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

[michael gurstein]

John,

 

I couldn't agree with you more of the need for one Internet and the
technical requirements to maintain this. but for the seriousness with which
these matters are being taken and the likelihood of whether or not niceties
of "conflicting standards or processes" would be maintained under currently
perceived conditions take a look at  (WSJ) "WASHINGTON-The nation's top
spies warned Tuesday of the rising threat of cyberattacks to national and
economic security, comparing the concern more directly than before to the
dangers posed by global terrorism." 

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424127887323826704578356182878527280.ht
ml

 

Mike

 

From: John Curran [mailto:jcurran at istaff.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 7:19 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 13, 2013, at 9:41 AM, 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%20A
sia%20Society.pdf>
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/files/fp_uploaded_documents/130311_Donilon%20As
ia%20Society.pdf

 ...              

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.  

 

Yes, how these matters should be discussed (bi-lateral, multilateral, etc.) 

is indeed important.





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.

 

Quite possibly, but I was trying to highlight one point of such an 

approach (whether the bilateral one you noted in the comments,

or in a multilateral framework as you suggested)...  

 

It is extremely important to keep such frameworks developed by

governments focused on principles and recommendations on public 

policy matters, and not on specific standards or processes used in 

global operation of the Internet.   This is particularly important if we

want one Internet, and are facing with multiple bi- or multi- lateral 

frameworks coming to various public policy outcomes; if they are 

recommendations, we can find a way to keep things running as one 

global Internet, if they specify conflicting standards or processes,

that might not be the case.

 

FYI,

/John

 

Disclaimers: My views alone.   Slower email keep right.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130313/55df733c/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