<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 08:52 PM,
Chinmayi Arun wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CACu5V_tZCVWhLEJWejLWSW+u=B2ne1PU9ibNBL2vHKtMeDq0UA@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<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;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Arial,FreeSans,sans-serif;text-align:justify">President
Rousseff's proposal which does seem to be a call for states
to be accountable to individuals. <br>
</span></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
Now that is an important point to come to. In fact, I see no real
difference between what Rousseff said in her UN speech and what
India proposed in the CIRP proposal, other than the obvious fact
that the former dealt more with higher level principles and the CIRP
proposal with specifics. (There is this relatively minor thing about
'oversight role' of CIRP, a position India was always open about and
it its recent WGEC submission does seek to separate oversight part
from general public policy issues). I read Rousseff's UN statement
again - the principal operational part of it is<br>
<br>
"The United Nations must play a leading
role in the effort to regulate the conduct of States with regard to
these technologies".
<br>
<br>
I am happy to hear arguments to the contrary. On the other hand, one
of the proposed seven specific tasks of the CIRP was<br>
<br>
"Promotion and protection of all human rights, namely, civil,
political, social, economic and cultural rights, including the
Right to Development". <br>
<br>
This is similar to Russeff making numerous references to human
rights in her speech while the main thrust was <i>*the need for a
new UN mechanism to regulate state conduc</i><i>t</i>*. So, I
really think that Rousseff's speech isnt much different from India's
CIRP proposal. Maybe, the actual difference is that Brazil has shown
guts to make it clear that it means business and is not going to be
cowed down by pressure - most strongly shown by the cancellation of
US trip which was really really big.... On the other hand, India
has clearly been weak kneed, and very vulnerable to all kinds of
pressure. External pressure - chiefly from the US, and of a very
intense kind. And internal pressure- from the industry, largely
ochestrated by US companies, (the chief actor being a US telecom
that is quite a villain even within US civil society sector), and
unfortunately, also many civil society actors within India who in
my view have taken a rather one-sided view about this issue.<br>
<br>
Now, if you think I being uncharitable to the involved Indian actors
here, I am happy to be convinced that Rousseff's UN speech and
India's CIRP proposal are really so different for one to be welcomed
and celebrated by civil society, and the other, largely, to be
considered worthy of nothing but contempt. <br>
<br>
For me, they are not so different. The only difference is - one, of
the timing (but then, India's proposal was active, and Rousseff's
speech reactive - and there is something to said in favour of
foresight and active approach, and coming up with specific details )
. Second, Brazil clearly looks like it means business, while India,
at least some quarters of the establishment, allowed themselves to
be browbeaten. In the process, it handed over a crucial
geo-political leadership advantage to Brazil... I dont mind much, as
long as it it leads to greater global justice - but within India,
there would at some time be some analysis if this was not a major
lost opportunity. <br>
<br>
Regards, parminder<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CACu5V_tZCVWhLEJWejLWSW+u=B2ne1PU9ibNBL2vHKtMeDq0UA@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div><span
style="line-height:17.90625px;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Arial,FreeSans,sans-serif;text-align:justify"><br>
</span></div>
<div><span
style="line-height:17.90625px;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Arial,FreeSans,sans-serif;text-align:justify">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;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Arial,FreeSans,sans-serif;text-align:justify"><br>
</span></div>
<div><span
style="line-height:17.90625px;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Arial,FreeSans,sans-serif;text-align:justify">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;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Arial,FreeSans,sans-serif;text-align:justify"><br>
</span></div>
<div><span
style="line-height:17.90625px;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Arial,FreeSans,sans-serif;text-align:justify">See
you at the IGF :)</span></div>
<div><span
style="line-height:17.90625px;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Arial,FreeSans,sans-serif;text-align:justify">Chinmayi</span></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 8:32 PM, parminder <span dir="ltr"><<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
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 class="im"> <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 class="im"> <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 class="im">
<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
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>
<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>:
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>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>