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

Fri Oct 18 11:18:40 EDT 2013

On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 6:38 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>wrote:

>
> On Friday 18 October 2013 08:45 AM, Chinmayi Arun wrote:
>
>  However, later in your email you say that such an enforcement mechanism
>> is also of no use, because India would not submit to it.... Well, isnt that
>> a somewhat fatalistic attitude to take towards future of global governance
>> of the Internet. What other option there is to try to get such a
>> enforcement mechanism, and try to get all countries to submit to it?
>
>
>  This would have been better done if you had avoided interpreting what I
> am saying, and just quoted me as is your usual custom.
>
>
> Chinmayi, relax, and just argue your positions without getting personal!
>

I thought I was doing exactly that. Apologies if you saw it as getting
personal.

>
>  I believe what I said was: "Although I do like your vision of CIRP as
> something that enables individual citizens, our country's history with
> institutions like the International Criminal Court and the ICCPR Optional
> Protocol I does not really offer much hope that India will ever submit
> itself to a system in which it is accountable to individuals in an
> international human rights forum."
>
>
> There isnt any big interpretative jump from saying that one doesnt see
> much hope in a proposed institutional mechanism, for the specific purpose
> in hand, to be taken to suggest that one doesnt see any use in pursing that
> particular proposal. But if instead you still find such a proposal useful,
> just say it.
>

It is a jump to say that if one sees a particular flaw with a solution, one
is unwilling to discuss it.

Anyway, i think i am bowing out of this thread. Apologies to all our
reluctant spectators. Hope to meet you all soon.

Best,
Chinmayi

>
> parminder
>
>
>
>  I don't think that it was fatalistic or a refusal to discuss this
> further. It is an effort to contribute to the discussion - I think that
> models which rest completely on unrealistic assumptions about what
> governments will do (note that this does not mean that we need to assume
> the opposite) only mean that the models will fail. So discussions of
> international digital rights fora cannot completely ignore the way in which
> the US and India see their sovereignty in other international human
> rights fora.  Having acknowledged this, I am very happy to engage further,
> and look for ways in which governments can be incentivised to consent to
> some accountability, whether through general human rights institutions or
> specialised digital rights institutions.
>
>
>  As far as CIRP is concerned, if we both agree that it was not a digital
> rights enforcement mechanism proposal, I think it is fair for me to say
> that it would not have created immediate accountability of states to
> individuals. Whether it would have inevitably resulted in the creation of a digital
> rights enforcement mechanism is a much longer conversation, that we can
> save for Bali.
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 11:40 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>wrote:
>
>>
>> On Wednesday 16 October 2013 08:52 PM, Chinmayi Arun wrote:
>>
>> Hi Parminder,
>>
>>  Sorry, I should have been clearer - I did not see the UN CIRP as
>> offering much accountability (as far as citizens are concerned) when states
>> commit human rights violations. India has not exactly had the best track
>> record when it comes to making itself accountable before international
>> human rights institutions for its domestic policies (neither incidentally
>> has t
>>
>>
>>  Chinmayi,
>>
>> A digital rights court or some other rights enforcement mechanism is
>> completely at another level than having an anchor agency in the UN system
>> which can take up IG related issues, which alone CIRP was really supposed
>> to be. In any case, to set up such a digital rights enforcement mechanism
>> will need some kind of a prior international agreement that, in the first
>> place, needs an IG related anchor space in the UN system . .... So, even if
>> you want a digital rights enforcement mechanism - which as you rightly
>> observe, I too have sought - then a CIRP kind of body can only enable it...
>> It doesnt go against such a mechanise. If you want such enforcement
>> mechanism in addition to a CIRP like space, then you put that demand as a
>> CIRP plus one..... which is entirely fine with me.
>>
>> However, later in your email you say that such an enforcement mechanism
>> is also of no use, because India would not submit to it.... Well, isnt that
>> a somewhat fatalistic attitude to take towards future of global governance
>> of the Internet. What other option there is to try to get such a
>> enforcement mechanism, and try to get all countries to submit to it? Other
>> than perhaps to accept US as the global policemen, a role which it often
>> arrogates to itself, wherever possible. There must be some direction that
>> is the right one for us to go towards, however difficult the path may be.
>>
>>
>>  he US). One must bear in mind that domestic surveillance systems are
>> being built in India and that there has been quite a lot of resistance to
>> government transparency when it comes to blocking or interception
>>
>>
>>  Yes, it has to resisted and fought in every way possible. An
>> international regime - starting from a soft one towards increasingly harder
>> ones - as we progress civilisationally - can only help that. On the other
>> hand, I cant see how such a regime can hurt.
>>
>>
>>  (it is in this context that the US activities are sometimes offered as
>> justification for domestic policy).
>>
>>
>>  I cant see what is the basis of such a justification... But people can
>> say whatever they want, and we cant stop it.
>>
>>
>> parminder
>>
>>   I do not therefore see the UN CIRP proposal in the same light as President
>> Rousseff's proposal which does seem to be a call for states to be
>> accountable to individuals.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>  I do not think that our political system offers much recourse to
>> surveillance at the moment either - you can hardly challenge a surveillance
>> order if you never find out about it.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>  Although I do like your vision of CIRP as something that enables
>> individual citizens, our country's history with institutions like the
>> International Criminal Court and the ICCPR Optional Protocol I does not
>> really offer much hope that India will ever submit itself to a system in
>> which it is accountable to individuals in an international human rights
>> forum.
>>
>>  See you at the IGF :)
>> Chinmayi
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>  On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 8:32 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> 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>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 |
>>>> 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/20131018/16c9b678/attachment.htm>