<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Wednesday 16 October 2013 07:54 PM,
Chinmayi Arun wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CACu5V_vf_PODCzrCLTpHCepDOhbWPWer+PekKY_vB6Typ40iLw@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">We can't
overlook that the United States is also a member of the
Freedom Online Coalition. Not to mention say Tunisia, which
is ranked a full point lower than India in the Freedom House
survey. Given that the "Internet freedom" slogan has
suffered a serious blow from the NSA revelations, it is
quite debatable what was the "wrong direction" to take in
opposition to the status-quoist position on Internet
governance taken by the FOC states.</span></blockquote>
<div class="gmail_extra"><font face="arial, sans-serif"><br>
</font></div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><font face="arial, sans-serif">I could
not agree more. Even the much-vilified ITU treaty did not
really undermine Internet freedom (Article 1.1 (a) says </font><span
style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Arial,FreeSans,sans-serif;font-size:13px;line-height:17.90625px;text-align:justify">“These
Regulations do not address the content-related aspects of
telecommunications”) in the end.</span></div>
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div style="text-align:justify"><font color="#000000"
face="Arial, FreeSans, sans-serif"><span
style="line-height:17.90625px"><br>
</span></font></div>
<div style="text-align:justify"><font color="#000000"
face="Arial, FreeSans, sans-serif"><span
style="line-height:17.90625px">It appears from her
speech that President Rousseff does want UN oversight of
countries with respect to the Internet. Given that her
concern seems to be that there should be some
accountability with respect to human rights, I
sympathise.</span></font><span
style="line-height:17.90625px;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Arial,FreeSans,sans-serif"> The
Indian government seems to be in I-told-you-so mode now,
pointing out quite correctly that while everybody else was
being told off for human rights violations, the countries
telling them off were also committing huge violations.
While I certainly do not subscribe to the idea that one
nation's human rights violations somehow justify another's
(I still would not support the resolution that India
presented to the UN last year),</span></div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Hi Chinmayi, How does the CIRP proposal translate into human rights
violations? Also there is a specific and clear difference between US
violating rights of people in a situation where it admits of no
avenues of recourse, even at a theoretical -political level, and
when such things happen within a political system which has its
dynamics that can be engaged to avoid or reduce such violation. CIRP
like global governance proposals are about having a global political
regime within which then efforts can be made to fight for our
rights, the way we do within the Indian political system. NSA issue
cannot be put as just one country doing rights violation against
another country doing it. It is of a qualitative different kind,
from the very important issue of domestic surveillances that we all
struggle against. <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CACu5V_vf_PODCzrCLTpHCepDOhbWPWer+PekKY_vB6Typ40iLw@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div style="text-align:justify"><span
style="line-height:17.90625px;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Arial,FreeSans,sans-serif">
I can see why Brazil and India are unwilling to accept
do-nothing as the best model. <br>
</span></div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Good point, But why then we have no proposal anywhere about what
'should be done', or even the directions towards that kind of a
thing. <br>
<br>
Best , parminder <br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CACu5V_vf_PODCzrCLTpHCepDOhbWPWer+PekKY_vB6Typ40iLw@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div style="text-align:justify"><font color="#000000"
face="Arial, FreeSans, sans-serif"><span
style="line-height:17.90625px"><br>
</span></font></div>
<div style="text-align:justify"><font color="#000000"
face="Arial, FreeSans, sans-serif"><span
style="line-height:17.90625px">I have never been
comfortable with thinking about issues purely in terms
of who is on which side. This was my discomfort with the
ITRs debates - that many were stepping away from the
actual text and merely pointing out who was signing as
an argument for not signing. Isn't it better to just
discuss the specifics of treaties and organisations and
determine on that basis whether it is necessary, helpful
or terrible to subscribe to them? </span></font></div>
<div style="text-align:justify"><br>
</div>
Best,</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">Chinmayi</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 7:57 AM,
Jeremy Malcolm <span dir="ltr"><<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:jeremy@ciroap.org"
target="_blank">jeremy@ciroap.org</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="im">
<div>On 16/10/13 08:49, Eduardo Bertoni wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div>
<p>For instance, if Brazil were to join the <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.freedomonline.tn/Fr/home_46_4"
style="margin:0px;padding:0px;text-decoration:none;color:rgb(157,1,6)"
target="_blank">Freedom Online Coalition</a>,
a group of governments committed to advance
Internet freedom, it would send a positive
message to the international community.
Countries that join the coalition endorse a
statement supporting the principle that all
people enjoy the same human rights online as
they do offline. From Latin America, only
Costa Rica and Mexico are part of the
coalition. On the other hand, other
countries that are not members of the
coalition, such as Russia, China and India,
have taken steps in the wrong direction. For
example, in the past, they have presented
draft resolutions to the UN General
assembly, which would have put in risk
Internet governance. For Brazil, joining the
Freedom Online Coalition would be a turning
point and a step in the opposite direction,
demonstrating that it takes some distance
from its partners in groups such as the BRIC
(Brazil, Russia, India and China) and IBSA
(India, Brazil and South Africa).</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
It would be very interesting to read a reply from the
perspective of India. We can't overlook that the United
States is also a member of the Freedom Online
Coalition. Not to mention say Tunisia, which is ranked
a full point lower than India in the Freedom House
survey. Given that the "Internet freedom" slogan has
suffered a serious blow from the NSA revelations, it is
quite debatable what was the "wrong direction" to take
in opposition to the status-quoist position on Internet
governance taken by the FOC states. Hmm.<br>
<br>
<div>-- <br>
<p style="font-size:9pt"><b>Dr Jeremy Malcolm<br>
Senior Policy Officer<br>
Consumers International | the global campaigning
voice for consumers</b><br>
Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East<br>
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI,
60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia<br>
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599</p>
<p style="font-size:9pt">Explore our new Resource Zone
- the global consumer movement knowledge hub | <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone"
target="_blank">http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone</a></p>
<p style="font-size:9pt">@Consumers_Int | <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.consumersinternational.org"
target="_blank">www.consumersinternational.org</a>
| <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.facebook.com/consumersinternational"
target="_blank">www.facebook.com/consumersinternational</a></p>
<p style="font-size:8pt;color:rgb(153,153,153)">Read
our <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality"
target="_blank">email confidentiality notice</a>.
Don't print this email unless necessary.</p>
<p><strong><span style="color:red">WARNING</span></strong><span
style="">: This email has not been encrypted. You
are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME
encryption at your end. For instructions, see <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://jere.my/l/8m" target="_blank">http://jere.my/l/8m</a>.</span></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>