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

Wed Mar 13 13:02:23 EDT 2013

Ho, ho ho...... waaaaaait a minute here....... 

This whole discussion seems to be an example of what could happen if you put
a stick in a hornets nest.

Mike started by posting two articles: one about the US telling China to put
a stop to widespread espionage and hacking emanating from their country, and
another one which claims China has a better grip on the next generation
Internet.

To which I asked Mike what his opinions were and he claimed that these
articles were evidence of the fact that we need a global agreement to cover
cyberspace.

To which I replied that he was jumping to conclusions because nothing in
these articles hinted at a need for a global agreement. In fact, I had cited
a couple of dangers emanating from the "superior" Chinese Internet and
posited that for the former article on US-China relations there is no need
for a global agreement because any quips the US may have with the Chinese
will be better dealt with on a bilateral basis.

After that, "all hell broke loose", and I think many have gone on a
tangential to espouse their general feelings about multilateralism or
multistakeholderism one way or the other. 

I'm not going to comment on all that has been said here under this topic,
but will try to get back to Mike's assertions and questions.

Mike wrote: 
"I guess I'm not sure how to achieve the kind of "non-aggression"
(cybersecurity) pact that the US seems to be looking for from China (for
now, but what about India, Brazil, etc.etc. in the future) or the kind of
seamless end to end Internet that the Chinese initiative would seem to be
threatening (technical disclaimer here as I don't really know what the
technical implications of the Chinese developments reported on by Science
might be) in the absence of some larger framework. "

As to the US-China problem: Both countries have strong economic interests
that ties the two countries together in a symbiotic way. One party is
telling the other that it feels something is wrong and asks for remedies to
be applied by the other party. It is clear that the underlying issue is that
"if you don't fix it, we're going to have a bigger problem." So, this simply
calls for bilateral diplomatic negotiations to fix the issue. 

Whether or not India, Brazil or others also have a problem with
cyber-snooping by another country does not change the current situation at
hand. 

As to the threat to the end-to-end Internet that is posed by various aspects
of the Chinese Intranet and their control, monitor and surveillance
mechanisms, I think this space here is too limited to bring you up to par on
the technical issues. But what I don't understand is your reference to "the
absence of some larger framework." What do you mean by that? 

Then, Mike also asked this question:
"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 (perhaps
you can explain to me/us how it will be possible to separate out
"bi-lateral" connections on the Internet from the interconnections of the
"global" Internet) rather than a multilateral agreement negotiated more or
less in public among all countries where, given the current move towards
"multi-stakeholderism" civil society, the technical community etc.etc.
(amongst others) would have input."

No, I did not say that. All I said was that the two articles you cited as
proof for a need for a global agreement did not provide sufficient evidence
and you did not provide any additional food for thought that would have made
the linkage (my reference to your "jumping to conclusions"). All I was
saying that bilateral problems (Chinese hackers spying on US companies) are
better dealt with on a bilateral basis.

Secondly, as you may infer by reading the Tunis Agenda on the Information
Society, i.e. the final WSIS document, the "operation of the Internet" is
not subject to negotiation by states alone, whether this be bilateral or
multilateral. According to article 69, The "day to day technical and
operational matters" is left in the hands of the business and technical
bodies. The only thing that states reserved the right to do (article 35.a)
was to discuss principles of public policy amongst each other. On the other
hand, article 35 begins bay saying "We reaffirm that the management of the
Internet encompasses both technical and public policy issues and should
involve all stakeholders and relevant intergovernmental and international
organizations." This is echoed in article 68, which says "[...] We also
recognize the need for development of public policy by governments in
consultation with all stakeholders." So, even in issues relating to public
policy, other stakeholders should be involved. 

So, no, I don't think plutocrats in the US or China should discuss alone and
behind closed doors the operational matters of the Internet on a bilateral
basis. I think it is best for those engaging in the discussion to keep
focused on the current subject matter, and not to enlarge every discussion
to encompass the whole wide world of the Internet.

Ok, I think that's enough food for thought for now.

Peter 

-------------- 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