[bestbits] OPED: Brazil: the New Internet Freedom Champion?

[parminder]

On Wednesday 16 October 2013 07:54 PM, Chinmayi Arun wrote:
>
>     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.
>
>
> I could not agree more. Even the much-vilified ITU treaty did not 
> really undermine Internet freedom (Article 1.1 (a) says “These 
> Regulations do not address the content-related aspects of 
> telecommunications”) in the end.
>
> 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. 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),

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.

> I can see why Brazil and India are unwilling to accept do-nothing as 
> the best model.

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.

Best , parminder
>
> 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?
>
> Best,
> Chinmayi
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 7:57 AM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org 
> <mailto:jeremy at ciroap.org>> wrote:
>
>     On 16/10/13 08:49, Eduardo Bertoni wrote:
>>
>>     For instance, if Brazil were to join the Freedom Online Coalition
>>     <http://www.freedomonline.tn/Fr/home_46_4>, 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).
>>
>
>     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.
>
>     -- 
>
>     *Dr Jeremy Malcolm
>     Senior Policy Officer
>     Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers*
>     Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
>     Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala
>     Lumpur, Malaysia
>     Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
>
>     Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement
>     knowledge hub |
>     http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone
>
>     @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org
>     <http://www.consumersinternational.org> |
>     www.facebook.com/consumersinternational
>     <http://www.facebook.com/consumersinternational>
>
>     Read our email confidentiality notice
>     <http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>.
>     Don't print this email unless necessary.
>
>     *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly
>     recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For
>     instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131016/3c6c75ba/attachment.htm>