a plan for protecting cyberspace, and America's

economic reliance on it. On 1st December, 2016, the

Commission finished their report available at

https://www.nist.gov/cybercommission, which provides a

set of detailed short-term and long-term recommendations

to strengthen cybersecurity in both the public and private

sectors, while protecting privacy, fostering innovation and

ensuring economic and national security.

Dept of Homeland Security

Department of Homeland Security have introduced a

guideline for IoT in areas related to cars and critical

infrastructures to ensure that security is included at the

design phase and transparent across the ecosystems.

Q2. In relation to key technical cybersecurity challenges (2 inter-related questions):

A. From your perspective, what are 1-2 key Technical Cybersecurity challenges or

concerns within your jurisdiction (EU, US, Canada)?

B. What do you see as barriers to addressing these challenges without the help from

within other jurisdictions (EU, US, Canada) to address these challenges?

- Security of legacy systems must be addressed, especially in cyber physical

embedded systems, which will continue to have controllers that will also need

protection.

- Industries are basing their security decisions based on a mixture of risk driven

and cost driven attitudes.

- There is a need for better data analytics capabilities to be able to differentiate

between a fault and an attack.

8 https://www.cnr.it/en 9 https://www.nist.gov/sites/default/files/documents/cyberframework/cybersecurity-framework-021214.pdf 10 https://www.nist.gov/cybercommission

https://www.nist.gov/cybercommission

https://www.cnr.it/en

https://www.nist.gov/sites/default/files/documents/cyberframework/cybersecurity-framework-021214.pdf

https://www.nist.gov/sites/default/files/documents/cyberframework/cybersecurity-framework-021214.pdf




- There is a need to cooperate across borders, especially in relation to cyber

defence, cybercrime, and dealing with cyber-attacks, including sharing of attack

information between countries. We must look at building better security into IoT

devices, in order to protect each individual part, making it considerably more

expensive and time consuming for hackers to have motivation to break in,

especially in light of the recent attacks on IoT-based systems in the US during

October, 2016.

Q3. At global level, we are seeing the evolution of Smart Cities, leveraging cloud,

IoT, big data technologies with smart energy meters, smart appliances, intelligent

transport modes etc. With the emergence of such smarter technologies and

products into our everyday life, this also brings challenges relating to security and

privacy. Can you please state and discuss your views on how we can work

together globally to achieve a safe and secure digital environment while achieving

significant amounts of innovation.

- There is a need to shift the perception that we are failing on cybersecurity and

must address both tactical and strategic approaches for cybersecurity.

- Cybersecurity is a unique risk because it encapsulates so many areas. The

challenge and the opportunity is to tie all these elements together in IoT.

Q4. From a Citizen / Society point of view, what needs to be completed to

enhance awareness of current and future cybersecurity threats, and better

protection measures in relation to information and personal data, how can we act

now to protect the citizen?

- Education of all age brackets about the power of the internet and security and

privacy issues must be addressed as a matter of urgency. A number of

initiatives in relation to this were highlighted including: The Europe Code

week11, which is an EU based grassroots initiative aiming to bring coding and

digital literacy to everybody in a fun and engaging way, and US based National

Cybersecurity Alliance12, whose mission is “to educate and empower our global

digital society to use the Internet safely and securely”.

- There is a blurring of law enforcement and national security in particular

concerning cybersecurity and surveillance. We need better definitions of these

concepts on both sides of the Atlantic. Also the stakeholders must come

together to harmonise the rules on production and trade of military and cyber

security products. This kind of discussion would help the development of civil

security tools and methods.

- There is a need for a global framework on ethics, security and privacy that takes

into account the social and cultural aspects. An example of how the Artificial

Intelligence (AI) communities have invited people to become involved in their

communities to help solve ethical problems was cited and suggested for the

security and privacy communities.

- There is a shortage of people to work on Cybersecurity, many more need to be

educated in this field as a matter of urgency. Efforts must be made to entice

students into all the related fields of Cybersecurity. Efforts like those for student

exchanges between EU and North America, such as those being carried out in

the PROTASIS project, should be strongly encouraged and funded.

Q5. What can the H2020 DISCOVERY project do to help you in your endeavours

for building up international cooperation in cybersecurity, and increasing

innovation in these challenging R&I areas related to cybersecurity?

11 http://codeweek.eu/ 12 https://staysafeonline.org/

http://codeweek.eu/

https://staysafeonline.org/



- There was broad agreement from the panellists that the five topics as identified

by the DISCOVERY position paper13 are priority topics for EU – North America

cooperation: Cybersecurity (tools and techniques for proactive protection

against attacks); Data provenance; Data and information privacy; Mobile

security; and Cloud security (including Security as a Service). Moreover, the five

topics were presented in the morning during a meeting organised by the

European Union External Action Service between the Commission and high level

US government representatives, and they were accepted as being relevant

topics to consider for joint collaboration between the EU and US in relation to

cybersecurity.

4. DAY 2 - TRANSATLANTIC ICT FORUM WORKSHOP

The second day of the Transatlantic ICT Forum Workshop features an innovative

event that aims to encourage ICT stakeholders to be creative in coming up ideas

and potential models that could contribute to transatlantic ICT cooperation through

a co-creative methodology that will help stimulate creative thinking and ideas

generation. The session of the second day connects with the discussion of in the

panels of the discussions happened in the first day of the workshop. In addition, it

also aims to provide a flexible and playful environment for participants to network,

connect and build up collaborative relationships.

4.1 Description of co-creative methodology

The second day of the DISCOVERY Transatlantic ICT Forum workshop took place at

the Embassy of Canada, where the Ambassador, Olivier Nicoloff, welcomed the

participants. The workshop adopted a mix of facilitation techniques to dynamize the

discussion, stimulate creative problem solving and identify solutions to the three

core topics addressed in the first day of the Forum: ICT policy and regulations,

funding mechanisms and cybersecurity

4.1.1 Serious Play and Lego

What is Lego® Serious Play®

Lego® Serious Play® is a facilitated thinking, communication and problem-solving

technique designed to strengthen innovation and business performance. The

method as we know it today has been developed by Kjeld Kirk Kristiansen, the

owner of Lego and two leading IMD professors (Bart Victors and Johan Roos).

Lego® Serious Play® is based on extensive research on how play, learning,

creativity and the universal Lego language might contribute to a whole new way of

dealing with challenges.

Playing is the best method when people need to be creative, collaborate and learn.

It makes us free to take risks, imagine the unthinkable and to take on countless

numbers of new roles. This is very helpful when facing complex challenges and

unpredictable changes. The Lego brick is more than a toy: it is the language for

systematic creativity and is used for building models of the intangible world.

Why Lego® Serious Play® is applied

It is proved that Lego® Serious Play®(LSP) is capable of facilitating change,

exploring the unknown, and simplifying what is complex while boosting the



engagement and learning among players. It helps to identify possible solutions to

challenges, explore consequences of possible future actions. Among that, it is also a

catalyst for dialogue, contributing to developing shared understanding, overview

and acceptance. It collects information and knowledge in a concrete way.

LSP is proved beneficial when dynamic strategies and action plans, or the release of

innovative potential is needed. Other than that, it´s also helpful to map out core

challenges, simulate major projects, optimise processes, team development, and

develop shared ownership, culture and values.

The second day of Transatlantic ICT Forum Workshop applies this methodology

considering the potential in breaking the similar routine that ICT stakeholders has

during daily life. The routine might constrain their mind in coming up with creative

ideas or models in transatlantic cooperation. Applying the LSP provides an “out-of-

the-box” approach to encourage them to view technical issues, e.g. cybersecurity,

privacy, or IP from different perspectives.

4.1.2 Lego Serious Play in Transatlantic ICT Forum Workshop

Every LSP workshop is a facilitated group process. It is designed by the facilitator

around a number of core concepts and key terms to meet the needs of the

customer. The goal is that everyone’s insights, knowledge and ideas are brought

into play. Therefore, all participants are building, telling stories and sharing their

ideas equally. At the same time, everyone is encouraged to ask critical questions

about the models and stories, creating a shared understanding about the

knowledge that arises.

The application of LSP in the Transatlantic ICT Forum Workshop focused on ICT

harmonisation and cooperation. It was facilitated by Paolo Martinez and Marc

Sonnaert of FUTOUR | DUCK ACADEMY. It addressed the three main topics of the

first day of the Forum and each topic had as moderator the chair of the specific

topic as well as an assistant to take notes of all the emerging ideas, suggestions

and insights that emerged from the Lego Serious Play and facilitated sessions.



Figure 3 – Break-out Groups

4.2 Break Out Group Sessions

Having acknowledged the methodology of LSP and the procedure, participants

broke out into three parallel groups according to their interest and expertise.

However, it´s also ensured that each group will at least have one Working Group

member representatives from the three DISCOVERY Working Groups to achieve the

balanced inputs from different areas of expertise. Each break out group is led by

the chair of DISCOVERY Working Groups.

4.2.1 Group 1: ICT Policy and Regulations

Group 1 was moderated by Camille Sailer from EACNNJ and assisted by Xianshu

Zeng from INMARK in notetaking.

Round table participants:

- Menouer Boubekeur, Strategic Business Development, PI Cyber Physical

Systems, United Technologies Research Center, Ireland

- Eva Fadil, PICASSO project



- Yolanda Ursa, INMARK, DISCOVERY project Coordinator

Challenges:

How to move forward ICT policy dialogues? Think about how to reduce excessive

regulatory costs, streamline processes and optimize efficiencies.

Key words for new cooperation models:

The Policy & Regulations Working Group continued to coalesce as an effective "brain

trust" under the DISCOVERY project during the Forum's second day Workshop. The

Group focused its efforts on synthesizing the most focused key words that can

inform transatlantic dialogues to move forward critical goals and objectives. After



much give-and-take and sincere and creative brainstorming among the WG's

experts, the following concepts emerged as of high priority:

- Disruptive: Acute attention to highest levels of relevance of policies

especially vis-à-vis “disruptive” technology and services

- Transparency: Transparency by policy-makers with constituencies including

private sector, consumers and underserved communities

- Interoperability: the interoperability of relevant directives to save time

and resources

- Streamlining: the need to streamline regulations to reduce redundant

regulation

Actions and recommendations

During the TIF, ICT policy and regulations subject matter experts along with

participants had the unique opportunity to seriously delve into the issues facing

meaningful transatlantic collaboration. Through innovative role-playing, where the

Transatlantic ICT Forum members could wear each other's professional "shoes",

impactful exchanges of perspectives and knowledge were stimulated which resulted

in a number of actions and recommendations that DISCOVERY can support. These

are enumerated below.

Recommendation 1: ICT Policy making process should be more human-

centric based. As increasingly emerged, disruptive ICT technologies applied such

as IoT and smart cities, should be designed and developed to be more human-

centric, thus the policy relating to their application should orient to the same

direction as well.

Link with ICT Policy and Regulations Input Paper

The Input paper user stories will address these problems, thus reflecting how the

policy making process can be oriented to the need of people.

Recommendation 2: ICT technologies in the digital age cannot be well established

without transparency and trust. Therefore, policy making in this era should take

into account the different perspectives of those two elements among regions.


It´s linked with areas of common interest to Europe-US and Europe-Canada

policies, especially in data protection and privacy. In the Input Paper, a landscape

of the different perspectives to trust and regulations to privacy will be mapped out

to analyse how the policy making process should incorporate those different

factors. For example, trust in Europe is built upon the protection of privacy as their

fundamental right, whilst the basis of trust in North America may differ.

Recommendation 3: It´s suggested to promote the kind of service that helps

filter regulations for people and businesses entering a foreign market. In this way,

the number of regulations needed to get informed can be reduced to the minimum.


The Input Paper will include a comparative analysis of the current status and trends

in ICT policies among Europe, US and Canada, especially in the area of market



regulations and standards across the Atlantic. Furthermore, user stories will

illustrate the complexity of navigating through regulations in other jurisdictions,

and the need to promote and encourage a service that helps to filter relevant

regulations.

4.2.2 Group 2: Funding Mechanisms

The group 2 was moderated by Jostein Sundet from NordForsk, and assisted by

Silvia De Los Rios from UPM in note taking.


- Maria Fernanda Cabrera, Innovation Director of Life Supporting Technologies

(LifeSTech) research group, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid (UPM)

- Michael Balikhin, Professor of Space Systems, University of Sheffield


- Jutta Treviranus, Professor and Director, Inclusive Design Research Centre

(IDRC) at OCAD University, Toronto, Canada

Challenges:

Which strategic areas and topics should we address for future joint funding

calls?


The main ideas coming out of the presentation of individual models for funding

mechanisms were, listed as key words:

- Organic growth: diversity, human having a global view of everything,

playfulness, creativity, for innovation, continuously growing and doing

cycles, circular economy.

- ICT as the backbone of everything: ICT that is able to connect

everything, base and fundament for collaboration on different aspects of

sciences, such as health, technology…

- Simplicity: European flag + Canada flag with a common and solid basis,

based on excellence. Reason to funding should be excellence.

- A circular expression: it is stable, with transparency and is recognizable

- Connect people: mind sharing for connecting people (people sharing

knowledge and same ideas), interoperability (wheels), accessibility, different

ways to access technology, elderly for active and healthy aging, funding,

money needed.

- Leadership: to lead with a basis of collaboration, and based on

transparency, focus on the same priorities work on the same direction.

Actions and recommendations:

• Recommendation 1: Funding mechanisms for transatlantic collaboration

should leverage common views/priorities: sharing ideas between continents,

interoperability, accessibility, transparency, collaboration and stability.

• Recommendation 2: Transatlantic funding schemes should support bottom up

innovation. This includes the support of diversity that comes from multiple

places and perspectives.



• Recommendation 3: Transatlantic cooperation should be supported by multi-

level funding, with flexibility to fund activities based in other regions. In

addition, transatlantic funding mechanisms should also take into account the

investment in projects with greater risks.

The above recommendations are taken into consideration of the Input Paper on

Funding Mechanisms. In addition, the DISCOVERY partners continue the discussions

with national funding agencies and the government ministries in both side of the

Atlantic. Expected outcomes from these endeavours are outlined in the DISCOVERY

assets listing as well as current collaborative activities that could utilize alternatives

funding mechanisms to stimulate joint initiatives.

4.2.3 Group 3: Cybersecurity

Group 3 was moderated by Jim Clarke from WIT and assisted by Brid Walsh from

WIT in notetaking.



- Filip De Turck, INTEC-IBCN, University of Ghent, Belgium

- Sabina Guaylupo, INMARK Europa, Spain

- Christer E. Hammarlund, Unit H.1: Cybersecurity & Digital Privacy, European

Commission, DG Connect

- Alberto Leon-Garcia, University of Toronto, Canada

- Evangelos Markatos, Head of the Distributed Computing Systems

Laboratory, Foundation for Research and Technology (FORTH), Greece

- Michel Riguidel, Paris Telecom-Tech, ENST, France

- Michael Willmott, First Secretary, Science and Technology, Mission of

Canada to the European Union

- Edward Yu, Information Risk Management Consultancy, Belgium

Challenges:

What innovative solutions should we propose to bridge the gap between security

and privacy?


The session began with an ice-breaking exercise for the participants to identify a

number of issues faced by the cybersecurity stakeholders, in which global

cooperation was needed to find solutions. The following were initially identified:

- Enhanced Threat Protection:

o Can we build up a wall to protect against threats?

o How do we identify the threats?

o How do you negotiate the barrier and harmonise between security and

privacy in the different domains? Threats can come from every angle;

the challenge is to not to turn off the everyday user with complexity

whilst protecting them.

- Collaboration and Common Understanding:

o How do we connect Canada/US/EU through their different policies?



o What do we have in common and what do we differ on?

o There are so many different stakeholders trying to protect their date,

resulting in too much data; is it even possible to secure all of it?

o The entire ecosystem of the internet must work together towards solving

these challenges.

- Citizen Privacy by Choice:

o The choice between privacy and security should be an individual choice.

o Looking for red flags through the privacy wall (looking for threats) how

do you find a specific threat without interfering with everyone’s right to

privacy?

o If cyber forensics need to carry out investigations against unlawful

activity and may infringe upon lawful citizens networks/service providers,

how do they remain transparent to the lawful citizens?

- Regulations and Governance:

o Foreign States are not necessarily going to play by the same rules.

o How do you incorporate policies through different countries?

o How do you communicate and share information and data in relation to

cybersecurity between different countries?

Other keywords addressed: Future / Next Generation Internet, Trust –

Distributed Trust, Mobile Systems, Smartphone security and privacy, Cloud security

and privacy, Big data Security and Privacy, Proactive prevention against

Cyberattacks, Information Sharing for cybersecurity.

Building the entire cybersecurity ecosystem

The participants collectively designed an entire ecosystem with Lego in relation to

cybersecurity, incorporating as many of the challenges, as expressed in the

previous section, during the exercise and this is seen in this Figure.

Figure 4 – Cybersecurity ecosystem represented by Legos

A represents the current internet with the potential to earn a treasure trove of

money for companies, including large companies, SMEs and start ups, as

represented in B.



The security researchers are depicted in C, where they are trying to design flexible

yet highly effective security solutions for the many different users of the systems,

which are represented in D.

The balancing act and dichotomy between the needs for security and privacy are

depicted in Ei and Ej, respectively, and one drastic yet impractical approach was

illustrated as a person placing themselves inside a bunker hole to protect their

privacy, as depicted in F.

G represents the need for all of the relevant stakeholders to work together

collectively in coming up with innovative solutions to bridge the gap between

security and privacy, and the brilliant ideas can emanate from research and

innovators from academic, research and industry stakeholders, as depicted by the

three figures in H looking in on the entire ecosystem through a glass window.

I shows ordinary citizens, e.g., John and Mary, who are in a situation where they

would like to be able to have control to put up a solid wall of protection between

themselves and the world, so their online world is behaving in a similar to their

physical world, where they can carry out activities in private if they desire to.

J respresents security surveillance mechanisms and actors that are privacy

preserving where the spotter is looking for red flags of threats through a “privacy

wall” without infringing on the fundamental rights of the ordinary citizens going

about in their daily lives.

K represents the viewpoints from the different perspectives from both sides of the

Atlantic in relation to security and privacy, which needs discussions and research

and innovation carried out by the relevant stakeholders to achieve harmonisation to

avoid the effects of “shifting winds of mindsets” in relation to the various security

and privacy topics.

Recommendations:

Coming from the event, the following key action and recommendations were

identified as potential for follow on collaborations, links to the Cybersecurity Input

paper and recommendations for the wider stakeholders of the DISCOVERY project.

Linking Cybersecurity Lego Scenario/ Ecosystem to the Cybersecurity Input paper

focused user story.

Section 4.4.3 Scenario

Aspect

Linking to Scenario detailed in Cybersecurity

Input Paper

Lego scenario A/B – Treasure

trove of money for

companies/ startups

This relates to the new digital era and the

emergence of new smart technologies (Smart home

/ smart connected car era) of the Input paper

scenario.

Lego Scenario C/D – Design

flexible yet highly effective

security solutions

New emerging startups and companies offer

advanced services, this is prevalent in the scenario

via the new smart appliances, safety and security

systems (interconnected cameras, monitors and

alarm systems) advanced infotainment system and

advanced driver assistance system that Anabel avail

of during her daily activities. But the questions

needs to be asked, have such new and quickly

emerging companies , with a rapid development

and deployment plan in order to get to market

quickly – the question needs to be asked does their

design strategy adequately take into account the



required Security needs.

Lego Scenario E/F/I/J –

Security and privacy needs of

citizens

New products and services need to take into

account the citizen security and privacy needs.

Security and privacy by design is a key requirement

in the products and services Anabel avails of.

Another core aspect is the need for the citizen to be

educated about how to safely use such new

technologies without indirectly exposing themselves

to potential dangers. Annabel through her

eagerness to avail of such technologies – pushes

the security concerns to the back of her mind for

another day.

Lego Scenario G – Work

together as a group to

collectively come up with

innovative solutions

In every scenario there is multiple stakeholders

from service providers, to consumers to

manufacturers. The scenario has all these key main

players. Its time such stakeholders worked together

to ensure they are producing services compliant

with the needs of the citizens. In order to do this

they need to understand what the citizens wants

from a security and privacy perspective and create

innovative solutions to meet those needs.

Recommendation 1: It’s important not to think in terms of one unique security

model, we must have interoperable models, which incorporate political models and

incorporate knowledge sharing through.

Recommendation 1 follow up: As part of the next DISCOVERY Transatlantic ICT

Forum and as part of the follow-on activities with the DISCOVERY Cybersecurity

working group, further discussions around interoperable models (inclusive of

political and knowledge sharing) will be planned. Questions relating to this will

also feed into the Cybersecurity Working group survey that will be issued to gain an

extended insight from multiple stakeholders into their opinions and concerns in this

area. Such a focus can be broken down to tie in with and align with the project

ideas (stemming from the Capacity building workshop) and the prioritised topics in

the Cybersecurity Input paper (IOT, Mobility security and cloud computing) to

expand out how such interoperable models are applicable and workable to these

areas and hot topics, with the focus to generate cluster groups of interest to

progress the discussions in this area. There is scope here for the 3 WG’s of

DISCOVERY (cybersecurity, funding mechanisms and ICT policy and regulations) to

work together on this recommendation to progress it for greater impact.

Link with the Cybersecurity WG Input paper: This recommendation would align

with all the three prioritised challenges as detailed in the draft version of the Input

paper. This would align and link with the IoT security challenges project idea

(Develop models that enable citizens to have better services based on data and

preferences but separate the individual sufficiently from what is known about them.

Anonymizing is not usually enough).

Recommendation 2: We are now dealing with such large amounts of data, which

cannot all be protected so we need systems in place to account for the principle of

the ideas in which there could be hybridized model that is adjustable interoperable,

where it is possible to empower the users to negotiate a comprehensive privacy and

cybersecurity platform.



Recommendation 2 follow up: The focus of this recommendation is the potential

to scope out further the concept relating to ‘a comprehensive privacy and

cybersecurity platform’ capable of empowering citizens to be able to negotiate

their requirements. This is a clear focused idea coming from the panel session and

can be expanded out through specific collaborations within the Working group to

scope the concept further, to assess the potential for a more detailed and realistic

concept. As a next step the working groups feedback on this will be investigated, in

order to see if there is momentum for a core group of interested members to come

together to investigate this concept further and see what potential and level of

interest for collaborations exists. There is also scope here for the cybersecurity

working group to link with the Funding mechanisms WG in DISCOVERY to actively

feed into this recommendation collaboratively.

Link with the Cybersecurity WG Input paper: This concept idea align to the

Cybersecurity working group Input paper, in particular the cloud computing

challenges and the project idea (Explore ways to inform about collected data and

provide ways for individuals to remove data they do not want to share). To keep

this alignment in place, this concept idea as it progresses can feed into the Input

paper and follow on DISCOVERY events and workshops.

Recommendation 3: Different cultures have a different view of privacy and security,

and we need to work together to somehow reconcile this?

Recommendation 3 follow up: here the need for cross jurisdiction

collaboration in order to understand different jurisdictions privacy and

security views is a clear need that was expressed during the panel session.

DISCOVERY is actively trying to gain an understanding of these differences of

opinions and cultural issues – through the varied experts in the domain that

participate to their Working Group. DISCOVERY continues to seek new

representatives to their working group to expand the feedback and opinions

received that feeds into the project activities. DISCOVERY Cybersecurity working

group will also utilise a compiled survey, disseminate to w wider stakeholder group

via their contacts in order to get extend their dissemination channels and gain more

opinions and comments, which in turn will lead to a more informed overview of

such cultural differences and how to move forward with this particular key action.

There is also potential here for the Cybersecurity working group to link with the

policy working group of DISCOVERY to investigate ways to work together on this

action item.

Link with the Cybersecurity WG Input paper: This action links across all hot

topics of the Input paper, as for each topic, different views across various locations.

Also, this actively links with many of the project ideas detailed in the Input paper,

as each one could potentially have a different set of citizen requirements based on

the citizen’s cultural background or location.

Recommendation 4: The cybersecurity group discussed an adjustable model in

order to negotiate a comprehensive privacy protecting cybersecurity model. There

was an acknowledgement that there is a constant struggle between security and

privacy but that there was an acceptance that the security threat will be

omnipresent in our lives and that there will be an evolving identification of threats

as we move forward. This again highlighted the need of funding for cross border

research and innovation in the cybersecurity and privacy related areas.

Recommendation 4 follow up: The main technical focus here related to ‘an

adjustable model in order to negotiate privacy protecting cybersecurity

model’. The cybersecurity working group will take this highlighted topic and

investigate potential future funding opportunities available to see if scope to expand



and build a core group of interested stakeholders around it is possible. Also there is

a clear link here between the cybersecurity working group and the funding

mechanism working group of DISCOVERY to actively link and work together on this

key action item.

Link with the Cybersecurity WG Input paper: There is a common link between

this key action and the three-prioritised topic of the Input paper. Hence an

alignment to the project ideas across the input paper can be identified and actively

feed / link to this action item.

4.3 Role Playing: Stakeholder cross questioning

Once each group had defined its shared collaboration model, the facilitator asked to

identify three missing stakeholders that could challenge and enrich their model with

ideas and suggestions. Once identified the profile, the facilitators chose the

participants from other tables that could best represent such stakeholders and

asked them to put themselves into the shoes of such a stakeholder when listening

to the presentation from the group that had asked their advice. So, at the end of

each group presentation the three stakeholders could cross question the emerging

questions and add further recommendations. Following we briefly describe the

stakeholders identified by each group and the person that interpreted it.

ICT Policy and Regulation Group

• The US Secretary for Industry of the new administration, interpreted by Dan

Caprio (Co-Founder, Chairman, The Providence Group, US).

• Grass root citizen, interpreted by Jutta Treviranus (Professor and Director,

Inclusive Design Research Centre (IDRC) at OCAD University, Toronto,

Canada).

• A scale up company interpreted by Evangelos Markatos (Head of the

Distributed Computing Systems Laboratory, Foundation for Research and

Technology (FORTH), Greece).

Funding Mechanisms Group

• The EU Industry Commissioner (a global policy maker), interpreted by

Camille Sailer (EACCNJ, US).

• The National Science Foundation Director (European or North American

funding agency), interpreted by Michel Riguidel (Professeur émérite Télécom

ParisTech, France).



• Intergenerational cross cultural edge user, not integrated into societal

innovations, interpreted by Boubekeur (Strategic Business Development, PI

Cyber Physical Systems, United Technologies Research Center, Ireland).

Cybersecurity and Privacy Group

• China Minister for Trade, interpreted by May D. Wang (Biomedical

Engineering, Georgia Tech and Emory University, US).

• An hacktivist, interpreted by James Gumble (CEO and Founder of Xpand

International, UK). • The Director of Europol (a law enforcement agency), interpreted by

Henriette Krimphoff (DLR, BILAT USA 4.0, DE).



5. MAIN OUTCOMES AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR POLICY MAKING

A number of policy recommendations are concluded by the Transatlantic ICT Forum

over the two-day event and these are presented here.

In relation to ICT Policy and Regulations

• Transatlantic regulations must catch up to the rapid transformations

and disruptions resulting from innovative technology and services. Only

Apple (Irish tax issue) seems to be ensnared in a traditional argument with EU

regulators. The others, for instance Google, Amazon, Microsoft, Facebook and

Qualcomm, have a long list of complaints including anti-trust, right to be

forgotten, data privacy as well as taxation. This is because they are intrinsically

tied to disruptive business, which requires creative thinking about the meaning

and importance of data, privacy and competition among many others.

Policy should stimulate efficient absorption of innovation through start-

up acquisitions. Europe and the US both invent at the same rate but the

American tech ecosystems allow US innovation to scale faster. The US already has

a single digital market, which makes business easier to scale. Moreover, the US by

and large has a less restrictive regulatory environment so entrepreneurs have more

freedom to innovate. Acquisitions by major companies of innovative start-ups that

greatly benefit both the buying and selling companies is centred in Silicon Valley.

Conversely, Europe, with its risk-averse culture, lags in this important benchmark

In relation to Funding Mechanisms

Discussions in the Transatlantic ICT Forum has revolved around experiences with

“what works” in international collaborations over the Atlantic. This includes

promotion of necessary conditions for successful collaboration and how to get

funding for collaborative research and innovation activities. Based on what was

learned over the two days, the following recommendations are given:

• Industry should be more active in R&I activities while excellence

remains the prime target for international collaboration. In this way, a

more balanced programme for research and innovation on both sides of the

Atlantic could be achieved.

• More funding in mobility opportunities would stimulate international

collaboration when aligned calls are difficult to be implemented by

funding agencies. In the past, the National Science Foundation (NSF) and

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) have funded workshop grants for

transatlantic workshops in relation to cybersecurity, including privacy aspects.

These types of grants should be encouraged to continue.

• Targeted exchange of knowledge and information about funding

opportunities between US, Canada and EU should be strengthened.



In relation to Cybersecurity

• Recommendations for policy making revolved around a need to think about how

to create organisational processes in which there would be safe zones to share

experiences and information in relation to cybersecurity. While industries are

reluctant about sharing information and data about losses to cyber activities, it

leaves the academic researchers and policy makers in the dark. Therefore, the

information deficit needs to be addressed from the policy point of view

in order to have a better-informed policy environment than existing today in

which situations can be solved rationally and more efficiently. In order to have

this, we need to address sequencing on where and when to address issues.

• The Internet of Things (IoT) Denial of Service attack that took place in the US

on 21st October, 2016, was a continuous discussion point as an example of the

lack of an organisational process to deal with such attacks, which originated in

other parts of the world. It was felt that this attack was a “shot over the bow” of

the existing networks, existing infrastructures and the existing compromised IoT

devices that are still out there. The DoS attack has raised the alarm as to what

has been put into place without much forethought on the security aspect of

these lower cost devices manufactured elsewhere, and the situation has raised a

significant amount of concern and a plan of action must be drawn up, including

the security researchers, industry and the policy makers as a matter of urgency.

On a practical basis, there would need to be a recall of all affected or

potentially affected similar devices to put in place firmware solutions,

which would, of course, be a massive major disruption to all concerned.

• However, it was not all doom and gloom and it was suggested to look at the

way proactive measurements on smart networks are carried out on the

Canadian NSERC14 funded Strategic Network for Smart Applications on Virtual

Infrastructure (SAVI) testbed, which is a partnership of Canadian industry,

academia, research and education networks, and high performance computing

centres to investigate key elements of future application platforms. A lot of

measurements are done in the SAVI testbed in order to determine what is

normal behaviour and what is not normal and then action can be taken. A

similar solution could be made available for IoT devices in which the systems

could monitor the behaviour and disconnect it when they are not operating

within normal boundaries.

• Another recommendation in relation to cybersecurity policy making, is to

address the level of impact that inevitably occurs when the political

environment changes. It was suggested that the organisational process

should be examined and broken down into institutional items that cannot be

changed too much each time of political upheaval, and the path forward can be

more clearly defined when the political environment changes, thus lessening the

impact. From the perspective of DISCOVERY, it was comforting to hear about

the meeting organised by the European Union External Action Service between

the Commission and high level US government representatives held on the

same day in parallel with the Transatlantic ICT Forum, in which the five

cybersecurity topics from the DISCOVERY draft position paper, were presented

and indeed accepted as being relevant topics to consider for joint collaboration

between the EU and US in relation to cybersecurity. It is also important for the

EU-US-Canada researchers study the recently published report of the US

President’s Commission on Enhancing National Cybersecurity, available at

https://www.nist.gov/cybercommission to see how the transatlantic

14 National Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada http://www.nserc-

crsng.gc.ca/index_eng.asp


http://www.nserc-crsng.gc.ca/index_eng.asp

http://www.nserc-crsng.gc.ca/index_eng.asp



communities could work together in solving the many security and privacy

challenges raised in the report.

• There is need for policy makers to focus on the education and raising

awareness across all age brackets about the power of the internet and

cybersecurity and privacy issues must be addressed as a matter of urgency. A

number of initiatives in relation to this were highlighted as role models in these

education and awareness raising efforts including: The Europe Code week15,

which is an EU based grassroots initiative aiming to bring coding and digital

literacy to everybody in a fun and engaging way, and US based National

Cybersecurity Alliance16, whose mission is “to educate and empower our global

digital society to use the Internet safely and securely”. Education and

awareness raising on career choices in relation to fields related to cybersecurity

should also be enhanced to entice students into all the related fields of

Cybersecurity. Moreover, efforts like those for student exchanges between EU

and North America, such as those being carried out in the EU Marie Skłodowska-

Curie Action PROTASIS project17, should be strongly encouraged and funded

into the future. It was also suggested that future coordination actions and/or

mobility grant projects should be encouraged to support travel for research and

innovators across the Atlantic.

A Way Forward – 6-month action plan

During the breakout group sessions, it was agreed that there is a need to work on

an action plan for suggesting a way forward for transatlantic cooperation in ICT

research and innovation. This would result in a state of readiness towards

recommendations from the Transatlantic ICT Forum.

The following figure shows graphically a number of steps that could occur in the

proposed action plan to be implemented by the Working Groups under the umbrella

of the Transatlantic ICT Forum. These steps could be broken into both tactical

(short to medium term) and strategic (longer term) activities.

Figure 5 – Working Groups Action Plan

In terms of next steps, it was agreed that there is a need to work together on a

dedicated action plan in a time frame of six months for fostering Transatlantic

15 http://codeweek.eu/ 16 https://staysafeonline.org/ 17 http://www.protasis.eu/

Transatlantic ICT Forum held 16-17th Nov. 2016

Identify stakeholders (gov’t, R&I, industry, …)

Contact stakeholders

Ask for inputs on their priorities (tech and policy)

Prepare EU-North America Action Plan on ICT

Policy/Regulations; Funding Mechanisms and

Cybersecurity R&I activities

Implement the Action Plan

http://codeweek.eu/

https://staysafeonline.org/

http://www.protasis.eu/



cooperation in ICT research and innovation, which would result in a state of

readiness towards recommendations coming out from the Transatlantic ICT Forum.

A number of high-level steps were outlined and these will now be broken into both

tactical (short to medium term) and strategic (longer term) activities required for

the building of cooperation models for Transatlantic stakeholders.

6. Identify stakeholders (Gov’t, Policy, R&I, industry, PPP’s, …); 7. Contact stakeholders; 8. Ask for inputs on their priorities (tech and policy); 9. Prepare EU-North America Action Plan on ICT Policy/Regulations; Funding

Mechanisms and Cybersecurity R&I activities; 10. Begin steps to implement the Action Plan.

It is also interesting to note that the US President’s Commission on Enhancing

National Cybersecurity, has published a timely report on 1st December, 2016

available at https://www.nist.gov/cybercommission. The report provides a set of

detailed short-term and long-term recommendations to strengthen cybersecurity in

both the public and private sectors, whilst protecting privacy, fostering innovation

and ensuring economic and national security.

At the same time, as part of the NIS Directive, the EU’s Contractual PPP on

cybersecurity (cPPP) and supporting ECSO18 Working groups are working on their

Strategic Research and Innovation Agenda (SRIA), which was presented during the

panel session on Cybersecurity, and there is excellent scope and willingness for

Transatlantic cooperation on these identified research and innovation challenges,

where appropriate.

As part of the action plan, we will ensure that the EU-US-Canada researchers

engaged in these highly relevant activities on both sides of the Atlantic will study

the recently published reports and facilitate contacts with the authors, many of

whom already work within the DISCOVERY Transatlantic Forum WGs, to see how

the Transatlantic communities could work together in solving the many security and

privacy challenges raised in the report.

18 http://www.ecs-org.eu/


http://www.ecs-org.eu/



6. CONCLUSIONS

The Transatlantic ICT Forum workshop brought together senior policy analysts,

policy influencers keen on facilitating transatlantic ICT collaboration, and

researchers in areas of data-driven innovation, data privacy, IP, cybersecurity, IoT

(Internet of Things), eHealth, big data in digital health, CPS, future internet, and

smart cities, as well as decision makers from ICT industry. The workshop

consolidated the Transatlantic ICT Forum a step further, laying the foundation for

its future contribution to transatlantic cooperation in ICT.

Bilateral relationships EU-US and EU-Canada are still second to none but “the

transatlantic bridge needs more high speed lanes”, according to Camille Sailer in

her keynote address, e.g. homologation in IPR, standards, transfer pricing,

cybersecurity planning, and better scale-up ecosystems. In this context, the most

critical aspects for transatlantic cooperation in ICT research and innovation were

discussed; in particular, those related to data protection and privacy, data-driven

innovation, regulations in respect of disruptive technologies and cybersecurity. The

need of a common understanding of privacy was highlighted, as well as the

difficulties to harmonize personal data regulations with a data-driven innovation

environment.

Furthermore, the need for additional funding to increase cross-border cooperation

and dialogue was very evident from all the participants. It is impossible to have

exact same policies throughout different countries; therefore, to ensure

communication continues, there is a significant need to expand and facilitate the

space for discussion.

The panel discussions underlined the disruptions represented and confronted by the

ICT sector, the importance of interoperability and standards, and the role of ICT to

respond to today's challenges and solve problems in a way that have never existed

before. The lack of knowledge and availability of funding programmes that can be

utilized in the research and innovation process was suggested as one of the main

barriers for transatlantic collaboration, which hinders sound, regular and efficient

interactions between the industry and research communities wanting to engage in

Transatlantic collaborations. However, the introduction of Digging into Data

presents an agile model for transatlantic partners to collaborate in joint funding;

and the presentation of federated testbed initiative among Canada, the US and

Europe represents an applicable model that could lead to more collaborations in IoT

and smart city solutions.

The need to harmonize key EU and US and Canada cybersecurity initiatives was

considered a key issue for transatlantic cooperation as a way forward. However,

some of the major concerns raised during the Transatlantic ICT Forum were related

to Cybersecurity, especially to security, privacy and trust issues in the field of

Internet of Things (IoT) and cybersecurity regarding citizens and smart cities.

There was broad agreement from the panellists that the five topics as identified by

the DISCOVERY position paper are priority topics for EU-North America

cooperation: Cybersecurity (tools and techniques for proactive protection against

attacks); Data provenance; Data and information privacy; Mobile security; and

Cloud security (including Security as a Service). In fact, these five topics were

presented during the morning at a meeting organised by the European Union

External Action Service between the Commission and high level US government

representatives and the conclusion was they were accepted as being relevant topics

to consider for joint collaboration between the EU and US in relation to

cybersecurity.



The innovative workshop in the second day continued the discussion in a creative

brainstorming environment hosted by the Embassy of Canada in Brussels. The

moderated working sessions focused their efforts on synthesizing on the most

critical key words that can inform, and inspire the transformation of transatlantic

dialogues to move forward critical goals and objectives in ICT R&I.

The ideas and recommendations emerged in the second day innovative workshop

underline the need to consider different perspectives for international collaboration,

including diversity, multi-culturalism, transparency, accessibility and interoperable

models. They also require more efficient policies on regulations, which affect data

protection and privacy, and cybersecurity.

The Transatlantic ICT Forum Workshop contributes to strengthen the linkages with

policy influencers and think tanks in Transatlantic policy dialogues, which will foster

cooperation in ICT R&I. Through the DISCOVERY workshop, the visibility of EU ICT

policy and regulations has been increased, and the DISCOVERY online community

has been reinforced. Furthermore, the workshop facilitated the advancement of

trilateral partnerships on testbed, smart cities and IoT.



ANNEX 1 –TRANSATLANTIC ICT FORUM WORKSHOP AGENDA

Transatlantic ICT Forum Workshop Brussels, 16-17 November 2016

Agenda

Day 1 – 16 November Venue: DG CONNECT, Avenue de Beaulieu 25, B-1160 Brussels

(Meeting room BU25-0/S1)

8:30 Registration

9:00 Welcome and Introduction, Yolanda Ursa, INMARK, DISCOVERY Project Coordinator

Opening and welcome address

Jean-Yves Roger, DG CONNECT International Cooperation Unit

Christer E. Hammarlund, DG CONNECT Cybersecurity & Digital Privacy (Unit H.1)

Michael Willmontt, First Secretary, Science and Technology, Mission of Canada to the EU

9:30 Keynote speakers

Nick Wallace, Senior Policy Analyst, Center for Data Innovation.

Benoit Van Asbroeck, Partner at Bird & Bird. Legal challenges in a data-driven

environment

10:15 Q&A

10:30 DISCOVERY’s Transatlantic ICT Forum in the Context of EU-North American Policy,

Camille Sailer, EACCNJ

10:45 Coffee Break

11:00 Introduction to DISCOVERY Working Groups: ICT Policy and Regulations (Camille Sailer,

EACCNJ), Cybersecurity (Jim Clarke, WIT), and Funding Mechanisms (Jostein Sundet,

NordForsk).

11:20 ICT Policy, Research and Innovation for a Smart Society: towards new avenues in EU-US

ICT collaboration: the PICASSO project, Svetlana Klessova, Inno TSD, project coordinator

11:30 Panel Session 1: Digital Economy Trends, Capital Market Financing and IPR

Chair: Camille Sailer, EACCNJ

Panellists:

- Maarten Botterman, Founder and Director of GNKS Consult, Netherlands


- Rene Summer, Director Government & Industry Relations at LM Ericsson

- Alberto Leon-Garcia, Scientific Director of NSERC Strategic Network for Smart Applications on Virtual Infrastructures (SAVI), University of Toronto, Canada

The objectives of the panel include: understanding of the disruptions represented and confronted by the ICT sector; how access to capital and public sector funding operates; barriers to overcoming market fragmentation such as standards and regulations; and opportunities to improve IPR.



12:45 Lunch

Day 1 – 16 November Venue: DG CONNECT, Avenue de Beaulieu 25, B-1160 Brussels

(Meeting room BU25-0/S1)

14:00 Panel session 2: How to promote best practices and what are current obstacles in joint

ICT collaboration between Europe, the US and Canada.

Chair: Jostein Sundet, NordForsk

Panellists:

- Maria Fernanda Cabrera, Innovation Director of Life Supporting Technologies (LifeSTech) research group, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid (UPM)



- Jutta Treviranus, Professor and Director, Inclusive Design Research Centre (IDRC) at OCAD University, Toronto, Canada

In this panel, the discussion will be on how to promote Best Practices in ICT research

collaboration, what we know works in earlier and ongoing ICT projects. Obstacles to

good intercontinental collaboration will also be discussed.

15:30 Coffee break

15:45 Panel session 3: Research on the Wider Scope of Cybersecurity

Chair: Jim Clarke, WIT

Panellists:

- Claudio Caimi, HP Enterprise, Italy

- Christer E. Hammarlund, DG CONNECT Cybersecurity & Digital Privacy (Unit H.1), European Commission

- Menouer Boubekeur, Strategic Business Development, PI Cyber Physical Systems, United Technologies Research Center, Ireland


- Fabio Martinelli, Senior researcher and leader of cyber security projects at National Research Council of Italy (CNR), co-chair of ECSO WG6, SRIA, Italy

- Evangelos Markatos, Head of the Distributed Computing Systems Laboratory, Foundation for Research and Technology (FORTH), Greece

- Jacques Bus, Secretary General, Digital Enlightenment Forum (DigEnlight), Netherlands.

The objectives of this panel include: Internet of Things (IoT) / cybersecurity with regard to

citizens and smart cities; harmonisation and cooperation of key EU and US cybersecurity

initiatives; importance of cybersecurity innovation clustering; and approaches undertaken

in EU, US and Canada.

17:30 Conclusions and Day 1 Workshop Closes



Day 2 – 17 November

Venue: Embassy of Canada, Avenue de Tervueren 2, B-1040 Brussels

9:00 Registration

9:30 Welcome and Introduction – Expected outcomes of the day

Yolanda Ursa, DISCOVERY project Coordinator

Facilitators: Paolo Martinez and Marc Sonnaert, FUTOUR DUCK ACADEMY

10:00 Parallel Break-out Sessions

We will organize 3 parallel break-outs groups on those topics identified as key drivers

for successful ICT collaboration from the previous day´s sessions. The purpose of each

break-out session is to discuss the main challenges for EU-North America

collaboration in ICT R&I and to focus on recommendations for future collaboration.

Break-out topics:

- Break-out Group 1. How to move forward to ICT policy dialogues to reduce excessive regulatory costs and streamline processes to optimize efficiencies.

- Break-out Group 2. Strategic areas and topics for future joint funding calls from EU-US and EU-Canada resources.

- Break-out Group 3. Cybersecurity and privacy in EU-US-Canada R&I cooperation.

12:00 Lunch

13:00 Reporting Back Session

In this session, each of the break-out groups will present the outcomes and

conclusions on their focused topics discussions.

14:30 Conclusions and Next Steps

15:00 Day 2 Workshop Closes



ANNEX 2 – LIST OF TIF WORKING GROUP MEMBERS

Funding Mechanisms Working Group Members: http://discoveryproject.eu/transatlantic-ict-forum/funding-mechanisms/

Chair:

Jostein K. Sundet, PH.D., Special Adviser, NORDFORSK

Members:

Bonnie Wolff-Boenisch, Head of Research Affairs, Science Europe

Erica Key, Executive Director, Belmont Forum

Greg Singer, Director Research Services, OCAD University

Henriette Krimphoff, Senior Scientific Officer at DLR-PT

Jesse Szeto, Director, Ncura Global

Jutta Treviranus, Professor and Director, Inclusive Design Research Centre

(IDRC) at OCAD University

Kenneth Calvert, Division Director, CIES/CNS, National Science Foundation

May d. Wang, Professor, GEORGIA Tech

Ron Van Holst, Director, High Performance Computing at Ontario Centres Of

Excellence

Talita Soares, Senior Policy Officer, Earto

ICT Policy and Regulations Working Group Members:

Chair:

Camille Sailer, President and CEO, EACCNJ

Members:

Benoit Van Asbroeck, Partner at Bird & Bird

Debbie Kemp, Deputy Director, Innovation Outreach at Foreign Affairs, Trade &

Development Canada.

Dr. María Fernanda Cabrera, Innovation Director, UPM

James Gumble, Business Intelligence, XPAND

Joann Halpern, Founder, German Center For Research And Innovation (GCRI)

Kate Sellen Professor, OCAD University

Maarten Botterman, Founder and Director, GNKS

Marco Marinucci, Co-Founder And Managing Partner, Mts Venture Partners

Marko Turpeinen, Director, Silicon Valley Hub, EIT Digital

Michael Willmott, Mission of Canada To The EU

Nick Wallace, Senior Policy Analyst, Center for Data Innovation

http://discoveryproject.eu/transatlantic-ict-forum/funding-mechanisms/



Patrick Consorti, EU-US Industry Partnerships, EIT Digital

Stephen Ezell, Vice President, Global Innovation Policy, ITIF

Tim Bennett, Director-General/CEO, TABC

Yolanda Ursa, Director of Innovation Management, INMARK

Cybersecurity Working Group Members:

Chair:

James Clarke, Programme Manager, WIT TSSG

Members:

Alberto Leon-Garcia, Scientific Director, NSERC Strategic Network For SAVI

Annie Antón, Privacy and Security Compliance Researcher & Software Engineering

Professor, Georgia Institute of Technology, Member of [United States] President's

Commission on Enhancing National Cybersecurity

Bart Preneel, Professor, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven

Brian Honan, Information Security Consultant, BH Consulting

Claudio Caimi, Coordinator & Programme Manager, HPE

Dan Caprio, Chairman, The Providence Group ECSO/cPPP WG6 Chairman

(Strategic SRIA)

Eli Sugarman, Program Officer, The William And Flora Hewlett Foundation

Evangelos Markatos, Head of The Distributed Computing Systems Laboratory,

FORTH

Fabio Martinelli, Senior Researcher, IIT-CNR

Luigi Rebuffi, CEO, European Organisation for Security (EOS)

Menouer Boubekeur, Manager, United Technologies Research Centre

Michel Riguidel, Professor Emeritus, Telecom-Paristech (ENST)

Miko Hyponnen, Chief Research Officer, F-Secure

Nina Olesen, Senior Project Manager, European Organisation for Security (EOS)

Professor, University of Toronto

Rebecca Wright, Professor, Computer Science Department, and Director of

DIMACS, Rutgers University

Tina Höfinghoff, Consultant, MUC Summit GMBH



ANNEX 3 – BIOS OF SPEAKERS















ANNEX 4 – LIST OF PARTICIPANTS (note: We are aware there were some participants in attendance on Day 1 that

might not appear on the list currently. Please share your details with us and we will

add you to the participants list, so you can receive further updates).

Num. First Name Last Name Email

1 Charis Anthimidis [email protected]

2 Michael Balikhin [email protected]

3 Karen Barranon [email protected]

4 Maarten Botterman [email protected]

5 Menouer Boubekeur [email protected]

6 Jacques Bus [email protected]

7 María F Cabrera Umpierrez [email protected]

8 Claudio Caimi [email protected]

9 Dan Caprio [email protected]

10 Hui-Wen CHENG [email protected]

11 Annie Choi [email protected]

12 James Clarke [email protected]

13 Silvia de los Rios Perez [email protected]

14 Filip De Turck [email protected]

15 Helen Dewberry [email protected]

16 Eva Fadil [email protected]

17 Luis Ferrer Silva [email protected]

18 Sabina Guaylupo [email protected]

19 James Gumble [email protected]

20 Christer Hammarlund [email protected]

21 Christina Hitrova [email protected]

22 Nikolaos Isaris [email protected]

23 Svetlana Klessova [email protected]

24 Henriette Krimphoff [email protected]

25 Alberto Leon - Garcia [email protected]

26 Evangelos Markatos [email protected]

27 Fabio Martinelli [email protected]

28 Luis Martinez [email protected]

29 Paolo Martinez [email protected]

30 Michel Riguidel [email protected]

31 Mechthild Rohen Mechthild.Rohen @ec.europa.eu

32 Jean-Yves Roger [email protected]

33 Camille Sailer [email protected]

34 Rutger Schenk [email protected]

35 Gerard Santucci [email protected]

36 Valentina Scialpi [email protected]

37 MARC SONNAERT [email protected]

38 Leonora Staines [email protected]

39 Rene Summer [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]



Num. First Name Last Name Email

40 Jostein K. Sundet [email protected]

41 Jutta Treviranus [email protected]

42 Yolanda Ursa [email protected]

43 Benoit Van Asbroeck [email protected]

44 Nick Wallace [email protected]

45 Bríd Walsh [email protected]

46 May D. Wang [email protected]

47 Michael Willmott [email protected]

48 Edward Yu [email protected]

49 Xianshu Zeng [email protected]



ANNEX 5 – TRANSATLANTIC ICT FORUM PRESS RELEASE



ANNEX 5 – REGISTRATION PAGE



ANNEX 6 – NEWSLETTERS

The first newsletter



The second newsletter

ANNEX 7 – NEWS ABOUT THE EVENT





ANNEX 8 – POST EVENT FOLLOW UP WEB AND NEWSLETTER



Follow up

Newsletter

ANNEX 9 –

DISSEMINATION MATERIALS

Flyers:



DISCOVERY Bag:

Business card:

Notebook





Roll up: Badges:

Stickers:

ANNEX 10 – PICTURES



For more photos of the event, please refer to the link:

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/1mf6ilhkz2vir1i/AACR91G3dIsuz2YFWGI5bUvPa?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/1mf6ilhkz2vir1i/AACR91G3dIsuz2YFWGI5bUvPa?dl=0



ANNEX 11 – PRESENTATIONS

To download, please refer to the link:





ANNEX 9 – CLOSING REMARKS FOR DISCOVERY INNOVATIVE WORKSHOP

King and Queen speech. At the end of the interactive workshop the facilitator

introduced an alternative way to get a feedback from all participants by saying

what they had learnt and felt during the workshop. Here is the summary of what

said by them.

- Menouer Boubekeur: I found it very interesting. We usually use post its in our

workshops and seminars. There is a very different perspective. I am an IT,

computer science and cyberphysical systems person. What I found is there is a

different perspective to the topic. It is a good exercise, it is challenging and

extracting positive information within you may not even realise it is there.

- May D. Wang: Action and Deliverable!

- Silvia De los Rios: Harmony and Collaboration.

- Brid Walsh: This was definitely most unexpected today. I never imagined that

all of this would come out of some Lego! So thank you very much!

- Michael Willmott: Unexpected, wonderful, fun to play and it had some

constructive outcomes. A very innovative way to do things so thank you!

- James Gumble It is definitely a new way to look at things! I am used to look at

things using design thinking or a different type of process. It managed to

uncover a lot of the issues and possibilities for solutions. What I am wanting is

how to tie it to what is the next step. I have an appetite to see where the next

thing will be.

- Michel Riguidel. Interesting, I think. Wears the crown (laughs). I do not like to

be a winner, I prefer to be a loser. Probably I am the oldest person in this room

and I can tell you that in research it is better to lose to then really go forward.

https://twitter.com/mjwillmott



- Maria Fernanda Cabrera I think it is of course creative and fun. It improved

my psychomotricity.

- Sabina Guaylupo. It is the third time I play with Lego with Paolo but I see

amazing results and amazing process as always and thanks to all for sharing

your time, your thoughts, your experience and your knowledge.

- Claudio Caimi. A lot of fun! Too much! The magic emerging concept in

cybersecurity is collaboration! Prevention is the major topic for cyber security

and prevention needs a lot of collaboration. That is exactly what we are going to

achieve with this design. It will be nice to have a summary with all the concepts

that came out each group.

- Michael A. Balikhin I am outside the Discovery Project and I was very

surprised that usage of Lego did not lead to oversimplification of our topics but

also showed how sophisticated are the european funding tools. That was very

interesting!

- Henriette Krimphoff it was very creative. I am especially impressed that only

within a few hours I learned about three different topics. We covered almost all

angles. This is the best thing about this kind of workshop.

- Camille Sailer. We have a whole other year of the DISCOVERY project and

may be with Lego we can keep finding real solutions. In my mind, it is always

amazing to see how playing together can create some very complex ideas. I

would have liked to play Lego with people of other tables and groups, in the

spirit of diversity and inclusion. I would have liked everyone’s perspective on

the policy issue since policy cuts across everything.

- Marc Sonnaert. I have seen passionate people and people who are ready to

collaborate, which I think is great so thank you all for that!



- Jostein Sundet. I think this is about collaboration, setting up new, properly

designed proposals. With Lego you express a lot of creativity. It is painful in the

beginning but when you get it moving it is really great fun!

- Jutta Treviranus. Playful, unruly, co-construction.

- Paolo Martinez. It is hard to be creative, innovative and for this reason we use

different tools for each problem to be addressed and facilitated. I can feel a

totally different energy from yesterday and a lot of depth in analysing and

solving very complex issues. We were simplifying them and moving them ahead

into innovations. Every group was really quickly coming together, identifying

different facets of the problem in a way that would be much harder with more

conventional brainstorming tools. It is amazing what you achieved in two hours

of work. It certainly depends a lot on the quality of the people, of the facilitator

and methods used! Bravi!

- Yolanda Ursa. Amazing. I feel ready to continue to work together. First, I

would like to thank Paolo and Marc for this wonderful exercise, and once again

thank you all people who joined us yesterday and today in this high-level

debate. Speakers, panellists and all of you, thank you very much for being here until the end, see you later and thank you Michael and the Canadian Embassy for allowing us to use this beautiful space.

Documents

D.1.2 Transatlantic ICT Forum Workshop Reportdiscoveryproject.eu/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/... · The report on the Transatlantic ICT Forum Workshop (D6.1) summarises: 1. The detailed