[governance] CNAS Commentary: "The Internet Yalta"

[Louis Pouzin (well)]

When major actors are split in two dominant groups, minor ones tend to
adopt a non committed neutral position. Then they may exploit it in ways
that fit their or some other interests.

What you are proposing is a valid global picture. It needs bones to be
effective, that is, influential.

E.g. produce reports, books, surveys, ...
Organize events, seminars, camps, petitions, ...
Set up a comprehensive data base on critical topics
.. add more suggestions

Best, Louis





 On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 5:43 PM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>wrote:

> To carry forward this Cold War analogy I'm wondering whether the
> appropriate position for civil society should rather be one of
> "non-alignment"; that is, a position which recognizes a degree of validity
> in both sets of arguments but chooses to put these in the broader and more
> univeral context of the development of the Internet as a global public
> good, operating in support of the global public interest where there is a
> universal acceptance of free expression, human rights, and a fair
> distribution of economic benefits among other rights and principles.****
>
> ** **
>
> M****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:
> governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of *Philipp Mirtl
> *Sent:* Monday, February 11, 2013 7:41 AM
> *To:* Louis Pouzin (well); governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> *Subject:* AW: [governance] CNAS Commentary: "The Internet Yalta"****
>
> ** **
>
> Dear Louis,****
>
> ** **
>
> Thanks for your comment. Please note that the commentary was written by
> Alexander Klimburg, who I am working together with – not myself. Alex is
> not member to this list which is why he asked me to forward you the
> following:****
>
> ** **
>
> “Depends what you mean by “creeping cyberwar”. If you mean the often-noted
> “militarisation of cyberspace” that is only one trend – and in some cases
> it is simply really part of “de-spooking of cyberwar” (i.e. making it more,
> rather than less, visible). The vast majority cyberconflict is invisible to
> those without the necessary technical or governmental insight.“****
>
> ** **
>
> For more info, I also send you two additional links on that issue:****
>
> ** **
>
> **-          **Alexander Klimburg (2011): “Mobilising Cyber Power”,
> Survival, 53:1, 41-60 (via:
> http://web.clas.ufl.edu/users/zselden/coursereading2011/Klimcyber.pdf)****
>
> **-          **Alexander Klimburg (Ed.) (2012), *National Cyber Security
> Framework Manual*, NATO CCD COE Publication (via:
> http://www.ccdcoe.org/369.html)****
>
> ** **
>
> Warm regards,****
>
> ** **
>
> Philipp****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *Von:* pouzin at gmail.com [mailto:pouzin at gmail.com <pouzin at gmail.com>] *Im
> Auftrag von *Louis Pouzin (well)
> *Gesendet:* Montag, 11. Februar 2013 16:21
> *An:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Philipp Mirtl
> *Betreff:* [governance] CNAS Commentary: "The Internet Yalta"****
>
> ** **
>
> Hi Philipp,
>
> Congrats for your very perceptive analysis. The fragmentation trend is
> indeed on the ground already. Do you have any comments on the creeping
> cyberwar ?
>
> Best, Louis
> - - -****
>
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 1:36 PM, Philipp Mirtl <Philipp.Mirtl at oiip.ac.at>
> wrote:****
>
> Dear list members,****
>
>  ****
>
> For those who are interested, I forward you the link to a recently
> published *commentary on WCIT-12*: http://www.cnas.org/theinternetyalta.**
> **
>
>  ****
>
> The abstract reads as follows:****
>
>  ****
>
> “The December 2012 meeting of the World Conference on International
> Telecommunications (WCIT) may be the digital equivalent of the February
> 1945 meeting of the Allied powers in Yalta: the beginning of a long
> Internet Cold War between authoritarian and liberal-democratic countries.
> The battles over Internet governance that surfaced at WCIT are not just
> about competing visions of the Internet, with one side favoring openness
> and the other security. They are also about two different visions of
> political power – one in which that power is increasingly distributed and
> includes non-state actors, and one in which state power is dominant. At the
> Yalta Conference, Western democracies made two fundamental mistakes: first,
> they allowed naive statements of wishful thinking to supplant actual
> realities on the ground. Second, they overlooked the risk inherent in
> permitting ambiguous definitions. Both of these mistakes may have been
> repeated at WCIT.”****
>
>  ****
>
> Best regards,****
>
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
> Philipp Mirtl****
>
>  ****
>
> Fellow / Adviser****
>
> Österreichisches Institut für Internationale Politik (oiip)****
>
> Austrian Institute for International Affairs****
>
> Berggasse 7****
>
> A-1090 WIEN/VIENNA****
>
> Tel: +43-(0)1-581 11 06-29****
>
> Fax: +43-(1)1-581 11 06-10****
>
> E-Mail: philipp.mirtl at oiip.ac.at****
>
> Website: www.oiip.ac.at****
>
> ** **
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130212/63f48281/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

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