<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<html><head><style type="text/css"><!--
blockquote, dl, ul, ol, li { padding-top: 0 ; padding-bottom: 0 }
--></style><title>Re: [governance] New dimension for Net
governance</title></head><body>
<div>At 12:13 PM -0500 1/31/06, Robert Guerra wrote:</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Possible references of interest on this
topic...<br>
<br>
INSTITUTE FOR THE ADVANCED STUDY OF INFORMATION WARFARE<br>
(IASIW)<br>
<a href="http://www.iwar.org.uk/">http://www.iwar.org.uk/</a><br>
<br>
<font face="Arial" size="-1" color="#666699"><b>IWS - The Information
Warfare Site</b></font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><a href="http://www.psycom.net/i"><font
size="-1"
color="#008000">http://www.psycom.net/i</font></a></blockquote>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div>At 6:07 PM +0100 1/31/06, Max Senges wrote:</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Adding to what Karen said - another RAND
report published in collaboration<br>
with the National Defense Research Institute U. S. and the Office of
the<br>
Secretary of Defense, in 1999 was entitled "The Emergence of
Noopolitik:<br>
Toward an American Information Strategy". It analyses the soft
power<br>
potential of the net and how it should be used to 'get everybody in
the<br>
world hooked on the dreams made in Hollywood'.<br>
<br>
It's available at
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1033/<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Max</blockquote>
<div><br></div>
<div>At 4:40 PM +0100 1/31/06, Ralf Bendrath wrote:</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> This lay behind, in some way,
arguments presented to the WSIS<br>
> governance debate?<br>
It was behind some struggling between Russia and the US in WSIS phase
one<br>
over the security paragraph. Russia wanted to refer to
"military<br>
security", the US did not.<br>
Background: Russia has been pushing in the UN for arms control
attempts in<br>
this field for a number of years, with the US opposing it for obvious
reasons.<br>
<br>
I wrote a summary of the WSIS negotiations around security leading up
to<br>
PrepCom3a in 2003 for this publication:<br>
http://www.worldsummit2003.de/download_de/Vision_in_process.pdf.<br>
<br>
Andrew Rathmell and Alexander Nikitin give good summaries of the
wider<br>
arms control and cyberwar debates in a documentation of a conference
we<br>
did some years ago in Berlin:<br>
http://www.boell.de/downloads/medien/DokuNr20.pdf<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Ralf</blockquote>
<div><br></div>
<div>At 3:28 PM +0000 1/31/06, karen banks wrote:</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>back in the early 90's, the RAND
corporation was comissioned to do a study on 'net wars' - the role of
the internet or computer mediated communication in several latin
american (particularly zapatista) struggles.. it's a pretty
powerful tool to be sure, so the above comment, in it's context,
doesn't suprise me<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>karen</blockquote>
<div><br></div>
<div>Appreciative to learn this thorough work, depth and expertise on
the subject, particularly the papers. That is how we get ahead I
think.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>The response my untutored eye raises is a good bit less benign.
A few years back, at TPRC (main US telecoms policy research
conference), a panel from DoD was invited. Their vision and
proposals for net warfare were met by a wall of incredulity, from
across the senior (mainly US) research community gathered in plenary.
Today, there might be some modulation in the response - but in the
main the tone that day continues to feel indicative.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>The simplistic (my untutored) response is, what - attack the
net? Interesting juxtaposition to 'protect the net, by letting
it be free.' I'm probably missing something.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>David</div>
</body>
</html>