Information Integrity and Public Trust
The Global Risks Forum (GRF)
Institutional dialogues in information Integrity and Public Trust: structured conversations that compare evidence and options among the people who decide.
Fig.A programme from scoping to the owner's decision. Design, not a record.
Information Integrity and Public Trust dialogues are structured conversations in which those who govern information and public trust as well as society and human development compare evidence and options on a question with an accountable owner. Each runs under agreed attribution rules, often the Chatham House Rule, and its outcome note is published with participants' consent. A dialogue is listed only once it is confirmed.
For dialogues and cooperation, in GRF's situational-awareness reading, the map opens on population density, flood water and active fires, framed on Eastern Europe; 2 further NASA layers wait in the list.
The interactive map needs JavaScript; the layer list and sources are below.
Layers 3
Connected activity, for this page
Keyboard, with the map focused
Hold Ctrl or ⌘ and scroll to zoom
Latest available
NASA GIBS / EOSDIS · ASTER GDEM (METI, NASA) · Blue Marble (NASA) · © OpenStreetMap contributors (ODbL) · Natural Earth
Loading the latest NASA imagery.
Drag to move. Ctrl or ⌘ and scroll, pinch or the buttons to zoom; hover for the values under the pointer; reset returns to the region.
For dialogues and cooperation, in GRF's situational-awareness reading, the map opens on population density, flood water and active fires, framed on Eastern Europe; 2 further NASA layers wait in the list.Satellite and model products as NASA publishes them, each with its own date; indicators, not assessments of any place; claim ceiling INTEGRATED.
Layers and dates
Each dialogue appears here once confirmed, with its host, format and terms. To propose one, write to dialogues@globalriskforum.com.
Information integrity dialogues ask how authorities, platforms, newsrooms and communities keep reliable information reaching people when a hazard strikes, while protecting freedom of expression. The questions are institutional: who issues official information, how platforms escalate crisis content, how corrections travel and how communities without internet access are reached.
| Format | Question |
|---|---|
| Crisis information dialogue | How do warning authorities and platforms coordinate during an event? |
| Rights-based review | Does a proposed measure meet legality, necessity and proportionality tests? |
| Community information session | How do local media and leaders carry official information? |
Network and social science evidence from GCRI data and compute. See crisis information.
Each term as this page uses it. Where a standard-setting body defines the term, the wording follows that body.
| Term | Definition |
|---|---|
| Chatham House Rule | A rule under which participants may use information received but may not reveal the identity or affiliation of speakers. |
| Science-policy interface | The arrangements through which scientific evidence reaches public decisions, including advisory committees, chief scientific advisers, academies and intergovernmental assessments. |
| Track two dialogue | Informal dialogue among non-official participants, such as experts, that can explore options officials cannot. |
| Deliberative forum | A structured process in which participants weigh evidence and arguments together before reaching a view, the approach the OECD describes for representative deliberative processes. |
The bodies and documents this page is read against. Status and editions change; each link goes to the issuing body.
The current service level is R0: information and enquiries. An enquiry receives a reference and names the next step; applications, payments, compute allocations and registrations open only when their team, terms and review capacity exist.