[governance] India's second update ..

[Suresh Ramasubramanian]

He also did say in Baku, as I recall, that "the internet and governance were oxymorons, and there was a need for a collaborative, inclusive [etc] process"

Sender pays regimes are present across multiple country submissions, including at least some language I think I noticed that makes them mandatory without the possibility of optout, should a country (or rather, most of the OECD economies) choose to step away from the ITRs and/or refuse to ratify certain sections as amended.

--srs (iPad)

On 05-Dec-2012, at 20:03, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

> 
> On Tuesday 04 December 2012 11:24 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
>> Tis, after minister Sibal held a bunch of multistakeholder consultations, and then blandly said that while there was no time to submit changed documents, India's viewpoints at WCIT would not let the ITU be involved in igov,
> 
> The minister said no such thing. He said that it is certainly not India's intention that ITU gets into content regulation, and if there is any misconception about it coming from the existing language they are ready to amend it to that extent.
> 
> I inter alia suggested at the meeting with the minister that language promoting freedom of expression be proposed for the preamble to the ITRs, and promised to provide such language. The enclosed was submitted to the minister's office a few days back....
> 
> As the enclosed submission suggests, we remain rather concerned that while ENTO like specific proposals will surely not go through, some more cleverly and lightly put language, as we saw in the Indian proposal, that opens the door for a 'sender pays' regime in the future, may still get in.
> 
>  It is our view that the greatest loss coming from the WCIT and new ITRs could such kind of language that is not very specific, but suggests the possibility of a sender pays regime         in the future. It would at least give an anti net neutrality signal to the regulators at the national levels. 
> 
> In order to protect net neutrality, it is not enough for civil society to oppose ETNO proposal. Everyone knows that without regulation, net neutrality cannot survive. It will certainly be violated. Market forces left to themselves will undoubtedly move towards a non net neutral Internet. And therefore the only way to save net neutrality is to get a global agreement on net neutrality as an essential, or at least important, principle. ITRs,, and I quote from the text of the existing ITRs, 
> 'establish general principles which relate to the provision and operation of international telecommunication services'
> 
> Therefore, the ITRs is the right place to get net neutrality, as a key principle of an egalitarian Internet, mentioned as a global norm. Unfortunately, even the civil society did not fight for it - so anxious it has been to keep 'the Internet out of the ITRs'. In having done so they may have given up the case of global net neutrality - something that was recently identified as a key cross     border Internet policy issue by an experts group of the Council of Europe. 
> 
> We did suggest to the Indian delegation to insert pro net neutrality language as below ( instead of the problematic text that is there at present in the Indian position. )
> 
> Member States should endeavour to take measures to ensure that there is no discrimination by network operators vis a vis different sources of content, and the principle of net neutrality, including in terms of global inter-connections, is upheld as far as possible.
> 
> 
> But without any support even from the civil society for such a position we dont see much chance of this text getting in.
> 
> 
> parminder 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> and would support the multistakeholder model
>> 
>> Now we have http://news.dot-nxt.com/itu/wcit/ind/20/2 .. A single paragraph that seems to imply that one government shouldn't ddos the other. 
>> 
>> Sheesh.
>> 
>> --srs (iPad)
> 
> <ITfC's Input for Indian position on ITRs.pdf>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20121205/66a7d3fe/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/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