[governance] New dimension for Net governance

[David Allen]

At 12:13 PM -0500 1/31/06, Robert Guerra wrote:
>Possible references of interest on this topic...
>
>INSTITUTE FOR THE ADVANCED STUDY OF INFORMATION WARFARE
>(IASIW)
><http://www.iwar.org.uk/>http://www.iwar.org.uk/
>
>IWS - The Information Warfare Site
><http://www.psycom.net/i>http://www.psycom.net/i


At 6:07 PM +0100 1/31/06, Max Senges wrote:
>Adding to what Karen said - another RAND report published in collaboration
>with the National Defense Research Institute U. S. and the Office of the
>Secretary of Defense, in 1999 was entitled "The Emergence of Noopolitik:
>Toward an American Information Strategy". It analyses the soft power
>potential of the net and how it should be used to 'get everybody in the
>world hooked on the dreams made in Hollywood'.
>
>It's available at http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1033/
>
>Max

At 4:40 PM +0100 1/31/06, Ralf Bendrath wrote:
>  > This lay behind, in some way, arguments presented to the WSIS
>>  governance debate?
>It was behind some struggling between Russia and the US in WSIS phase one
>over the security paragraph. Russia wanted to refer to "military
>security", the US did not.
>Background: Russia has been pushing in the UN for arms control attempts in
>this field for a number of years, with the US opposing it for obvious reasons.
>
>I wrote a summary of the WSIS negotiations around security leading up to
>PrepCom3a in 2003 for this publication:
>http://www.worldsummit2003.de/download_de/Vision_in_process.pdf.
>
>Andrew Rathmell and Alexander Nikitin give good summaries of the wider
>arms control and cyberwar debates in a documentation of a conference we
>did some years ago in Berlin:
>http://www.boell.de/downloads/medien/DokuNr20.pdf
>
>Ralf

At 3:28 PM +0000 1/31/06, karen banks wrote:
>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
>
>karen

Appreciative to learn this thorough work, depth and expertise on the 
subject, particularly the papers.  That is how we get ahead I think.

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.

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.

David
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20060131/a685e6f7/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance