[governance] Fwd: [At-Large] India proposes Government controlled Internet

Tue Nov 1 04:38:31 EDT 2011

Hello,

On this topic, there is a discussion on the At-Large list which I wish to
cross-post here :

Sivasubramanian M

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn at gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 11:39 PM
Subject: Re: [At-Large] India proposes Government controlled Internet
To: At-Large Worldwide <at-large at atlarge-lists.icann.org>

Dear Bill Drake,

The CIRP proposal is from the Government of India, not from India. It is a
proposal which has not been drafted transparently nor after due
consultations and does not reflect the will of the people of India.  I am
not aware of a call for inputs or even a call for comments to the Business
Community or to the Civil Society. If there is any claim of inclusion of
the Business Community that I am not aware of, it could not possibly have
been wide enough and the opinions might not be representative of the
different sectors of Business, small, medium and large. And as a practice,
if Civil Society is ever included, it is no more than a handful of
convenient participants.  The most influential of India's Political leaders
and Administrators in Power at the moment do not appear not to be in a mood
to include the Civil Society :) . On matters related to Internet
Governance, the Civil Society, and to a large extent, the Business Sector
in India do not know what is happening.

Earlier, India's proposal for IGF improvements showed some commitment for
the multi-stakeholder model, though on deeper examination, one can see a
strong multilateral undertone, especially in Point 9.

The IBSA proposal went one step further, it completely dropped all
references to the multi-stakeholder model.

Now we have the CIRP proposal from India, taken to the UN. A proposal of
this magnitude, that affects the lives of people of the whole world for the
next century or two requires ample consultation in a transparent manner,
with wide participation of the Business Community and the Civil Society.
Had there been fair consultation with neutral information, a proposal of
this nature would have been "Dead on Origin".

Personally, I totally disagree with the idea of the CIRP proposal, even on
the face of the prospects of being repeatedly reminded that I am an Indian
first. Am I supposed to stand by and watch a shortsighted and ill-advised
proposal jeopardize the civil liberties of all the people of the World,
merely because the proposal has been introduced as a proposal from India?

We may not have Brazil-like receptiveness for some more time, but we try...
I will gather opinions, for and against, and send an email to our
Government.

Thank you.
Sivasubramanian M

On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 4:48 PM, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch> wrote:

> Hi Siva
>
> If I may be allowed a brief intervention from the NC-ALAC liaison peanut
> gallery: As you know, some of us are having heated debates on this on the
> governance list and did in Nairobi as well.  One aspect that hasn't gotten
> much attention in these contexts is whether the Indian government undertook
> domestic level consultations with relevant business, technical community,
> and civil society actors.  In Nairobi I asked several Indians, including
> the delegation from Tata, whether they had any idea what their government
> was advocating in their name, and the answer was no.  So one really helpful
> step you could take here is to get the word out nationally and see whether
> any sort of shared position either way can be stated.  You may recall that
> amidst the Nairobi debates some Brazilian CS people came out against what
> their government was doing in IBSA, and this had a significant effect in
> softening the Brazilian position, which resulted in an Indian rather than
> an IBSA proposal to the UNGA.
>
> Just a thought,
>
> Bill
>
> On Oct 28, 2011, at 12:15 PM, Sivasubramanian M wrote:
>
> > Dear Carlton
> >
> >
> > Thank you. It would be of ample help if there are more opinions on this
> > development, especially by those from developing countries.
> >
> > This is what I wrote to our Government earlier on the IBSA proposal:
> >
> > --- begin quote from what I wrote earlier --- The proposal to "establish
> a
> > new Global body "located within the UN system", "tasked to develop ...
> > policies" and to "oversee bodies responsible for the technical and
> > operational functioning of the Internet including standards setting",
> > "undertake arbitration and dispute resolution" and "be responsible for
> > crisis management" is a proposal to offer the Internet bundled with the
> IETF
> > to the ITU or an ITU-controlled or an ITU-friendly new global body within
> > the UN system where ITU is comfortable. It is perhaps with these
> > apprehensions that the draft has been criticized as "unimaginative,
> > backward-looking, and authoritarian and ... very destructive" and has
> > generated a loud discussion among Civil Society participants. --- end of
> > quote
> >
> >
> > Sivasubramanian M
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 3:24 PM, Carlton Samuels
> > <carlton.samuels at gmail.com>wrote:
> >
> >> Thanks for sharing, Siva.   Helluva thing to be the canary in the mine.
> >>
> >> Carlton
> >>
> >> ==============================
> >> Carlton A Samuels
> >> Mobile: 876-818-1799
> >> *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
> >> =============================
> >>
> >>
> >> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 4:21 AM, Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn at gmail.com
> >>> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hello,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> http://news.dot-nxt.com/2011/10/27/india-proposes-government-control-internet
> >>>
> >>> This is from Kieren MacCarthy's article:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> "In a statement<
> >>> http://news.dot-nxt.com/2011/10/27/un-ga-india-cirp-proposal> sent
> >>>> yesterday, India argued for the creation of a new body to be called
> the
> >>>> United Nations Committee for Internet-Related Policies (CIRP) which
> >> would
> >>>> develop Internet policies, oversee all Internet standards bodies and
> >>> policy
> >>>> organizations, negotiate Internet-related treaties, and act as an
> >>> arbitrator
> >>>> in Internet-related disputes.
> >>>> The CIRP would exist under the United Nations, comprise of 50 Member
> >>>> States, be funded by the United Nations, run by staff from the UN’s
> >>>> Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) arm, and report directly
> >> to
> >>> the
> >>>> UN General Assembly."
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> #  And the Government spokesperson argued that this “should not be
> viewed
> >>> as
> >>> an attempt by governments to ‘take over’ or ‘regulate and circumscribe’
> >> the
> >>> Internet.” !!
> >>>
> >>> #  The IBSA proposal was badly criticized by the Civil Society in the
> >> lists
> >>> and at the Nairobi Internet Governance Forum, it appeared that India
> >> wasn't
> >>> the prime contributor to that imaginative proposal, but those of us who
> >>> believed that India couldn't have proposed or fully endorsed the first
> >> IBSA
> >>> proposal --- we were wrong.
> >>>
> >>> Sivasubramanian M
> >>> ISOC India Chennai
> >>> http://isocindiachennai.org
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> At-Large mailing list
> >>> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> >>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
> >>>
> >>> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> At-Large mailing list
> >> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> >> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
> >>
> >> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > At-Large mailing list
> > At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
> >
> > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> At-Large mailing list
> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
>
> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20111101/95635276/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t