[governance] China's next-generation internet is a world-beater - tech - 10 March 2013 - New Scientist

Wed Mar 13 09:41:55 EDT 2013

John (Nick and McTim.

I earlier referred to the comments by Tom Donilon, National Security Advisor
to the (US) President

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/files/fp_uploaded_documents/130311_Donilon%20As
ia%20Society.pdf

Another such issue is cyber-security, which has become a growing challenge
to our economic relationship as well. Economies as large as the United
States and China have a tremendous shared stake in ensuring that the
Internet remains open, interoperable, secure, reliable, and stable.

Both countries face risks when it comes to protecting personal data and
communications, financial transactions, critical infrastructure, or the

intellectual property and trade secrets that are so vital to innovation and
economic growth. It is in this last category that our concerns have moved to
the forefront of our agenda. I am not talking about ordinary cybercrime or
hacking. And, this is not solely a national security concern or a concern of
the U.S. government.

Increasingly, U.S. businesses are speaking out about their serious concerns
about sophisticated, targeted theft of confidential business information and
proprietary technologies through cyber intrusions emanating from China on an
unprecedented scale. The international

community cannot afford to tolerate such activity from any country. As the
President said in the State of the Union, we will take action to protect our
economy against cyber-threats.

>From the President on down, this has become a key point of concern and
discussion with China at all levels of our governments. And it will continue
to be. The United States will do all it must to protect our national
networks, critical infrastructure, and our valuable public and private
sector property. But, specifically with respect to the issue of
cyber-enabled theft, we seek three things from the Chinese side.

First, we need a recognition of the urgency and scope of this problem and
the risk it poses-to international trade, to the reputation of Chinese
industry and to our overall relations.

Second, Beijing should take serious steps to investigate and put a stop to
these activities.

Finally, we need China to engage with us in a constructive direct dialogue
to establish acceptable norms of behavior in cyberspace.

We have worked hard to build a constructive bilateral relationship that
allows us to engage forthrightly on priority issues of concern.

And the United States and China, the world's two largest economies, both
dependent on the Internet, must lead the way in addressing this problem.

Only peaceful, collaborative and diplomatic efforts, consistent with
international law, can bring about lasting solutions that will serve the
interests of all claimants and all countries in this vital region.

.

That includes China, whose growing place in the global economy comes with an
increasing need for the public goods of maritime security and unimpeded
lawful commerce, just as Chinese businessmen and women will depend on the
public good of an open, secure Internet.

Perhaps I'm misreading this but what I understand from the above is that the
USG at the highest levels is looking to "build a constructive bilateral
relationship that allows us to engage forthrightly on priority issues of
concern" in this instance to "build a constructive bilateral relationship
that allows us to engage forthrightly on priority issues of concern".

I must say that this suggests to me that efforts are afoot 

                1. to negotiate some sort of bilateral ("dialogue" not
"multilogue") agreement (concerning "acceptable norms of behavior in
cyberspace) between the US and China 

                2. that this agreement would cover matters of
"cybersecurity" (not fully defined but clearly including "protecting
personal data and communications, financial transactions, critical
infrastructure, or the intellectual property and trade secrets")

                3. that these matters could and most likely would affect the
very nature of the operation of the Internet given the US's central role in
current Internet governance and the emerging role of China as the country
with the greatest number of Internet users--("The United States will do all
it must to protect our national networks, critical infrastructure, and our
valuable public and private sector property")

                4. that these bilateral relations will not be
"multistakeholder"(the US has for the last while been quite clear in
specifically identifying various of the international processes of which it
is involved as "multistakeholder" that this is not so identified is I think
indicative) also note that "the world's two largest economies, both
dependent on the Internet, must lead the way in addressing this problem".

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.  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.

Mike

From: John Curran [mailto:jcurran at istaff.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 5:53 AM
To: michael gurstein
Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: Re: [governance] China's next-generation internet is a world-beater
- tech - 10 March 2013 - New Scientist

On Mar 12, 2013, at 8:42 PM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

You are saying that you would prefer to have a bilateral agreement
negotiated behind closed doors between the plutocrats err. the responsible
senior officials in the US and the high level bureaucrats in China
determining who knows what aspects of the operation of the Internet ...

Michael - 

Setting aside the who (US, China, Other Governments) and the how

(i.e. bilateral, multilateral, ...), may I ask a question about "what" you

say would be negotiated, specifically where you suggest that it would 

be "aspects of operation of the Internet"...

Why would governments ever have a role in setting Internet operational 

matters?

I believe that it is generally recognized that governments have a very

significant role in setting public policy, and this often takes the form

of specific principles or recommendations (established singly or via

bi/multilateral work with other governments.)   Such recommendations

have to be considered in the work done by various coordinating bodies

for the Internet (e.g. ICANN, RIRs, IETF), but they are not themselves

specific processes for technical or operational aspects.  For example, 

the EC Article 29 Data Privacy work is not Internet-specific, but it is 

clear that it is applicable to numerous registrars and hence there must

be a way to accommodate the principles expressed there when setting

critical Internet resource coordination processes (reference the recent 

exchanges on this topic during the ICANN RAA changes and ICANN

"Procedure for Handling WHOIS Conflicts with Privacy Law"...)

If we're to have one Internet, then we need Internet-wide standards and

Internet-wide processes for coordination of key aspects (such as critical

resources), and while consideration must be given to the public policy

principles and recommendations set by governments, that does not 

mean governments directly determining aspects of the standards or 

processes used in global operation.

/John

Disclaimers:  My views alone.  May cause headaches or dizziness. 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130313/66020c76/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