<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">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?</blockquote>
<div style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><span style="line-height:17.90625px;text-align:justify;font-family:Arial,FreeSans,sans-serif"><br></span></div><div style="text-align:justify;font-size:13px"><font face="Arial, FreeSans, sans-serif"><span style="line-height:17.899999618530273px">This would have been better done if you had avoided interpreting what I am saying, and just quoted me as is your usual custom. I believe what I said was: </span></font><span style="font-family:Arial,FreeSans,sans-serif;line-height:17.90625px">"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 style="text-align:justify;font-size:13px"><span style="font-family:Arial,FreeSans,sans-serif;line-height:17.90625px"><br></span></div><div style="text-align:justify"><font face="Arial, FreeSans, sans-serif"><span style="line-height:17.90625px">I don't think that it was fatalistic or a refusal to discuss this further. It is an effort to contribute to the discussion - I think that models which rest completely on unrealistic assumptions about what governments will do (note that this does not mean that we need to assume the opposite) only mean that the models will fail. So discussions of international digital rights fora cannot completely ignore the way in which the US and India see their </span><span style="line-height:17.899999618530273px">sovereignty</span><span style="line-height:17.90625px"> in other international human rights fora. Having acknowledged this, I am very happy to engage further, and look for ways in which governments can be incentivised to consent to some accountability, whether through general human rights institutions or specialised digital rights institutions.</span></font></div>
<div style="text-align:justify;font-size:13px"><span style="font-family:Arial,FreeSans,sans-serif;line-height:17.90625px"><br></span></div><div style="text-align:justify;font-size:13px"><span style="font-family:Arial,FreeSans,sans-serif;line-height:17.90625px"><br>
</span></div><div style="text-align:justify;font-size:13px"><font face="Arial, FreeSans, sans-serif"><span style="line-height:17.899999618530273px">As far as CIRP is concerned, if we both agree that it was not a digital rights enforcement mechanism proposal, I think it is fair for me to say that it would not have created immediate accountability of states to individuals. Whether it would have inevitably resulted in the creation of a </span></font><span style="font-family:Arial,FreeSans,sans-serif;line-height:17.899999618530273px">digital rights enforcement mechanism is a much longer conversation, that we can save for Bali.</span></div>
</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 11:40 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 class="im">
<br>
<div>On Wednesday 16 October 2013 08:52 PM,
Chinmayi Arun wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote 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></div>
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><div class="im">
<br>
<br>
<blockquote 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></div>
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.<div class="im"><br>
<br>
<blockquote 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></div>
I cant see what is the basis of such a justification... But people
can say whatever they want, and we cant stop it. <br><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">
<br>
<br>
parminder <br></font></span><div><div class="h5">
<br>
<blockquote 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;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. <br>
</span></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<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. <br>
</span></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<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>
<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>
</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 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>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div>