AW: [governance] Tallin Manual - a Cyber Warfare convention?

[parminder]

On Tuesday 26 March 2013 09:18 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
> Parminder:
>
> Awareness, social movement building and political actions all work in a kind of dialectic (or trialectic) .... And at different times, there are different windows of opportunity. Right now we have a UN Working Group with the mandate to look into what is the appropriate institutional architecture for global governance. And we need to give our response to it. No, time wont wait. It took 8 years to get this working group, and it has just a year to produce its report. And if we do not respond to this opportunity, another similar one may not come for decades.
>
> Wolfgang:
>   
> The issues raised in the Tallion Manual are under discussion ion the UN since the late 1990s. There is a "Group of Governmental Experts" (GGE) which discusses all the issues and there are numerous bilateral channels between Russia and the US, China and the US, the EU and the US etc. Unfortunately there is no civil socviety involvement in those multilateral or bilateral discussion an this type of cybersecurity. There is also a working group under the ITU (wioth no civil society members)
>   
> http://www.un.org/disarmament/topics/informationsecurity/
> http://www.itu.int/osg/csd/cybersecurity/gca/hleg/membersbio.html

Yes, Wolfgang, I know that the first committee of the UN discusses it 
through the GGE. And I also know that the US refuses to look into any 
kind of new agreements and texts on cyber warfare issues claiming that 
the current warfare/ security agreements are enough for this purpose. I 
understand that some countries like India seek evolutionary use of 
current agreements but also an exploration of new issues which may 
require new work. But these discussions in the GGE have two problems

(1) They are rather non transparent, and non inclusive of outside 
participation

(2) Cyber warfare and security issues get discussed in isolation from 
connected cyber issues of human rights, big data, big Internet business, 
cross border data flows and so on.

A UN CIRP (Committee on Internet related Policies) as a space for cross 
cutting discussions on all Internet related policy issues, in a manner 
that is more transparent and has better multistakeholder participation 
than perhaps any comparable body anywhere in the world (including OECD, 
CoE, etc etc), is obviously the appropriate institutional response to 
this and other emerging issues in the information society. And all these 
issues are very important and urgent from a global public interest point 
of view. But the status quo-ist forces because of their obvious vested 
interests are simply too strong in opposition to such developments. What 
I find most difficult to understand however is the civil society's 
reluctance to discuss such needed evolutions.

parminder



>


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