Melissa Hathaway on Cybersecurity and the G20

To counteract these [cybersecurity] risks, some governments and businesses are turning to international venues, seeking mechanisms to drive a path toward international cooperation and increased government intervention to “assert control,” all as part of an effort to manage exposure to cyber insecurity.  These diplomatic discussions are emerging in dozens of international bodies, including: the United Nations, the Group of Eight (G8), the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the European Union, the Council of Europe, the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, the Organization of American States, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) and the International Organization for Standardization.  Unfortunately, these fora are suffering from an operational collision of competing interests — privacy, piracy (for example, intellectual property protection), sovereignty and security (for example, corruption, theft, crime, espionage, war) — that are stifling progress.  The cacophony of voices and lack of clarity of an action agenda of what to do suggests that it is time to change the conversation and establish executive ownership among those who have the most to lose. Why not then place this agenda item on the G20 table?  It is time to couple diplomacy with our national interest. The G20 represents 90 percent of global GDP, 80 percent of international trade and 64 percent of the world’s population. The leaders of the G20 could simplify the cybersecurity conversation and focus the world on enabling GDP growth, while limiting GDP erosion. This approach has a built-in advantage in that its membership includes Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa (the BRICS) with equal voices at the diplomatic table. In fact, it may be the only international forum that could propagate a simple narrative that communicates why a sustainable cyberspace is linked to GDP growth for every nation.

Russia proposes a result-oriented and pragmatic approach, which implies streamlining the working formats and meetings along the two central tracks - Sherpas and Finance Ministries and relevant working groups. If the G20 were to tackle this initiative head on an action agenda could look like this: Tee up the agenda topic at The 39th G8 summit will be held in 17-18 June 2013 in Britain. In the Queen's speech at the state opening of Parliament in 2012, Queen Elizabeth II explained that "my government will use this opportunity to promote international security and prosperity." Follow-up at the В20 sessions to be held 20-21 of June, 2013 during Sankt Petersburg International Economic Forum. Bring it into the “Investments and Infrastructure” task force increasing importance for the global economy. Perhaps via OECD or the consultancies (E&Y, KPMG; McKinsey & Company, and BCG). Or via the US Chamber of Commerce who also sits on the board of Conveners (Tom Donahue). Develop the working papers and succinct arguments for the July 25-26 G20 Sherpa’s meeting, St. Petersburg, Russia Continue the dialogue at at the G20 Finance Minister’s Deputies Meeting to be held 2-5 September, 2013, in St. Petersburg, Russia and the G20 Leaders' Summit, to be held in St. Petersburg on September 5-6, 2013 (the main event). The infrastructure resilience topic could be carried forward at the Development Working Group Meeting that will be held on 13 October 2013, Washington DC. The key working initiatives could be carried forward on 7-8 November 2013, as part of the Sherpa’s Meeting, that presumably will be preparing for the hand-off from Russia to Australia. This meeting will be held in Moscow, Russia.