History Government and Political Science

Paper #4: Compare / Contrast the ENISA and Commonwealth Approaches to Developing National Cybersecurity Strategies

Scenario:

 Your company has assigned you to serve as an industry subject matter expert and advisor for a cyber policy competition team for a local university. This year, the team will be competing in an international Cyber Policy competition in Washington, DC. The policy question for this year’s competition is: what is the best approach for developing a national cybersecurity strategy? The competition will have one U.S. team and nine additional teams from Europe (4 teams) and the Commonwealth nations (5 teams).

The university students have asked you to help them understand the problem space and the likely approaches that competing teams will take. To accomplish this goal, you have decided to prepare a white paper in which you compare the European Union Agency for Network and Information Security (ENISA) guidance document for cybersecurity strategies to a similar document prepared by the Commonwealth Telecommunications Organization (CTO). ENISA provides cybersecurity guidance for member states of the European Union (http://europa.eu/index_en.htm ). CTO provides cybersecurity guidance for members of the Commonwealth of Nations (http://www.commonwealthofnations.org/).

Your starting point for your analysis will be outlines of the two documents (Table 1 and Table 2) which were provided to the teams by the competition’s organizers.

Research:

1. Review the document outlines provided in Tables 1 and 2 (at the end of this document).
2. Download and review the full documents
   1. CTO: http://www.cto.int/media/fo-th/cyb-sec/Commonwealth%20‌Approach%20‌for%20‌National%20‌Cybersecurity%20Strategies.pdf
   2. ENISA: http://www.enisa.europa.eu/activities/Resilience-and-CIIP/national-cyber-security-strategies-ncsss/an-evaluation-framework-for-cyber-security-strategies-1/an-evaluation-framework-for-cyber-security-strategies/at_download/fullReport
3. Develop five or more points which are common across the two documents. (Similarities)
4. Identify and review at least three unique items in each document. (Differences)
5. Research three or more national cybersecurity strategies from EU or Commonwealth nations which were written in or available in English (see the list in Appendix 1 of the CTO document). How comprehensive are these documents when compared to either the ENISA or the CTO guidance? From these documents and the ENISA / CTO guidelines, develop an answer to the question: Why should every nation have a cybersecurity strategy?

Write:

Write a five (5) to eight (8) page white paper in which you summarize your research and discuss the similarities and differences between the two guidance documents. You should focus upon clarity and conciseness more than length when determining what content to include in your paper. At a minimum, your white paper must include the following:

1. An introduction or overview of national cybersecurity strategies. Explain the purpose of a national cybersecurity strategy and how it is used. Answer the question: why should every nation have a cybersecurity strategy? (Make sure that you address the importance of such strategies to small, resource-poor nations as well as to wealthy, developed nations.)
2. A separate section in which you discuss the common principles and guidelines (similarities) found in both guidance documents (ENISA & CTO).
3. A separate section in which you discuss the unique aspects of the CTO principles and guidelines for national cybersecurity strategies.
4. A separate section in which you discuss the unique aspects of the ENISA principles and guidelines for national cybersecurity strategies.
5. A section in which you present your recommendations to the competition team as to the approach (next steps) they should take in further refining their answer to the competition question: what is the best approach for developing a national cybersecurity strategy?

Hans Hoyng argues that “America’s rise to superpower status began with its 1917 entry into World War I. President Woodrow Wilson had grand visions for the peace that followed, but failed. The battle he started in the US between idealists and realists continues to this day.”

What can we learn from the experience of WWI that helps us understand the debate over the American rise to power and influence? Is Hoyng right to argue that the battle that Wilson started continues in contemporary debates over foreign policy? Why? How?  As you address this question be sure to ground your argument in Kaufman’s treatment of the period, “The Peacemakers” film, and, more generally, link your answer to the earlier discussions of American foreign policy values.

Hans Hoyng : 

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/how-world-war-i-helped-america-rise-to-superpower-status-a-944703.html

Kaufman :

https://books.google.com.hk/books?id=hS4bwqBqoaEC&pg=PA31&lpg=PA31dq=Kaufman+2:+Unilateralism+to+Engagement+(World+War+1)&source=bl&ots=ybHHSrA1N9sig=DOLVe2BrfQkrsjBJ1TFfklHV3Uo&hl=ensa=Xved=0CBoQ6AEwAGoVChMIr5GGmfbpyAIVB2ImCh3bIQMz#v=onepage&q=Kaufman%20%3A%20Unilateralism%20to%20Engagement%20(World%20War%201)&f=false

The Argument Analysis for Project 4: Why Should the Government Pays for Everyone’s Education in the United States

Part I

Argument Analysis

The argument analysis that you write for this class will consist of a break-down of your arguments using the “claim – reason – foundation” method of analysis.

1. You should note the main claim plus all sub-claims.
2. For each of these, you should note the reasons attached to the claims.
3. You should write a paragraph discussing the underlying foundation for the claims and reasons.
4. Finally, you should briefly discuss the quality of the evidence that has been used (evidence, usually, is attached to reasons).

Your argument analysis, then, should consist of one longish paragraph on foundations, one shortish paragraph on evidence, and some kind of diagram of the structure of the assertion.

Part II

Rhetorical Analysis

For your rhetorical analysis you will be looking at the interplay between the writer (you), the text (your Researched Argument), and your audience.  This section of Project 5 should discuss your text in light of being a persuasive piece of writing…written for an audience.  The following questions should help you think about the kinds of information to include.

1. What is your main argument?
   1. Why should someone be persuaded by your argument?
   2. What strategies did you use to make your argument persuasive? Logic?  Passion?  Great evidence?  Other things?  Combination of things?
   3. Do you think the evidence you used was persuasive? Why?  Why not?
   4. Do you think, over all, that someone would be persuaded by what you’ve written? Why?  Why not?
2. Who is the main audience for your argument?
3. How does your audience perceive the topic?
   1. Is your topic widely known and discussed?
   2. Do people have strong feelings about your topic?
   3. Does it apply to most, many, or few people?
   4. What do members of your audience lose if they are persuaded by your argument?