[governance] India Proposes Government Controlled Internet
McTim
dogwallah at gmail.com
Sat Oct 29 04:13:18 EDT 2011
Parminder,
Is there a link to the actual proposal given to the GA or just text of a speech?
Going by the speech alone, it sure looks like a "takeover" to me, to wit:
ii. Coordinate and oversee the bodies responsible for technical and
> operational functioning of the Internet, including global standards setting;
vi. Undertake arbitration and dispute resolution, where necessary; and,
vii. Crisis management in relation to the Internet.
I've just chosen the top 3, but all of these functions are done by
other bodies, are done quite well and have been done for a long time.
quoting ISOC:
"The Internet model of decentralized architecture and distributed
responsibility for development, operation, and management has been the
catalyst for boundless innovation and creativity. "
I'm one of those people who does not consider that "gaps" in 'social'
public policies re; Internet are sufficient to merit such a draconian
"multilateral" body.
In other words, the remedy is far worse than the illness.
--
Cheers,
McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 1:25 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
> 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.
>
>
>
> 66th 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. Their meetings will be held back-to- back with the
> meetings 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
> Twitter @ConsumersInt
>
> Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless
> necessary.
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>
____________________________________________________________
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
More information about the Governance
mailing list