<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 13/12/21 10:13 pm, Murali
Shanmugavelan wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAH44=iF--P66GG2iWa2K67_dnPhfZ7Uss-cBXy+v5Z=UzOEgvA@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">"India has a non aligned background..."?!?!?<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>India was a major force in building the nonalignment movement --
that is what 'background' means...</p>
<p>As for the current status, my email amply lays is out, See "...
the deep embeddedness that India has in the US centric
techno-sphere...".</p>
<p>Although it still does -- even if just bec it is a big country
and needs enough independence,-- try 'some degree' of maintaining
independence, or, in other words, a 'diversity of dependences',
like the S 400 missile story tell us... <br>
</p>
<p>parminder</p>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAH44=iF--P66GG2iWa2K67_dnPhfZ7Uss-cBXy+v5Z=UzOEgvA@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<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" moz-do-not-send="true">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" moz-do-not-send="true">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" moz-do-not-send="true">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" moz-do-not-send="true">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" moz-do-not-send="true">Governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>
<a
href="https://lists.igcaucus.org/mailman/listinfo/governance"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.igcaucus.org/mailman/listinfo/governance</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>