Tentative programme

(programme might be subject to changes)

Sunday, 1 September
PhD colloquium (9.30-18.00) (Only open for PhD students)

Sponsored colloquium dinner (only open for PhD students)

Monday, 2 September
9.00 – 12.30 Opening and sessions

12.30-13.30 Lunch

13.30-17.30 sessions

17.30-18.45 Track chair meeting & IFIP WG8.5 Business meeting

19.30-21.30 Welcome drinks and dinner

Tuesday, 3 September

9.00 – 12.30 Keynote by Prof. Ingrid Schneider and sessions

12.30-13.30 Lunch

13.30-17.30 sessions

17.30-18.45 Track chair meeting & IFIP WG8.5 Business meeting

Wednesday, 4 September

9.00 – 12.30 Keynote, best paper awards, and sessions

12.30-13.30 Lunch

13.30-16.30 sessions

16.30 City tour to Ascoli Piceno arrival around 8 pm. The buses will go back to San Benedetto at around midnight.

Governance of platforms and the data economy

Keynote by Prof. Ingrid Schneider (www.inf.uni-hamburg.de/en/inst/ab/eit/team/schneider.html)

In times of Big Data, Machine Learning and AI, data got substantial economic value. The European Commission, in the context of the EU’s digital single market strategy, has envisioned a contractual model of services in return for data (European Commission 2015; 2017; Metzger 2016). However, the legal categories and terms are far from clear and uncontentious (Wendehorst et al. 2017). Digital platforms have acquired substantial market values and make high turnover via ads. The business models of platform industries often include hidden practices of data aggregation used for rating, ranking and scoring, e.g. for finance and risk insurances, but also for political influence-seeking.

With regard to access and exclusion rights over data, questions of data ownership arise. These are strongly associated with power relations between users, providers and intermediaries. However, the central question as yet has remained unresolved: Who owns data? Can data be owned? And if so, who should be the legal owner? While some legal scholars advocate property rights on data, other – predominantly economic – scholars vehemently reject new intellectual property rights in data, as they assume that this would stifle innovation and be anti-competitive (Kerber, 2016). Moreover, there is intense discussion whether privacy, data protection, and personality rights are complementary to economic rights over data or colliding with such rights (Hoeren 2014).

I will argue from a political science perspective and will present some conceptual models for the governance of data economies. For conceptualising the tricky questions of access and disposition rights over data, various forms of product categories need to be classified, as well as private and collective use and compensation models be discerned. Thus, data may be conceptualised as private goods, as common goods and as public goods (see Heller 1998, Boyle 2003, Olson 1965, Ostrom 1990; Morozov 2014; 2018). Other proposals focus on a stewardship or fiduciary trust model for databases and data brokerage (Winickoff & Winickoff 2003). I will discuss the pros and cons of these models and will show that such categories are useful for a meta-level framework which accommodates the diversity of concerns, motives, interests, norms, and implications involved in the debate on data as an economic asset. These questions are closely linked to the development of governance and regulation models both in the EU and on a global scale.

How public agencies shape blockchain consortia – lessons from the Cardossier

Keynote by Prof. Gerhard Schwabe

Blockchain technologies enable new forms of data sharing in platforms. This raises questions around how they are jointly developed and managed in blockchain consortia and what role public agencies play in those efforts. Based on an analysis of prior work on data sharing in public-private partnerships and other blockchain projects, we analyze the case of the Cardossier. The Cardossier project and (later) association develops a platform to link the public and private actors in the Swiss car ecosystem. The participating car registration authority has the roles of an actor in interorganizational processes, supplier of data, source of trust, guarantor of data quality, user of data and incentive for making goods public. I conclude that the public agencies have a very important role in blockchain consortia and propose that they should use this role actively as part of their efforts to create public value.

Gerhard Schwabe has been a full professor at the University of Zurich since 2002. Here he leads the information management research group with typically 7-12 PhD students and postdocs. His research interests focus on the intersection of collaborative technologies and information management. Since starting as researcher in 1988, he has been engaged in E-Government research in the areas of information and citizenship, computer support for city councils, advice giving in citizens offices, burglary prevention advice, and most recently in blockchain platforms. In his research, he follows either an engineering approach (“design science”) or an exploratory approach – frequently in collaboration with companies and public organizations. His E-Government research has been published by major E-Government journals and conferences.