A major cyber incident is never resolved through technical means alone. It takes legal judgement, political decisions, trusted partnerships and a shared understanding of what actually happened before anyone can decide how to respond.

Why did you decide to attend the Summer School, what spoke to you most and how do you hope to use the knowledge?

What drew me in was this year’s focus: cyber diplomacy and the shift from norms to action. 

In my day-to-day work, I sit at the intersection of cybersecurity policy, international cooperation and institutional capacity building, so I wanted to better understand how international law, multilateral processes, attribution, responsible state behaviour and the EU Cyber Diplomacy Toolbox come together in practice, not just on paper. 

What made this edition genuinely valuable was that it went beyond theory. Through case studies, negotiation simulations and scenario-based exercises, we saw how diplomats, lawyers, government officials, technical experts and civil society can interpret the very same cyber incident in strikingly different ways. That was one of the most valuable lessons I took away. 

A major cyber incident is never resolved through technical means alone. It takes legal judgement, political decisions, trusted partnerships and a shared understanding of what actually happened before anyone can decide how to respond. 

I expect to put this directly into practice in my own work. It should make me a better listener and a more useful partner. 

Those relationships, communication channels and mutual confidence must already exist. That is precisely why meetings like the Summer School matter: they build the networks and trust that make cooperation faster and more effective when it is needed most.

What are the current challenges in cyber diplomacy? How do they relate to cybersecurity and what are the most pressing issues in your daily work?

One of the biggest challenges is simply pace: cyber threats and technologies evolve much faster than international policy and diplomatic processes. 

At the same time, countries differ enormously in legal traditions, strategic priorities, political sensitivities, institutional capacity and cyber maturity. Even when we use the same terminology, we do not always mean the same thing. Our perspectives are shaped by geography, history, professional background and institutional culture. 

That makes cooperation genuinely complex. The challenge is not only understanding what happened technically, but also building a shared assessment, agreeing on the appropriate legal and political response and coordinating action among partners, often under significant time pressure. 

Cyber diplomacy and cybersecurity are inseparable. The evidence may be technical, but the decisions that follow – public attribution, diplomatic responses, sanctions, assistance, coordination – are ultimately political and legal ones. 

In my own work, one of the most pressing challenges is turning goodwill into concrete cooperation. It is easy to agree that cybersecurity cooperation matters; it is much harder to identify shared priorities, define realistic objectives and deliver measurable results. 

Another challenge is building trust before a crisis, not during one. When an incident happens, there is rarely time to build a partnership from scratch. You need to be able to pick up the phone and call a colleague you trust, perhaps someone you first met on a course exactly like this one. 

Those relationships, communication channels and mutual confidence must already exist. That is precisely why meetings like the Summer School matter: they build the networks and trust that make cooperation faster and more effective when it is needed most. 

Some of the most useful conversations also happened after the formal sessions – over dinner or during a walk through Florence in search of gelato. Once the badges were put away, the conversation moved beyond job titles and institutional positions. We talked about our countries, our different professional journeys and the experiences that shaped the way we see cybersecurity. As it turned out, some of the most meaningful exchanges began only after the official programme had ended. 

EU CyberNet also has an important role in helping experts translate European experience into practical advice that fits partner countries’ own realities, not by exporting a single model, but by helping partners develop approaches that are relevant and sustainable in their own institutional environments.

As an expert in the EU CyberNet Expert Pool, what do you expect EU CyberNet to provide or facilitate? 

The range of experience in the room was, for me, the clearest proof of what EU CyberNet does well. You could discuss international law with a professor, test the limits of a policy proposal with an ethical hacker, hear directly from someone investigating cyber incidents and compare perspectives with diplomats, regulators and national cybersecurity officials, all within a single conversation. 

That kind of exchange is difficult to recreate elsewhere, and it is exactly what a genuine community of practitioners, rather than simply a training programme, makes possible. 

I’d love to see more opportunities built around that same principle: bringing this range of experience into one room and asking people to work through real problems together. 

EU CyberNet also has an important role in helping experts translate European experience into practical advice that fits partner countries’ own realities, not by exporting a single model, but by helping partners develop approaches that are relevant and sustainable in their own institutional environments. 

The Summer School also reinforced something I see in my own work: dialogue is important, but implementation is what really matters. Norms and agreements only make a difference if they help countries cooperate more effectively, strengthen institutional capacity and respond together when it counts.

What is one thing that has stayed with you from this year’s Summer School?

That cyber resilience is built long before it is tested. 

It comes from institutions that understand one another, professionals who can work across technical, legal and political domains and frameworks that are actually used rather than simply agreed. 

The Summer School also reinforced something I see in my own work: dialogue is important, but implementation is what really matters. Norms and agreements only make a difference if they help countries cooperate more effectively, strengthen institutional capacity and respond together when it counts. 

I left Florence convinced that the future of cybersecurity depends as much on diplomacy as on technology. Building trust – in our systems and in each other – is one of our strongest forms of cyber defence. 

Background

EU CyberNet Summer School 2026, titled “Cyber Diplomacy: From Norms to Actions – Governing Cyberspace in a Fractured World” was organised by EU CyberNet in partnership with EU Cyber Direct, and Cyber 4.0 with expertise from the European External Action Service at the European University Institute in Florence, Italy from 29 to 31 July 2026. Summer School 2026 was led by Isabella Brunner (EU CyberNet instructor),  Andrea Calderaro (EU Cyber Direct, European Union Institute for Security Studies – EUISS) and Michal Aendenhof (European Union External Action Service – EEAS) . Read more here.