<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)"><base href="x-msg://377/"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>John,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>I couldn't agree with you more of the need for one Internet and the technical requirements to maintain this… but for the seriousness with which these matters are being taken and the likelihood of whether or not niceties of "conflicting standards or processes" would be maintained under currently perceived conditions take a look at (WSJ) "WASHINGTON—The nation's top spies warned Tuesday of the rising threat of cyberattacks to national and economic security, comparing the concern more directly than before to the dangers posed by global terrorism." <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424127887323826704578356182878527280.html">http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424127887323826704578356182878527280.html</a><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Mike<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> John Curran [mailto:jcurran@istaff.org] <br><b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, March 13, 2013 7:19 AM<br><b>To:</b> michael gurstein<br><b>Cc:</b> governance@lists.igcaucus.org<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [governance] China's next-generation internet is a world-beater - tech - 10 March 2013 - New Scientist<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>On Mar 13, 2013, at 9:41 AM, michael gurstein <<a href="mailto:gurstein@gmail.com">gurstein@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><br><br><o:p></o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>John (Nick and McTim…</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>I earlier referred to the comments by Tom Donilon, National Security Advisor to the (US) President</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><a href="http://www.foreignpolicy.com/files/fp_uploaded_documents/130311_Donilon%20Asia%20Society.pdf"><span style='color:purple'>http://www.foreignpolicy.com/files/fp_uploaded_documents/130311_Donilon%20Asia%20Society.pdf</span></a></span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'> ... </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>This is not to disagree with these matters, clearly there are issues which need to be addressed. However, whether those issues could or should be addressed bilaterally by governments or rather in a broader framework including all those in the world impacted by the Internet i.e. all governments and stakeholders is I think, what we are discussing and the issue seems to me to be binary i.e. we either support this approach or we oppose it and offer an alternative. </span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal>Yes, how these matters should be discussed (bi-lateral, multilateral, etc.) <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>is indeed important.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><br><br><o:p></o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Since the USG is among the most significant of the supporters of a non-governmental approach to IG issues the absence of reference to the status quo non-governmental approach suggests to me that they have considered this and rejected it as an alternative approach hence the suggestion that some sort of multilateral framework in this area would appear to be the appropriate approach to take/be supported.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Quite possibly, but I was trying to highlight one point of such an <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>approach (whether the bilateral one you noted in the comments,<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>or in a multilateral framework as you suggested)... <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>It is extremely important to keep such frameworks developed by<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>governments focused on principles and recommendations on public <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>policy matters, and not on specific standards or processes used in <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>global operation of the Internet. This is particularly important if we<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>want one Internet, and are facing with multiple bi- or multi- lateral <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>frameworks coming to various public policy outcomes; if they are <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>recommendations, we can find a way to keep things running as one <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>global Internet, if they specify conflicting standards or processes,<o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal>that might not be the case.<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>FYI,<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>/John<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Disclaimers: My views alone. Slower email keep right.<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></body></html>