[governance] Re: IG questions that are not ICANN [was: Irony]

[Suresh Ramasubramanian]

Ian Peter [01/12/07 13:45 +1100]:

>A structure for dealing with cybercrime would have the following inputs
>1. Governmental
>2. Industry players (carriers, ISPs, etc)
>3. Technical innovators and standards groups  
>4. Public interest groups
>Each would need representation on a structure dealing with this issue.

Actually, the focus would not be on "governance" - it would be on
interoperability and cooperation across "stakeholder communities" (or
stakeholder silos, as I've heard them called .. civ soc talking to other
civ soc, agency talking to agency etc)

Take a look at these three - they actually do a lot of what you ask for.

CoE convention on cybercrime -
http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/EN/Treaties/Html/185.htm

ITU botnet project - again, taking these concepts you cite and applying
them practically, instead of as a thought experiment -
http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/cyb/cybersecurity/projects/botnet.html
http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/cyb/cybersecurity/docs/itu-botnet-mitigation-toolkit-background.pdf

And then this - a "self assessment" document to help a country assess how
ready it is to deal with cybersecurity.
http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/cyb/cybersecurity/projects/readiness.html

>Effective action would require the consent and involvement of each group

At an international level?  What you would get at that level is again
coordination and cooperation at a broad level, and awareness of each others
initiatives. It is not like (say) governing a swiss canton where all the
citizens can get together to decide where to build the next public toilet
or how much to spend to improve a local park.

	srs
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance