<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Milton,<br>
<br>
On 11/11/10 11:02 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108D98E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Courier
New"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"><o:p> </o:p></span>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family:
"Courier New"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">On the
issue of a cybercrime treaty, however, I offer a
qualification: it is actually the U.S. that is more
aggressive, both about
cybercrime and cyberwar, and Russia is more interested in a
treaty to protect
itself, just as militarily weaker nations tend to favor arms
control treaties
whereas the ones with a military advantage do not. </span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
I was interested on this tension (not the Russian one):<br>
<span class="noindex">
<div class="adp-ArticleMPU-1 control"> </div>
</span>
<p>"The 12th pentennial UN Crime Congress in Salvador, Brazil,
declared a compromise that at least left a window open for a
global agreement. A UN advisory committee would consider
conducting a study of cybercrime, legislation and law enforcement.
The process might bring opposing countries closer together and
lead in some years to proposals that may open a way to preparatory
talks for a global agreement. Such talks might also take years.
The UN did make a firm commitment for developed countries to step
up the assistance they gave developing countries to build
resources to tackle cybercrime and bring national legislation up
to date. There was unanimous agreement that this must be done
urgently. The EU and US had refused to countenance a new treaty on
cyber crime when there had already been one in place for 10 years.
The Budapest Convention on Cyber Crime had been signed or ratified
by 46 countries since it had been drafted by the Council of Europe
in 2001."<br>
</p>
<p>I also remember a comment from Wolfgang when he cited as a policy
forum that we should observed: "1st Committee UNGA: Ideas for a UN
Treaty on Cybersecurity" <br>
Does anyone have more information about this , please?<br>
</p>
<blockquote
cite="mid:75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108D98E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family:
"Courier New"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">I also
wish to say that I just voted for the Enhanced
Cooperation statement but was somewhat surprised to find the
reference to OECD
in there as a model for governance. I guess the statement
intended to praise
OECD for creating the CSISAC (civil society information
society advisory
committee), which is indeed a small step forward. However,
the language in our statement
implied both that OECD engages in global governance and that
civil society
would be participating equally in that governance because of
CSISAC. Both
implications are false: OECD really doesn’t do governance,
it just
supplies research and analysis that states can use; and
CSISAC just lets civil
society into some discussions, but the actual decision
making is made elsewhere
on an intergovernmental basis. <br>
</span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Yes, you are right here too. OECD-ICCP just did a step in the right
direction. But it is not multi-stakeholder. We just fight to get
equal status as business sector and the trade unions. Equal parity.
Governments made the final decision. Also CSISAC never push for the
creation of the OECD-ICCP. The OECD has been working on Internet
Policy issues even before WSIS (even before I start working on this
area).<br>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>