I think I can understand why at present we are making the distinctions that homeland security should deal with these aspects and that NATO or our defence institutions should deal with attacks on military infrastructure. However, as we move further down the line, it will be much harder to maintain those distinctions, so it would not be remiss, in my view, for NATO to think slightly more broadly about the types of threats that cyberattacks and activity in cyberspace might lead to, and what, as I mentioned before, the very notion of an attack might mean.
I think it's because we are so early in the game of thinking about how to manage cyberthreats and potential cyberattacks that we're making these bureaucratic divisions. As we move forward, I think it will be harder and harder to maintain them, although I can understand that there are real turf issues here, and also issues about civilian control.