<div dir="ltr"><div>Also, on the suggestion for Brazil to join the Freedom Online Coalition as they would then have to endorse a 'statement supporting the principle that all people enjoy the same human rights online as they do offline': how is this any different from Rousseff making her speech at the UN and now seemingly starting to act on it by agreeing to host the proposed April meeting? <br>
<br>I don't quite see how the former sends a more positive signal to the international community than the latter, especially since it is eminently clear now that governments in the FOC also have not lived by what they endorsed. And the problems aren't new of course: even earlier there were sufficient isuses - what about the ACTA proposal, for example? <br>
<br></div><div>Because of this ambiguity, I have never thought that it was a loss that India didn't join the FOC. India did sign the UNHRC resolution that states rights apply online as offline, and I think it is very important that it did so. But as the government continues to struggle with resolving a whole bunch of issues on the ground, not making an additional commitment by joining the FOC somehow seemed more honest.<br>
<br></div><div>Best,<br></div><div>Anja<br></div><div> <br><br></div><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 16 October 2013 20:52, Chinmayi Arun <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:chinmayiarun@gmail.com" target="_blank">chinmayiarun@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">Hi Parminder, <div><br></div><div>Sorry, I should have been clearer - I did not see the UN CIRP as offering much accountability (as far as citizens are concerned) when states commit human rights violations. India has not exactly had the best track record when it comes to making itself accountable before international human rights institutions for its domestic policies (neither incidentally has the US). One must bear in mind that domestic surveillance systems are being built in India and that there has been quite a lot of resistance to government transparency when it comes to blocking or interception (it is in this context that the US activities are sometimes offered as justification for domestic policy). I do not therefore see the UN CIRP proposal in the same light as <span style="line-height:17.90625px;text-align:justify;font-family:Arial,FreeSans,sans-serif">President Rousseff's proposal which does seem to be a call for states to be accountable to individuals. </span></div>
<div><span style="line-height:17.90625px;text-align:justify;font-family:Arial,FreeSans,sans-serif"><br></span></div><div><span style="line-height:17.90625px;text-align:justify;font-family:Arial,FreeSans,sans-serif">I do not think that our political system offers much recourse to surveillance at the moment either - you can hardly challenge a surveillance order if you never find out about it. </span></div>
<div><span style="line-height:17.90625px;text-align:justify;font-family:Arial,FreeSans,sans-serif"><br></span></div><div><span style="line-height:17.90625px;text-align:justify;font-family:Arial,FreeSans,sans-serif">Although I do like your vision of CIRP as something that enables individual citizens, our country's history with institutions like the International Criminal Court and the ICCPR Optional Protocol I does not really offer much hope that India will ever submit itself to a system in which it is accountable to individuals in an international human rights forum.</span></div>
<div><span style="line-height:17.90625px;text-align:justify;font-family:Arial,FreeSans,sans-serif"><br></span></div><div><span style="line-height:17.90625px;text-align:justify;font-family:Arial,FreeSans,sans-serif">See you at the IGF :)</span></div>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">
<div><span style="line-height:17.90625px;text-align:justify;font-family:Arial,FreeSans,sans-serif">Chinmayi</span></div><div><br></div><div><br></div></font></span></div><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><div class="gmail_extra">
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 8:32 PM, parminder <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net" target="_blank">parminder@itforchange.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><div>
<br>
<div>On Wednesday 16 October 2013 07:54 PM,
Chinmayi Arun wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote 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="line-height:17.90625px;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;font-family:Arial,FreeSans,sans-serif">“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;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></div>
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><div>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="line-height:17.90625px;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></div>
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><div>
<blockquote 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 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>
<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 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 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 href="http://www.consumersinternational.org" target="_blank">www.consumersinternational.org</a>
| <a 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 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>: This email has not been encrypted. You
are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME
encryption at your end. For instructions, see <a 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>
</div></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Dr. Anja Kovacs<br>The Internet Democracy Project<br><br>+91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs<br><a href="http://www.internetdemocracy.in/" target="_blank">www.internetdemocracy.in</a><br>
</div>