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

[Suresh Ramasubramanian]

That doesn't compute. The thrust of that speech is on industrial and military espionage against US based entities, by various actors (non state or not) based out of china,

Even within the scope of a multilateral treaty, such issues will be handled bilaterally by the countries concerned

--srs (iPad)

On 13-Mar-2013, at 19:11, "michael gurstein" <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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%20Asia%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. 
>  
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130313/1a0167ad/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