[governance] China's next-generation internet is a world-beater - tech - 10 March 2013 - New Scientist
Suresh Ramasubramanian
suresh at hserus.net
Wed Mar 13 10:38:25 EDT 2013
If you make the definition of nailed down a bit more specific .. "Something a large pry bar can't dislodge" .. you're spot on :)
--srs (iPad)
On 13-Mar-2013, at 20:05, Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:
> "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
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
More information about the Governance
mailing list