<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Friday 18 October 2013 08:45 AM,
Chinmayi Arun wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CACu5V_sb9Ko5YqJp+L464yXCKUwdFd1oLYJ31P7bhH7yjZx6og@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">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. </span></font></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Chinmayi, relax, and just argue your positions without getting
personal!<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CACu5V_sb9Ko5YqJp+L464yXCKUwdFd1oLYJ31P7bhH7yjZx6og@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div style="text-align:justify;font-size:13px"><font
face="Arial, FreeSans, sans-serif"><span
style="line-height:17.899999618530273px">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>
</blockquote>
<br>
There isnt any big interpretative jump from saying that one doesnt
see much hope in a proposed institutional mechanism, for the
specific purpose in hand, to be taken to suggest that one doesnt see
any use in pursing that particular proposal. But if instead you
still find such a proposal useful, just say it. <br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CACu5V_sb9Ko5YqJp+L464yXCKUwdFd1oLYJ31P7bhH7yjZx6og@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<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 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 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
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> <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
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>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>