AW: [governance] Twitter officially shutdown to Internet users in Pakistan

Mon May 21 04:31:48 EDT 2012

Just FYI:

When we disucssed access to documents for the forthcoming ITU-WCIT conference in Dubai in December 2012 during the recent WSIS Forum, the governmental representative of the United Arab Emirates argued that there is no need that Civil Society people have access to those documents. They are represented by their national governments. At least the UAE represent "their people" he said and he hopes that also other governments represent "their people". Good to know.

I would be interested how the "Emirates Identity Authority", which distributed in Geneva a 200 page publication advertising its "ID Card" project, which has fingerprints and other biometric individual data, included the local civil society organisations in developing the policy for the ID card. The UAE ID Card is obviously a great project which represents - as the authority says - the highest standard in the world. When I was searching for provisions for individual data protection I was unable to find even the word "data protection" or "privacy" in the 200 page report. I would be indeed interested to find out how the UAE governmental representative, who claimed to represent his people, has consulted the individuals who will get the ID card, in the PDP and decision making process for the making of the ID card. 

http://www.eida.gov.ae/en/home.aspx

Wolfgang

________________________________

Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von William Drake
Gesendet: Mo 21.05.2012 09:38
An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder
Betreff: Re: [governance] Twitter officially shutdown to Internet users in Pakistan

Hi Parminder

On May 20, 2012, at 6:03 PM, parminder wrote:

	  Bill, I too missed what exactly you are pointing to...

	However, since you are parodying the statement issued by IT for Change 

Parodying?  I quoted from the doc.

	and others (and supported by  66 organisations and 117 other individuals), apropos Michael's email, I must  direct your attention to the fact that the statement seeks such a global Internet body to act primarily on the basis of human rights.

Sure, I know you have a strong human rights orientation, even if the sentence on CIR doesn't actually specify that.  But I don't believe that's what most of the governments supporting multilateral "oversight" are looking for or would agree to.  If one of them raises the point at tomorrow's CSTD meeting, why don't you ask them, that could be illuminating...

	Incidentally, even India's CIRP proposal, among its 7 listed functions has the following function: promotion and protection of all human rights, namely, civil, political, social, economic and cultural rights, including the Right to Development; 

Sure. BTW, since you've been working closely with the government on this, you must have info the rest of us lack.  Could you clarify what India's current stance is viz. the CIRP proposal?  I wanted to ask Mr. Govind but didn't get a chance.  He was quoted in the press as saying they'd dropped it as "not well thought out;" is that accurate?  My notes say the Indian statement Friday was that CIRP was a response to the Tunis Agenda but India wants to be pragmatic and flexible, have a debate without a fixed outcome, and favors a WG on EC, which is different.  So are they still supporting the proposal, or no?  Have any other governments ever expressed support for it?

	We all do know that governments do all kinds of things, do we therefore then refuse to agree to constitute them at all, and certainly refuse to vote.... Do you take and practise such an anarchic view with respect to your own national politics. If not, why so? One can easily construct many such parodies vis a vis the US government,and what it implies to vote in any government at all for governing the US.

Anarchic?  You're confusing me with Avri, maybe...?

	Why do such anarchic dispositions rise up only when global politics is concerned. Is it a fear by the rich parts of the world of having to share the undue benefits and advantages that they may be sitting on? 

The rich parts of the world (a couple billion people) aren't a singular actor with a singular preference for anarchy (?), but it's fair to say one doesn't hear many expressions of support from there for multilateral oversight of CIR.  I don't believe the reasons for this can be fairly reduced to fear of sharing undue benefits and advantages, or that's it's obvious what that might mean in this context.  

See you tomorrow,

Bill

	On Sunday 20 May 2012 08:33 PM, michael gurstein wrote: 

		Quite honestly Bill, the actual meaning/logic of your (I think meant to be)
		ironic comment escapes me (I read it four times and it still escapes me...

		(and by my reckoning had either or both of Iran and Pakistan signed on to
		some global treaty about Internet Rights/rights on the Internet (or
		something similar) it would I'm assuming, be even a wee bit more difficult
		for the respectie governments to act in this high-handed way by for example,
		giving those internally in opposition an international agreement to point
		to/argue for before the courts; and also give those externally who disagree
		with those actions some specific context for them to exercise their
		disagreement; or have I missed something here.

		M

		-----Original Message-----
		From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
		[mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of William Drake
		Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2012 7:39 AM
		To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
		Subject: Re: [governance] Twitter officially shutdown to Internet users in
		Pakistan

		On May 20, 2012, at 3:30 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote:

			Twitter officially shutdown in Pakistan - Twitter Banned in Pakistan
			http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/2012/05/twitter-officially-shu
			tdown-in-pakistan.html

		If only "the oversight of the Internet's critical technical and logical
		infrastructure" could be "transferred to an appropriate, democratic and
		participative multilateral body" so that Pakistan would not be forced to
		take unilateral action merely to shut out this evil monopolist that, with
		three other sites, controls "much of what is considered to be the Internet
		today by most people today".

		On May 13, 2012, at 12:25 AM, michael gurstein wrote:

				"The telecommunications minister has ordered the use of domain names
				ending with .ir" belonging to Iran, Asr Ertebatat reported.

				The order prohibits banks, insurance firms and telephone firms using
				foreign hosts for their sites or to inform their clients using foreign 
				providers such as Yahoo, Gmail, Hotmail or MSN, it said.

		If only "the oversight of the Internet's critical technical and logical
		infrastructure" could be "transferred to an appropriate, democratic and
		participative multilateral body" so that Iran would not be forced to take
		unilateral action merely to shut out these evil monopolists...

		We demand it!

	____________________________________________________________
	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 --------------
____________________________________________________________
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