[governance] Part II - About a single centralized structure +

[Katitza Rodriguez]

Milton,

On 11/11/10 11:02 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>
> 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.
>

I was interested on this tension (not the Russian one):

"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."

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"
Does anyone have more information about this , please?

> 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.
>

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).


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101111/811b0417/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t