<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
Hi all - interesting discussion. And thanks for prompting it
Eduardo - I really liked your op-ed - i found it a simple call for
solidarity in taking an holistic, at home approach to human rights
and internet policy in the midst of the global momentum following
the Brazil initiative.<br>
I note that there will be a session on Day 2 of the best bits
meeting on surveillance related issues - this will include a
briefing to update on actions being taken to address this issue
within the various existing UN human rights mechanisms as well as
various national steps for legal remedies. <br>
with that in mind, i note that there are civil society groups and
diverse human rights defenders from around the world who are taking
vigorous actions to challenge and seek accountability within
existing mechanisms for this mass surveillance rights violation:
their ultimate efficacy will remain to be seen. but it would be
unwise to proceed in our IG discussions on the assumption that no
such action is being taken or that there will be support for a new
"digital rights mechanism" in some other part of the UN because of
the horror of this particular rights violation and perceived lack of
accountability or prevention mechanisms.<br>
The idea of topic specific human rights mechanisms is not new
(whether in relation to women's rights, racism, torture, economic,
cultural and social rights). But most 'mainstream' human rights
defenders and organisations still do not consider the internet a
game changer in terms of human rights concepts and systems of
accountability and certainly see no need for alternatives - nor do
they generally seek them. Instead, strategies for engaging in
existing mechanisms are sought - which is what some groups have been
doing including APC, EFF, Access, Human Rights Watch, Reporters
Sans Frontiers, Freedom House, Privacy International, ISOC among
others .<br>
I agree with Chinmayi -these systems are only as effective as States
let them be, but this, as Parminder says, is no reason not to engage
in debate about them. quite the contrary, in my view, this makes it
more important for civil society to engage.<br>
However, this conceptual divergence (between HR defenders and IG
advocates) still remains a significant challenge for those of us in
IG debates and proposals for new IG mechanisms that develop will
inevitably founder if they proceed to argue for new rights
mechanisms without understanding how current ones operate (including
improvements that are needed) - or fail to develop strategies for
working solidarity so as to make all states accountable for human
rights violations - online and offline.<br>
<br>
Joy <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 18/10/2013 7:10 a.m., parminder
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:52602829.9020902@itforchange.net" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<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 t</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Chinmayi,<br>
<br>
A digital rights court or some other rights enforcement mechanism
is completely at another level than having an anchor agency in the
UN system which can take up IG related issues, which alone CIRP
was really supposed to be. In any case, to set up such a digital
rights enforcement mechanism will need some kind of a prior
international agreement that, in the first place, needs an IG
related anchor space in the UN system . .... So, even if you want
a digital rights enforcement mechanism - which as you rightly
observe, I too have sought - then a CIRP kind of body can only
enable it... It doesnt go against such a mechanise. If you want
such enforcement mechanism in addition to a CIRP like space, then
you put that demand as a CIRP plus one..... which is entirely fine
with me. <br>
<br>
However, later in your email you say that such an enforcement
mechanism is also of no use, because India would not submit to
it.... Well, isnt that a somewhat fatalistic attitude to take
towards future of global governance of the Internet. What other
option there is to try to get such a enforcement mechanism, and
try to get all countries to submit to it? Other than perhaps to
accept US as the global policemen, a role which it often arrogates
to itself, wherever possible. There must be some direction that is
the right one for us to go towards, however difficult the path may
be. <br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CACu5V_tZCVWhLEJWejLWSW+u=B2ne1PU9ibNBL2vHKtMeDq0UA@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>he 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 </div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Yes, it has to resisted and fought in every way possible. An
international regime - starting from a soft one towards
increasingly harder ones - as we progress civilisationally - can
only help that. On the other hand, I cant see how such a regime
can hurt.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CACu5V_tZCVWhLEJWejLWSW+u=B2ne1PU9ibNBL2vHKtMeDq0UA@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>(it is in this context that the US activities are
sometimes offered as justification for domestic policy).</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
I cant see what is the basis of such a justification... But people
can say whatever they want, and we cant stop it. <br>
<br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CACu5V_tZCVWhLEJWejLWSW+u=B2ne1PU9ibNBL2vHKtMeDq0UA@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div> 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>
<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. <br>
</span></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<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">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
face="Arial, FreeSans, sans-serif"
color="#000000"><span
style="line-height:17.90625px"><br>
</span></font></div>
<div style="text-align:justify"><font
face="Arial, FreeSans, sans-serif"
color="#000000"><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
face="Arial, FreeSans, sans-serif"
color="#000000"><span
style="line-height:17.90625px"><br>
</span></font></div>
<div style="text-align:justify"><font
face="Arial, FreeSans, sans-serif"
color="#000000"><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>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>