ca at cafonso.ca
Sat Dec 11 11:13:20 EST 2021
I meant "aT-large"...
Compas, unfair... people who are not in the al-large list cannot catch the original Wolf's message.
On 11/12/2021 11:16, parminder via Governance wrote:
> Dear Wolfgang,
> Thanks for the quotes about the Putin -- Modi meeting. Indeed in most
> mainstream coverage in India the ICT side hardly got mentioned. They
> were the less important part of the summit.
> I am not sure what kind of comments you are looking for from me.
> India has a non aligned background and it is normal for such a large
> country like India to hedge its bets and not get caught in one
> geo-techno-enclosure or the other, in the old cold war like sense, but
> now with digital tech dependencies which are even deeper, stronger and
> largely irreversible. It therefore makes complete sense that India is
> exploring ICT relationships with Russia, to/inter alia/ diversify from
> the deep embeddedness that India has in the US centric techno-sphere. Do
> you disapprove of it? See my article of a few years back India should
> aim for digital non alignment
> BTW, one of the key current issues in India-Russia relationship (also
> highlighted around the summit) is that India is buying S 400 missiles
> from Russia, despite strong warnings from the US that this may lead to
> India being excluded from US military supplies.
> Perhaps that would put in good perspective Russia-India techno
> relationships that seem to so rent your mind.
>>From your quoted text, you seem to have issues or questions about Russia
> and India deciding to work together on the proposed UN cyber crime
> Do you think there should NOT be any such UN treaty?
> Does that mean countries should rather sign on Europe's Budapest
> Convention on Cybercrime, or wait for new ones to come from OECD's CDEP
> (committee on digital economy policy) or from the CoE? You know why
> India and other countries refuse to sign on the Budapest Convention --
> actually they find nothing wrong with its substance, but they refuse to
> be governed by rules that they were not a part of developing... Makes
> any democratic sense to you?
> If not Budapest Convention, what is the option .. The world stay
> without a cyber crime framework? Why should not all countries sit
> together to make a cyber crime convention? Happy to hear your reasons
> either way.
> About multistakeholder participation in such a UN cyber crime
> convention, which seems to be one major concern of yours:
> I have been arguing long for a horizontal UN digital policy body, with
> the SAME multistakeholder participation model as OECD's CDEP (and of CoE
> where the Budapest Convention was made) ... If we had that UN body , we
> could have employed its structure for MS participation for developing
> the proposed UN convention on cyber crime ... But, THE PROBLEM IS, you
> have consistently opposed it, including as part of the UN WG on enhanced
> cooperation which had the precise mandate to develop institutional
> structures for UN based digital policy making. We both were members of
> that WG and we know what went on there, right. How developing countries
> proposed the exact same OECD model for UN level digital policy making --
> along with all its MS components/ characteristics -- AND YOU ALL TURNED
> IT DOWN. Am I making any mis-statement here? Happy to be corrected in
> that case.
> So, perhaps now it is your turn to answer some questions:
> 1. Do you think that there should be no UN cyber crime convention, and
> all non Europeans too should simply sign Europe's Budapest Convention,
> and further wait for more cyber governance frameworks from OECD's CDEP,
> or CoE's digital policy mechanisms?
> 2. Why and how you call OECD's CDEP and CoE's digital policy making
> processes as multistakeholder, and those are acceptable to you, but the
> EXACT SAME model at the UN becomes multi-lateral and NOT
> multistakeholder - -and, apparently for that reason, not acceptable to
> you ?
> thanks and look forward to your responses
> PS: You raise concerns about India-Russia parleys and digital rights
> issues (internet shutdowns). Last year India signed this with US led
> five eyes against eend-to-end encryption
> .. Just seeking a better balance of geo-political concerns from you.
> On 08/12/21 4:46 pm, Wolfgang Kleinwächter wrote:
>> Is the Putin/Modi Summit related to the Indian Internet Shutdowns?
>> I have seen and heard of no connection of that kind. In any case,
>> nations nowadays need no external assistance to control their
>> respective Internets. As for foreign alliances, if anything India is
>> certainly bending much more towards US led alliances, that claim some
>> western values of democracy, HR, etc ( all of which is of course a lot
>> of BS, and simply good old-fashioned geopolitics and geo- economics
>> under new garbs -- one significant manifestation and result of which
>> kind of geo-politics/ geoeconomics is neo-colonisation) ..
>> As I can see, Internet Governance (cybersecurity and digital economny)
>> was part of the discussions.
>> This is from the Putin-Modi Meeting: "The Sides appreciated close
>> cooperation in the field of security in the use of Information and
>> Communication Technologies (ICT) through inter-agency cooperation
>> under bilateral mechanisms and at multilateral platforms. They
>> highlighted the leading role of the United Nations in the
>> decision-making process on security in the use of ICTs. The Sides also
>> recognized the need for further work on rules, norms and principles of
>> responsible behavior of State aimed at preventing conflicts and
>> promoting peaceful use of ICTs. The Sides reaffirmed the importance of
>> international cooperation against criminal use of ICTs and in this
>> regard they welcome the establishment of an open- ended Ad hoc
>> intergovernmental committee of experts to elaborate a comprehensive
>> international convention on countering the use of ICTs for criminal
>> purposes as stipulated in the UN GA resolutions 74/247 and 75/282."
>> ... "The Sides intend to focus particularly on increasing the
>> effectiveness of countering terrorism, extremism, drug trafficking,
>> cross-border organized crime, and information security threats," ...
>> "The Sides agreed that safeguarding of global commons including our
>> oceans, outer space and information space should be based on the
>> principles of transparency, accessibility and upholding international
>> And they discussed also digital economy: " The Sides also agreed to
>> facilitate collaboration between government and private sector
>> organizations to find ways of joint development of software products,
>> platforms and services as well as in the area of electronics
>> manufacturing. The Sides confirmed their interest in further
>> developing cooperation in the sphere of digital technologies,
>> including those related to information protection, security of
>> critical infrastructure and law enforcement."
>> Any comment? BTW, no references to civil society or a multistakeholder
>> see: http://en.kremlin.ru/supplement/5745
Carlos A. Afonso
[emails são pessoais exceto quando explicitamente indicado em contrário]
[emails are personal unless explicitly indicated otherwise]
Instituto Nupef - https://nupef.org.br
Governance mailing list
Governance at lists.igcaucus.org
More information about the Governance