[bestbits] OPED: Brazil: the New Internet Freedom Champion?
parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Sat Oct 19 07:51:30 EDT 2013
On Friday 18 October 2013 08:48 PM, Chinmayi Arun wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 6:38 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net
> <mailto: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.
In fact, I should apologise... I completely misread your email above.
Just tense in-travel email browsing I suppose... sorry again. parminder
>
>> 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 <mailto: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
>>> <mailto: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 <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/20131019/50558bdf/attachment.htm>
More information about the Bestbits
mailing list