<font color="#333333"><font size="2"><font face="verdana,sans-serif">Hello,<br><br><br>On this topic, there is a discussion on the At-Large list which I wish to cross-post here :<br><br clear="all"></font></font></font>Sivasubramanian M<br>
<br>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">---------- Forwarded message ----------<br>From: <b class="gmail_sendername">Sivasubramanian M</b> <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:isolatedn@gmail.com">isolatedn@gmail.com</a>></span><br>
Date: Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 11:39 PM<br>Subject: Re: [At-Large] India proposes Government controlled Internet<br>To: At-Large Worldwide <<a href="mailto:at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org">at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org</a>><br>
<br><br><div><div><font face="verdana, sans-serif" color="#333333"><div>Dear Bill Drake,</div><div><br></div><div>The CIRP proposal is from the Government of India, not from India. It is a proposal which has not been drafted transparently nor after due consultations and does not reflect the will of the people of India. I am not aware of a call for inputs or even a call for comments to the Business Community or to the Civil Society. If there is any claim of inclusion of the Business Community that I am not aware of, it could not possibly have been wide enough and the opinions might not be representative of the different sectors of Business, small, medium and large. And as a practice, if Civil Society is ever included, it is no more than a handful of convenient participants. The most influential of India's Political leaders and Administrators in Power at the moment do not appear not to be in a mood to include the Civil Society :) . On matters related to Internet Governance, the Civil Society, and to a large extent, the Business Sector in India do not know what is happening. </div>
<div><br></div><div>Earlier, India's proposal for IGF improvements showed some commitment for the multi-stakeholder model, though on deeper examination, one can see a strong multilateral undertone, especially in Point 9. </div>
<div><br></div><div>The IBSA proposal went one step further, it completely dropped all references to the multi-stakeholder model. </div><div><br></div><div>Now we have the CIRP proposal from India, taken to the UN. A proposal of this magnitude, that affects the lives of people of the whole world for the next century or two requires ample consultation in a transparent manner, with wide participation of the Business Community and the Civil Society. Had there been fair consultation with neutral information, a proposal of this nature would have been "Dead on Origin".</div>
<div><br></div><div>Personally, I totally disagree with the idea of the CIRP proposal, even on the face of the prospects of being repeatedly reminded that I am an Indian first. Am I supposed to stand by and watch a shortsighted and ill-advised proposal jeopardize the civil liberties of all the people of the World, merely because the proposal has been introduced as a proposal from India?</div>
<div><br></div><div>We may not have Brazil-like receptiveness for some more time, but we try... I will gather opinions, for and against, and send an email to our Government.</div><div><br></div><div>Thank you.</div><div>
Sivasubramanian M</div><font color="#888888">
</font></font><div><div></div><div class="h5"><div>
<font face="verdana, sans-serif" color="#333333"><br></font></div><div>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 4:48 PM, William Drake <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:william.drake@uzh.ch" target="_blank">william.drake@uzh.ch</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Hi Siva<br>
<br>
If I may be allowed a brief intervention from the NC-ALAC liaison peanut gallery: As you know, some of us are having heated debates on this on the governance list and did in Nairobi as well. One aspect that hasn't gotten much attention in these contexts is whether the Indian government undertook domestic level consultations with relevant business, technical community, and civil society actors. In Nairobi I asked several Indians, including the delegation from Tata, whether they had any idea what their government was advocating in their name, and the answer was no. So one really helpful step you could take here is to get the word out nationally and see whether any sort of shared position either way can be stated. You may recall that amidst the Nairobi debates some Brazilian CS people came out against what their government was doing in IBSA, and this had a significant effect in softening the Brazilian position, which resulted in an Indian rather than an IBSA proposal to the UNGA.<br>
<br>
Just a thought,<br>
<br>
Bill<br>
<div><div></div><div><br>
On Oct 28, 2011, at 12:15 PM, Sivasubramanian M wrote:<br>
<br>
> Dear Carlton<br>
><br>
><br>
> Thank you. It would be of ample help if there are more opinions on this<br>
> development, especially by those from developing countries.<br>
><br>
> This is what I wrote to our Government earlier on the IBSA proposal:<br>
><br>
> --- begin quote from what I wrote earlier --- The proposal to "establish a<br>
> new Global body "located within the UN system", "tasked to develop ...<br>
> policies" and to "oversee bodies responsible for the technical and<br>
> operational functioning of the Internet including standards setting",<br>
> "undertake arbitration and dispute resolution" and "be responsible for<br>
> crisis management" is a proposal to offer the Internet bundled with the IETF<br>
> to the ITU or an ITU-controlled or an ITU-friendly new global body within<br>
> the UN system where ITU is comfortable. It is perhaps with these<br>
> apprehensions that the draft has been criticized as "unimaginative,<br>
> backward-looking, and authoritarian and ... very destructive" and has<br>
> generated a loud discussion among Civil Society participants. --- end of<br>
> quote<br>
><br>
><br>
> Sivasubramanian M<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 3:24 PM, Carlton Samuels<br>
> <<a href="mailto:carlton.samuels@gmail.com" target="_blank">carlton.samuels@gmail.com</a>>wrote:<br>
><br>
>> Thanks for sharing, Siva. Helluva thing to be the canary in the mine.<br>
>><br>
>> Carlton<br>
>><br>
>> ==============================<br>
>> Carlton A Samuels<br>
>> Mobile: 876-818-1799<br>
>> *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*<br>
>> =============================<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 4:21 AM, Sivasubramanian M <<a href="mailto:isolatedn@gmail.com" target="_blank">isolatedn@gmail.com</a><br>
>>> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>>> Hello,<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>> <a href="http://news.dot-nxt.com/2011/10/27/india-proposes-government-control-internet" target="_blank">http://news.dot-nxt.com/2011/10/27/india-proposes-government-control-internet</a><br>
>>><br>
>>> This is from Kieren MacCarthy's article:<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>> "In a statement<<br>
>>> <a href="http://news.dot-nxt.com/2011/10/27/un-ga-india-cirp-proposal" target="_blank">http://news.dot-nxt.com/2011/10/27/un-ga-india-cirp-proposal</a>> sent<br>
>>>> yesterday, India argued for the creation of a new body to be called the<br>
>>>> United Nations Committee for Internet-Related Policies (CIRP) which<br>
>> would<br>
>>>> develop Internet policies, oversee all Internet standards bodies and<br>
>>> policy<br>
>>>> organizations, negotiate Internet-related treaties, and act as an<br>
>>> arbitrator<br>
>>>> in Internet-related disputes.<br>
>>>> The CIRP would exist under the United Nations, comprise of 50 Member<br>
>>>> States, be funded by the United Nations, run by staff from the UN’s<br>
>>>> Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) arm, and report directly<br>
>> to<br>
>>> the<br>
>>>> UN General Assembly."<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> # And the Government spokesperson argued that this “should not be viewed<br>
>>> as<br>
>>> an attempt by governments to ‘take over’ or ‘regulate and circumscribe’<br>
>> the<br>
>>> Internet.” !!<br>
>>><br>
>>> # The IBSA proposal was badly criticized by the Civil Society in the<br>
>> lists<br>
>>> and at the Nairobi Internet Governance Forum, it appeared that India<br>
>> wasn't<br>
>>> the prime contributor to that imaginative proposal, but those of us who<br>
>>> believed that India couldn't have proposed or fully endorsed the first<br>
>> IBSA<br>
>>> proposal --- we were wrong.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Sivasubramanian M<br>
>>> ISOC India Chennai<br>
>>> <a href="http://isocindiachennai.org" target="_blank">http://isocindiachennai.org</a><br>
>>> _______________________________________________<br>
>>> At-Large mailing list<br>
>>> <a href="mailto:At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org" target="_blank">At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org</a><br>
>>> <a href="https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large" target="_blank">https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large</a><br>
>>><br>
>>> At-Large Official Site: <a href="http://atlarge.icann.org" target="_blank">http://atlarge.icann.org</a><br>
>> _______________________________________________<br>
>> At-Large mailing list<br>
>> <a href="mailto:At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org" target="_blank">At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org</a><br>
>> <a href="https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large" target="_blank">https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large</a><br>
>><br>
>> At-Large Official Site: <a href="http://atlarge.icann.org" target="_blank">http://atlarge.icann.org</a><br>
>><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> At-Large mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org" target="_blank">At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org</a><br>
> <a href="https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large" target="_blank">https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large</a><br>
><br>
> At-Large Official Site: <a href="http://atlarge.icann.org" target="_blank">http://atlarge.icann.org</a><br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
At-Large mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org" target="_blank">At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large" target="_blank">https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large</a><br>
<br>
At-Large Official Site: <a href="http://atlarge.icann.org" target="_blank">http://atlarge.icann.org</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div></div>
</div>
</div><br>