<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr">"India has a non aligned background..."?!?!?<br></div><div><br></div><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sat, 11 Dec 2021 at 14:16, parminder via Governance <<a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org" target="_blank">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<p>Dear Wolfgang,</p>
<p>Thanks for the quotes about the Putin -- Modi meeting. Indeed in
most mainstream coverage in India the ICT side hardly got
mentioned. They were the less important part of the summit. <br>
</p>
<p>I am not sure what kind of comments you are looking for from me.
<br>
</p>
<p>India has a non aligned background and it is normal for such a
large country like India to hedge its bets and not get caught in
one geo-techno-enclosure or the other, in the old cold war like
sense, but now with digital tech dependencies which are even
deeper, stronger and largely irreversible. It therefore makes
complete sense that India is exploring ICT relationships with
Russia, to<i> inter alia</i> diversify from the deep embeddedness
that India has in the US centric techno-sphere. Do you disapprove
of it? See my article of a few years back <a href="https://www.hindustantimes.com/analysis/india-should-aim-for-a-digital-non-alignment/story-ViT3PTiuo5j6dKUvt94YpO.html" target="_blank">India
should aim for digital non alignment </a><br>
</p>
<p>BTW, one of the key current issues in India-Russia relationship
(also highlighted around the summit) is that India is buying S
400 missiles from Russia, despite strong warnings from the US that
this may lead to India being excluded from US military supplies. <br>
</p>
<p>Perhaps that would put in good perspective Russia-India techno
relationships that seem to so rent your mind.</p>
<p>From your quoted text, you seem to have issues or questions about
Russia and India deciding to work together on the proposed UN
cyber crime treaty... <br>
</p>
<p>Do you think there should NOT be any such UN treaty?</p>
<p>Does that mean countries should rather sign on Europe's Budapest
Convention on Cybercrime, or wait for new ones to come from OECD's
CDEP (committee on digital economy policy) or from the CoE? You
know why India and other countries refuse to sign on the Budapest
Convention -- actually they find nothing wrong with its substance,
but they refuse to be governed by rules that they were not a part
of developing... Makes any democratic sense to you?</p>
<p>If not Budapest Convention, what is the option .. The world stay
without a cyber crime framework? Why should not all countries sit
together to make a cyber crime convention? Happy to hear your
reasons either way. <br>
</p>
<p>About multistakeholder participation in such a UN cyber crime
convention, which seems to be one major concern of yours:</p>
<p>I have been arguing long for a horizontal UN digital policy body,
with the SAME multistakeholder participation model as OECD's CDEP
(and of CoE where the Budapest Convention was made) ... If we had
that UN body , we could have employed its structure for MS
participation for developing the proposed UN convention on cyber
crime ... But, THE PROBLEM IS, you have consistently opposed it,
including as part of the UN WG on enhanced cooperation which had
the precise mandate to develop institutional structures for UN
based digital policy making. We both were members of that WG and
we know what went on there, right. How developing countries
proposed the exact same OECD model for UN level digital policy
making -- along with all its MS components/ characteristics -- <abbr>AND
YOU ALL TURNED IT DOWN</abbr><abbr></abbr>. Am I making any
mis-statement here? Happy to be corrected in that case. <br>
</p>
<p>So, perhaps now it is your turn to answer some questions:</p>
<p>1. Do you think that there should be no UN cyber crime
convention, and all non Europeans too should simply sign Europe's
Budapest Convention, and further wait for more cyber governance
frameworks from OECD's CDEP, or CoE's digital policy mechanisms?</p>
<p>2. Why and how you call OECD's CDEP and CoE's digital policy
making processes as multistakeholder, and those are acceptable to
you, but the EXACT SAME model at the UN becomes multi-lateral and
NOT multistakeholder - -and, apparently for that reason, not
acceptable to you ? <br>
</p>
<p>thanks and look forward to your responses</p>
<p>parminder <br>
</p>
<p>PS: You raise concerns about India-Russia parleys and digital
rights issues (internet shutdowns). Last year India signed this
with US led five eyes against eend-to-end encryption
<a href="https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/international-statement-end-end-encryption-and-public-safety" target="_blank">https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/international-statement-end-end-encryption-and-public-safety</a>
.. Just seeking a better balance of geo-political concerns from
you. <br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<div>On 08/12/21 4:46 pm, Wolfgang
Kleinwächter wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div> Wolfgang: </div>
<div> Is the Putin/Modi Summit related to
the Indian Internet Shutdowns? </div>
<div>
<p>Parminder:</p>
<p>I have seen and heard of no connection of that kind. In any
case, nations nowadays need no external assistance to control
their respective Internets. As for foreign alliances, if
anything India is certainly bending much more towards US led
alliances, that claim some western values of democracy, HR,
etc ( all of which is of course a lot of BS, and simply good
old-fashioned geopolitics and geo- economics under new garbs
-- one significant manifestation and result of which kind of
geo-politics/ geoeconomics is neo-colonisation) .. <br>
</p>
<div> <br>
</div>
<div> Wolfgang: <br>
</div>
<div> As I can see, Internet Governance
(cybersecurity and digital economny) was part of the
discussions. </div>
<div> <br>
</div>
<div> This is from the Putin-Modi Meeting:
"The Sides appreciated close cooperation in the field of
security in the use of Information and Communication
Technologies (ICT) through inter-agency cooperation under
bilateral mechanisms and at multilateral platforms. They
highlighted the leading role of the United Nations in the
decision-making process on security in the use of ICTs. The
Sides also recognized the need for further work on rules,
norms and principles of responsible behavior of State aimed at
preventing conflicts and promoting peaceful use of ICTs. The
Sides reaffirmed the importance of international cooperation
against criminal use of ICTs and in this regard they welcome
the establishment of an open- ended Ad hoc intergovernmental
committee of experts to elaborate a comprehensive
international convention on countering the use of ICTs for
criminal purposes as stipulated in the UN GA resolutions
74/247 and 75/282." ... "The Sides intend to focus
particularly on increasing the effectiveness of countering
terrorism, extremism, drug trafficking, cross-border organized
crime, and information security threats," ... "The Sides
agreed that safeguarding of global commons including our
oceans, outer space and information space should be based on
the principles of transparency, accessibility and upholding
international law." </div>
<div> <br>
</div>
<div> And they discussed also digital
economy: " The Sides also agreed to facilitate collaboration
between government and private sector organizations to find
ways of joint development of software products, platforms and
services as well as in the area of electronics manufacturing.
The Sides confirmed their interest in further developing
cooperation in the sphere of digital technologies, including
those related to information protection, security of critical
infrastructure and law enforcement." <br>
</div>
<div> <br>
</div>
<div> Any comment? BTW, no references to
civil society or a multistakeholder approach. <br>
</div>
<div> <br>
</div>
<div> see: <a href="http://en.kremlin.ru/supplement/5745" target="_blank">http://en.kremlin.ru/supplement/5745</a>
<br>
</div>
<div> <br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
-- <br>
Governance mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Governance@lists.igcaucus.org" target="_blank">Governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.igcaucus.org/mailman/listinfo/governance" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.igcaucus.org/mailman/listinfo/governance</a><br>
</blockquote></div></div>