<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 Monday 22 October 2012 11:02 PM,
McTim wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CACAaNxh=dTqvqzWHZxd7oDbQtARYMvFh2thAx3kEhe6-AfWOug@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite"><br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 3:44 AM,
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>
snip</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CACAaNxh=dTqvqzWHZxd7oDbQtARYMvFh2thAx3kEhe6-AfWOug@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"> And when proposals like
UN CIRP are made </div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>This article, while certainly out of date given the recent
detente twixt ICANN and Minister Pilot </div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
India always had a pretty good relationship, and worked closely,
with ICANN. ( If I remember right they also hosted the GAC
secretariat for a while.) CIRP proposal has or had no intention to
interfere with the working of ICANN. This is the simple fact and it
has been made clear so many times. However, it suits some people to
keep repeating this blatant misconception. <br>
<br>
CIRP however does have a problem with US oversight of ICANN, and my
understanding is that almost all countries other than the US see
this as a problem. Since the detractors of CIRP cant defend the
indefensible (US's unilateral oversight over ICANN which WGIG as
well as Tunis Agenda - documents with wide support, clearly speak
against) they create the strawman - 'CIRP is against ICANN' and then
valiantly fight that strawman. The fact that such a patently devious
strategy continues to hold some credibility just speaks of the
immense power of the powerful in the IG space. It gets even worse
when the civil society in the IG arena also chooses to side with the
powerful and wilfully closes its eyes to clearly manifest facts. <br>
<br>
Little surprise then that a UK company owned tabloid in India goes
even further and calls CIRP as a proposal to create a committee to
filter content. The proof of the power in the IG space is, for
instance, that no one ever says that OECD's CICCP (its committee on
Internet policy) does content filtering. May I ask you why is it so
when CIRP seeks to mostly do the same work as OECD's CICCP already
does. If OECD's CICCP is a content filtering committee then maybe
CIRP is also proposed to be one. BTW, OECD last year developed
Internet Policy Principles that seek to provide policy/ normative
cover to private policing of content on the Internet, and so,
perhaps it is a better candidate to be called a content filtering
committee if one simply insists that a broad policy advisory
committee is indeed to be called a content filtering committee. <br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CACAaNxh=dTqvqzWHZxd7oDbQtARYMvFh2thAx3kEhe6-AfWOug@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>discusses the birth of CIRP at some length:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/indiahome/indianews/article-2220692/How-India-helped-bunch-bureaucrats-custodians-Internet.html">http://www.dailymail.co.uk/indiahome/indianews/article-2220692/How-India-helped-bunch-bureaucrats-custodians-Internet.html</a></div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
I really do not know what kind of response do you expect me to give
to an article which is such a mix of facts, untruths and innuendos.
An article which calls CIRP as a content filtering committee, thinks
that the proposal that CIRP should have a working relationship with
the IGF is a deep conspiracy, and considers Brazil and South Africa
as countries India should absolutely never work with, because "
<meta http-equiv="CONTENT-TYPE" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
"Brazil had military dictators
till a few years ago and South Africa had apartheid written into its
law”.
<title></title>
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="LibreOffice 3.5 (Linux)">
<style type="text/css">
<!--
@page { margin: 2cm }
P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm }
A:link { so-language: zxx }
-->
</style>??? . And is further most so very enamoured of "
<meta http-equiv="CONTENT-TYPE" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
'Indo-US goodwill' and 'bilateral
friendship'
<title></title>
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="LibreOffice 3.5 (Linux)">
<style type="text/css">
<!--
@page { margin: 2cm }
P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm }
A:link { so-language: zxx }
-->""</style>" and unwilling to take any criticism of US's role in
global IG. <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CACAaNxh=dTqvqzWHZxd7oDbQtARYMvFh2thAx3kEhe6-AfWOug@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div> </div>
<div>It doesn't sound like there was a whole lot of MSism going
on, at least not the kind of MSism I have witnessed.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Not sure if you are speaking of MSism in developing the proposal, or
MSism vis a vis CIRP itself. However since there are others (Suresh,
Alejandro) who look quite pleased to see the Daily Mail article.
Unpleasant though the task is, I cant but dampen their spirits by
putting some facts about (1) the background of CIRP, and (2) nature
and justification of CIRP, in two separate emails. That a bit later
in the day...<br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CACAaNxh=dTqvqzWHZxd7oDbQtARYMvFh2thAx3kEhe6-AfWOug@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div class="gmail_quote"> </div>
<div><br>
</div>
-- <br>
Cheers,<br>
<br>
McTim<br>
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is.
A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>