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

[Adam Peake]

"specifically with respect to the issue of cyber-enabled theft ..." 3 things...

I read the comments as saying China, please stop stealing.  There's
nothing in there about the need for a treaty on cybersecurity, just
saying China's gone too far in its acquisition of intellectual
property, data, anything digital that's not nailed down.  A very
public request that it stop.

Adam


On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 10:41 PM, 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 --------------
____________________________________________________________
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