[governance] India Proposes Government Controlled Internet

[parminder]

Kieren's MacCarthy's is a typical North biased IG report. One wonders 
how this kind of thing passes off as news and journalism, as one also 
notes the unfortunate situation where the hegemonic Northern models get 
so easily supported and touted through the availability of all kind of 
resources - including 'journalistic', and anything from the South as 
easily and quickly damned, with no one to give an unbiased presentation 
and analysis of.

I am cut pasting the full statement by India at the end of this email 
for easy reference (and also enclosing it).

BTW, do note that

1) The Internet public policy making model that has been suggested is 
almost *an exact replica* of OECD's Internet public policy making 
system. So, while people comment on this proposal, it will be nice to 
us, from developing countries, also to put in a few words on how do they 
see the OECD's Internet policy model which is as inter-gov or 
multi-stakeholder as the one proposed by India. In fact, in India's 
proposed model there is a complete section on the IGF's relation to the 
proposed new body whereby the later is expressly mandated to take note 
of inputs from the IGF. (No corresponding structure/ system exists in 
the case of OECD, which makes this proposed global system more 
multistakeholder that OECD's system, which, incidentally, makes much of 
default global Internet related public policies at present.)

2) An 'multistakeholder environment', to employ Wolfgang's concept, 
which will contribute to policy making is prominently stressed in many 
places, and also given a clear 'body' through specific 
structures/bodies, and a description of the nature of their work.

3) I know the basic problem remains. Most people here think technical 
policy - ICANN, IETF et all - ONLY, when such a proposal is mentioned. 
However, to any neutral reader it should be very clear that the main 
thrust of the proposal is about the 'social' public policies of the kind 
OECD. CoE etc makes and not the ICANN, IETF etc. (I know this will fall 
on deaf ears :) )

4) Unlike as reported by Keiren, there is no attempt or desire to fold 
up the distributed global technical policy making system into one body, 
in any way. However one can be sure that 90 % or more of the 'press' and 
comments this proposal will get will be about the technical policy 
making system, and how it is sought to be unified into one body under 
the UN. I see in India's proposal much attempt to anticipate and address 
this wrong notion, but such is the power of the dominant discourse that 
I dont expect them to succeed. I have never EVER heard anyone in the 
India's establishment expressing any desire to make changes to the basic 
Internet's technical policy system, other than the oversight element 
(and a very thin oversight at that, as at present).

5) What is attempted in the case of existing global technical policy 
making system is to ask for the kind of oversight levers that are with 
the US government at present to be shifted to a more democratic body. 
This is an article of faith for developing countries, and we hope for 
anyone with any belief in global democracy, and is a known and 
consistent position of developing countries (notwithstanding the 
neo-colonial, 'US control is fine' kind of, views that we read on this 
list in the recent IANA related discussion.) The precise means by which 
the US oversight over key Internet technical nodes is democratised is 
something that I understand India and other developing countries are 
ready to discuss different views on, as long as the basic principal of 
untenability of US's unilateral control is accepted.

6) In any case India's proposal says they are ready to listen to others 
views. In fact, the present proposal, in my understanding, seems quite 
informed of the inputs that the Rio recs received (while of course India 
cannot be paying much heed to the kind of inputs whose basic thrust is; 
you guys just shut up; let the rich and wise countries keep telling you 
what is right and wrong about the Internet).

Even now, those who have problems with the India's proposed model must 
come up with what is the alternative Internet policy making model (for 
both 'OECD/CoE kind' social/ public policies and the oversight of the 
existing tech policy system, which distributed system no one wants to 
disturb). Then alone shall the criticism be credible. Otherwise it is 
just a very round about way of saying that the status quo is fine. It is 
not fine for us in developing countries. In fact it is not fine for any 
progressive force throughout the world.

Parminder

Text of the statement delivered on 26 October 2011 afternoon by Hon'ble 
Dushyant Singh, Member of Parliament, in the Second Committee under 
agendas item 16: ICT for Development on India's proposal for Global 
Internet Governance is forwarded herewith, for information and record.

*66^th session of** **the UN General Assembly*

*Agenda item 16: Information and Communications*

*Technologies for Development (ICT): Global Internet Governance*

*_Statement by India_*

Mr. Chairman,

We thank the Secretary-General for his report on enhanced cooperation on 
public policy issues pertaining to the Internet, contained in document 
A/66/77, which provides a useful introduction to the discussions under 
this agenda item.

As a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural and democratic society with an open 
economy and an abiding culture of pluralism, India emphasizes the 
importance that we attach to the strengthening of the Internet as a 
vehicle for openness,   democracy, freedom of expression, human rights, 
diversity, inclusiveness, creativity, free and unhindered access to 
information and knowledge, global connectivity, innovation and 
socio-economic growth.

We believe that the governance of such an unprecedented global medium 
that embodies the values of democracy, pluralism, inclusion, openness 
and transparency should also be similarly inclusive, democratic, 
participatory, multilateral and transparent in nature.

Indeed, this was already recognized and mandated by the Tunis Agenda in 
2005, as reflected in paragraphs 34, 35, 56, 58, 59, 60, 61 and 69 of 
the Agenda. Regrettably, in the six long years that have gone by, no 
substantial initiative has been taken by the global community to give 
effect to this mandate.

Meanwhile, the internet has grown exponentially in its reach and scope, 
throwing up several new and rapidly emerging challenges in the area of 
global internet governance that continue to remain inadequately 
addressed.  It is becoming increasingly evident that the Internet as a 
rapidly-evolving and inherently global medium, needs quick-footed and 
timely global solutions and policies, not divergent and fragmented 
national policies.

The range and criticality of these pressing global digital issues that 
continue to remain unaddressed, are growing rapidly with each passing 
day.  It is, therefore, urgent and imperative that a multilateral, 
democratic participative and transparent global policy-making mechanism 
be urgently instituted, as mandated by the Tunis Agenda under the 
process of ‘Enhanced Co-operation’, to enable coherent and integrated 
global policy-making on all aspects of global Internet governance.

Operationalizing the Tunis mandate in this regard should not be viewed 
as an attempt by governments to “take over” or “regulate and 
circumscribe” the internet. Indeed, any such misguided attempt would be 
antithetical not only to the internet, but also to human welfare. As a 
democratic and open society that has historically welcomed outside 
influences and believes in openness to all views and ideas and is wedded 
to free dialogue, pluralism and diversity, India attaches great 
importance to the preservation of the Internet as an unrestricted, open 
and free global medium that flourishes through private innovation and 
individual creativity and serves as a vehicle for open communication, 
access to culture, knowledge, democratization and development.

India recognizes the role played by various actors and stakeholders in 
the development and continued enrichment of the internet, and is firmly 
committed to multi-stakeholderism in internet governance, both at the 
national and global level.  India believes that global internet 
governance can only be functional, effective and credible if all 
relevant stake-holders contribute to, and are consulted in, the process.

Bearing in mind the need for a transparent, democratic, and multilateral 
mechanism that enables all stakeholders to participate in their 
respective roles, to address the many cross-cutting international public 
policy issues that require attention and are not adequately addressed by 
current mechanisms and the need for enhanced cooperation to enable 
governments, on an equal footing, to carry out their roles and 
responsibilities in international public policy issues pertaining to the 
Internet, India proposes the establishment of a new institutional 
mechanism in the United Nations for global internet-related policies, to 
be called the United Nations Committee for Internet-Related Policies 
(CIRP).  The intent behind proposing a multilateral and 
multi-stakeholder mechanism is not to “control the internet’’ or allow 
Governments to have the last word in regulating the internet, but to 
make sure that the Internet is governed not unilaterally, but in an 
open, democratic, inclusive and participatory manner, with the 
participation of all stakeholders, so as to evolve universally 
acceptable, and globally harmonized policies in important areas and pave 
the way for a credible, constantly evolving, stable and well-functioning 
Internet that plays its due role in improving the quality of peoples’ 
lives everywhere.

The CIRP shall be mandated to undertake the following tasks:

i. Develop and establish international public policies with a view to 
ensuring coordination and coherence in cross-cutting Internet-related 
global issues;

ii. Coordinate and oversee the bodies responsible for technical and 
operational functioning of the Internet, including global standards 
setting;

iii. Facilitate negotiation of treaties, conventions and agreements on 
Internet-related public policies;

iv. Address developmental issues related to the internet;

v. Promote the promotion and protection of all human rights, namely, 
civil, political, social, economic and cultural rights, including the 
Right to Development;

vi. Undertake arbitration and dispute resolution, where necessary; and,

vii. Crisis management in relation to the Internet.

The main features of CIRP are provided in the annex to this statement. 
In brief, the CIRP will comprise 50 Member States chosen on the basis of 
equitable geographical representation, and will meet annually for two 
working weeks in Geneva. It will ensure the participation of all 
relevant stakeholders by establishing four Advisory Groups, one each for 
civil society, the private sector, inter-governmental and international 
organizations, and the technical and academic community.  The Advisory 
Groups will provide their inputs and recommendations to the CIRP.  The 
meetings of CIRP and the advisory groups will be serviced by the UNCTAD 
Secretariat that also services the meetings of the Commission on Science 
and Technology for Development.  The Internet Governance Forum will 
provide inputs to CIRP in the spirit of complementarity between the 
two.    CIRP will report directly to the General Assembly and present 
recommendations for consideration, adoption and dissemination among all 
relevant inter-governmental bodies and international organizations.  
CIRP will be supported by the regular budget of the United Nations; a 
separate Fund would be set up by drawing from the domain registration 
fees collected by various bodies, in order to mainly finance the 
Research Wing to be established by CIRP to support its activities*. *

Those familiar with the discourse on global internet governance since 
the beginning of the WSIS process at the turn of the millennium, will 
recognize that neither the mandated tasks of the CIRP, nor its proposed 
modalities, are new.  The Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) 
set up by the UN Secretary- General had explicitly recognized the 
institutional gaps in global internet governance and had proposed four 
institutional models in its report to the UN General Assembly in 2005.  
The contours of the CIRP, as proposed above, reflect the common elements 
in the four WGIG institutional models.  While the excellent report of 
the WGIG was much discussed and deliberated in 2005, unfortunately, no 
concrete follow-up action was taken to give effect to its 
recommendations on the institutional front.  We hope that this anomaly 
will be redressed at least six years later, with the timely 
establishment of the CIRP.

In order to operationalize this proposal, India calls for the 
establishment of an open-ended working group under the Commission on 
Science and Technology for Development for drawing up the detailed terms 
of reference for CIRP, with a view to actualizing it within the next 18 
months. We are open to the views and suggestions of all Member States, 
and stand ready to work with other delegations to carry forward this 
proposal, and thus seek to fill the serious gap in the implementation of 
the Tunis Agenda, by providing substance and content to the concept of 
Enhanced Co-operation enshrined in the Tunis Agenda.

                                         Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                                                              ***

*_ _**_Annex _*

*_The United Nations Committee for Internet-Related Policies (CIRP)_*

The United Nations Committee for Internet-Related Policies (CIRP) will 
have the following features:

*Membership: * The CIRP will consist of 50 Member States of the United 
Nations, chosen/elected on the basis of equitable geographical 
representation. It will provide for equitable representation of all UN 
Member States, in accordance with established UN principles and 
practices.   It will have a Bureau consisting of one Chair, three 
Vice-Chairs and a Rapporteur.

*Meetings: * The CIRP will meet annually for two working weeks in 
Geneva, preferably in May/June, and convene additional meetings, as and 
when required.* * The UNCTAD Secretariat will provide substantive and 
logistical support to the CIRP by servicing these meetings.

*Multi-stakeholder participation:*  Recognizing the need to involve all 
stakeholders in Global Internet Governance in their respective roles, 
the CIRP shall ensure the participation of all stakeholders recognized 
in the Tunis Agenda.  Four* **Advisory Groups* – one each for Civil 
Society, the Private Sector, Inter-Governmental and International 
Organisations*,* and the Technical and Academic Community - will be 
established, to assist and advise the CIRP.  These Groups would be 
self-organized, as per agreed principles, to ensure transparency, 
representativity and inclusiveness. The Advisory Groups will meet 
annually in Geneva and in conjunction with any additional meetings of 
the CIRP*. T*heir meetings will be held back-to- back with the 
meeting*s* of the CIRP, so that they are able to provide their inputs 
and recommendations in a timely manner, to the CIRP.

*Reporting*: The CIRP will report directly to the UN General Assembly 
annually, on its meetings and present recommendations in the areas of 
policy and implementation for consideration, adoption and dissemination 
to all relevant inter-governmental bodies and international organizations. .

*Research Wing:* The Internet is a rapidly-evolving and dynamic medium 
that throws up urgent and rapidly-evolving challenges that need timely 
solutions*.* In order to deal effectively and prudently with these 
emerging issues in a timely manner, it would be vital to have a 
well-resourced Research Wing attached to the CIRP to provide ready and 
comprehensive background material, analysis and inputs to the CIRP, as 
required.

*Links with the IGF: * Recognizing the value of the Internet Governance 
Forum as an open, unique forum for multi-stakeholder policy dialogue on 
Internet issues, the deliberations in the IGF along with any inputs, 
background information and analysis it may provide, will be taken as 
inputs for consideration of the CIRP.  An improved and strengthened IGF 
that can serve as a purposeful body for policy consultations and provide 
meaningful policy inputs to the CIRP, will ensure a stronger and more 
effective complementarity between the CIRP and the IGF.

*Budget:*  Like other UN bodies, the CIRP should be supported by the 
regular budget of the United Nations. In addition, keeping in view its 
unique multi-stakeholder format for inclusive participation, and the 
need for a well-resourced Research Wing and regular meetings, a separate 
Fund should also be set up drawing from the domain registration fees 
collected by various bodies involved in the technical functioning of the 
Internet, especially in terms of names and addresses.

***

*_Excerpts from the Tunis Agenda_*

*Paragraph 34* of the Tunis Agenda defines Internet Governance as/ 
//“the// //development and application by governments, the private 
sector and civil society, in their respective roles, of shared 
principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and programmes 
that shape the evolution and use of the Internet”./

*Paragraph 35* reaffirms the respective roles of stakeholders as 
follows:/ //“(a) Policy authority for Internet-related public policy 
issues is the sovereign right of States. They have rights and 
responsibilities for international Internet-related public policy 
issues”. (b) The private sector has had, and should continue to have, an 
important role in the development of the Internet, both in the technical 
an economic fields. (c) Civil society has also played an important role 
on Internet matters, especially at community level,// //and should 
continue to play such a role. (d) Intergovernmental organizations have 
had, and should continue to have, a facilitating role in the 
coordination of Internet-related public policy issues. (e) International 
organizations have also had and should continue to have an important 
role in the development of Internet-related technical standards and 
relevant policies.”/

While delineating the respective roles of stakeholders,* **Paragraph 56* 
recognizes the need for an inclusive, multi-stakeholder approach by 
affirming that/ //“The Internet remains a highly dynamic medium and 
therefore any framework and mechanisms designed to deal with Internet 
governance should be inclusive and responsive to the exponential growth 
and fast evolution of the Internet as a common platform for the 
development of multiple applications”./

*Paragraph 58* recognizes/ //“that Internet governance includes more 
than Internet naming and addressing. It also includes other significant 
public policy issues such as, inter alia, critical Internet resources, 
the security and safety of the Internet, and developmental aspects and 
issues pertaining to the use of the Internet”. /* *

*Paragraph 59* further recognizes that/ “Internet governance includes 
social, economic and technical issues including affordability, 
reliability and quality of service”. /* **Paragraph 60* further 
recognizes that/ //“there are many cross-cutting international public 
policy issues that require attention and are not adequately addressed by 
the current mechanisms”./

*Paragraph 61* of the Tunis Agenda therefore concludes that/ //“_We are 
convinced that there is a need to initiate, and reinforce, as 
appropriate, a transparent, democratic, and multilateral process, with 
the participation of governments, private sector, civil society and 
international organisations, in their respective roles.  This process 
could envisage creation of a suitable framework or mechanisms, where 
justified, thus spurring the ongoing and active evolution of the current 
arrangements in order to synergize the efforts in this regard”._/

*Paragraph 69* further recognizes/ //“the need for enhanced cooperation 
in the future, to enable governments, on an equal footing, to carry out 
their roles and responsibilities, in international public policy issues 
pertaining to the Internet, but not in the day-to-day technical and 
operational matters, that do not impact on international public policy 
issues”./

/***/

On Friday 28 October 2011 11:45 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> On 28/10/11 13:17, Sivasubramanian M wrote:
>> This is from Kieren MacCarthy's article:
>
> Better to go to the source, for more details and less hyperbole - such 
> as the fact that India is requesting a working group of the CSTD to 
> draw up the detailed terms of the proposed new body.  If Brazil and 
> South Africa do come on board, then this is exactly what we have been 
> waiting to respond to in depth.  Rather than simply issuing shrill 
> cries about "the UN taking over the Internet", and whether we 
> ultimately decide to oppose this proposal outright or to engage with 
> and improve it, we will need to contribute constructively through this 
> (hopefully multi-stakeholder) CSTD working group, always bearing in 
> mind that the alternative is the status quo.
>
> See http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2011/gaef3319.doc.htm.
>
> -- 
>
> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm
> Project Coordinator*
> Consumers International
> Kuala Lumpur 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
>
> Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer 
> groups that, working together with its members, serves as the only 
> independent and authoritative global voice for consumers. With over 
> 220 member organisations in 115 countries, we are building a powerful 
> international movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere.
> _www.consumersinternational.org <http://www.consumersinternational.org/>_
> _Twitter @ConsumersInt <http://twitter.com/Consumers_Int>_
>
> Read our email confidentiality notice 
> <http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>. Don't 
> print this email unless necessary.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20111028/5ef07d89/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: India EC st to UN 1011.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 246143 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20111028/5ef07d89/attachment.pdf>
-------------- 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