[lac-discuss-en] [At-Large] India proposes Government controlled Internet

Fri Nov 4 21:49:29 UTC 2011

Dear Sivas:
I'm very pleased to see this response from you.  As I read the actual
proposal from India, it reminds me of  Madame Reding's  [she of the
European Commission] grumble regarding ICANN and the AoC arrangements and
her proposal for what I characterized as a G20/OECD Rump + Aspirants club.

In Madame's club, India was located in the Aspirants group.  Per the CIRP
model as proposed, she moves to the head table.

Proposed tasks (ii) and (vii) of the CIRP's mandate are especially
troubling; to  'coordinate and oversee..............including, global
standards"  does appear to be a bit of an overreach. Always this plantation
imagery!!!

This tendency to exclude is irritating, in passing. For it leaves out lots
of people -  like, for example, us Jamaicans  - from having a say in issues
that save and except religion, will impact our lives more profoundly than
not.

On the balance of the evidence, the CIRP proposal is summarily rejected for
cause. It goes against my nature to have anyone decide for me without let
or hindrance.

Carlton

==============================
Carlton A Samuels
Mobile: 876-818-1799
*Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
=============================

On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 1:09 PM, Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn at gmail.com>wrote:

> Dear Bill Drake,
>
> The CIRP proposal is from the Government of India, not from India. It is a
> proposal which has not been drafted transparently nor after due
> consultations and does not reflect the will of the people of India.  I am
> not aware of a call for inputs or even a call for comments to the Business
> Community or to the Civil Society. If there is any claim of inclusion of
> the Business Community that I am not aware of, it could not possibly have
> been wide enough and the opinion might not be representative of the
> different sectors of Business, small, medium and large. And as a practice,
> if Civil Society is ever included, it is no more than a handful of
> convenient participants.  The most influential of India's Political leaders
> and Administrators in Power at the moment not appear not to be in a mood to
> include the Civil Society :) . On matters related to Internet Governance,
> the Civil Society, and to a large extent, the Business Sector in India do
> not know what is happening.
>
> Earlier, India's proposal for IGF improvements showed some commitment for
> the multi-stakeholder model, though on deeper examination, one can see a
> strong multilateral undertone, especially in Point 9.
>
> The IBSA proposal went one step further, it completely dropped all
> references to the multi-stakeholder model.
>
> Now we have the CIRP proposal from India, taken to the UN. A proposal of
> this magnitude, that affects the lives of people of the whole world for the
> next century or two requires ample consultation in a transparent manner,
> with wide participation of the Business Community and the Civil Society.
> Had there been fair consultation with neutral information, a proposal of
> this nature would have been "Dead on Origin".
>
> Personally, I totally disagree with the idea of the CIRP proposal, even on
> the face of the prospects of being repeatedly reminded that I am an Indian
> first. Am I supposed to stand by and watch a shortsighted and ill-advised
> proposal jeopardize the civil liberties of all the people of the World,
> merely because the proposal has been introduced as a proposal from India?
>
> We may not have Brazil-like receptiveness for some more time, but we try...
> I will gather opinions, for and against, and send an email to our
> Government.
>
> Thank you.
> Sivasubramanian M
>
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 4:48 PM, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Siva
> >
> > If I may be allowed a brief intervention from the NC-ALAC liaison peanut
> > gallery: As you know, some of us are having heated debates on this on the
> > governance list and did in Nairobi as well.  One aspect that hasn't
> gotten
> > much attention in these contexts is whether the Indian government
> undertook
> > domestic level consultations with relevant business, technical community,
> > and civil society actors.  In Nairobi I asked several Indians, including
> > the delegation from Tata, whether they had any idea what their government
> > was advocating in their name, and the answer was no.  So one really
> helpful
> > step you could take here is to get the word out nationally and see
> whether
> > any sort of shared position either way can be stated.  You may recall
> that
> > amidst the Nairobi debates some Brazilian CS people came out against what
> > their government was doing in IBSA, and this had a significant effect in
> > softening the Brazilian position, which resulted in an Indian rather than
> > an IBSA proposal to the UNGA.
> >
> > Just a thought,
> >
> > Bill
> >
> > On Oct 28, 2011, at 12:15 PM, Sivasubramanian M wrote:
> >
> > > Dear Carlton
> > >
> > >
> > > Thank you. It would be of ample help if there are more opinions on this
> > > development, especially by those from developing countries.
> > >
> > > This is what I wrote to our Government earlier on the IBSA proposal:
> > >
> > > --- begin quote from what I wrote earlier --- The proposal to
> "establish
> > a
> > > new Global body "located within the UN system", "tasked to develop ...
> > > policies" and to "oversee bodies responsible for the technical and
> > > operational functioning of the Internet including standards setting",
> > > "undertake arbitration and dispute resolution" and "be responsible for
> > > crisis management" is a proposal to offer the Internet bundled with the
> > IETF
> > > to the ITU or an ITU-controlled or an ITU-friendly new global body
> within
> > > the UN system where ITU is comfortable. It is perhaps with these
> > > apprehensions that the draft has been criticized as "unimaginative,
> > > backward-looking, and authoritarian and ... very destructive" and has
> > > generated a loud discussion among Civil Society participants. --- end
> of
> > > quote
> > >
> > >
> > > Sivasubramanian M
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 3:24 PM, Carlton Samuels
> > > <carlton.samuels at gmail.com>wrote:
> > >
> > >> Thanks for sharing, Siva.   Helluva thing to be the canary in the
> mine.
> > >>
> > >> Carlton
> > >>
> > >> ==============================
> > >> Carlton A Samuels
> > >> Mobile: 876-818-1799
> > >> *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
> > >> =============================
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 4:21 AM, Sivasubramanian M <
> isolatedn at gmail.com
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Hello,
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> >
> http://news.dot-nxt.com/2011/10/27/india-proposes-government-control-internet
> > >>>
> > >>> This is from Kieren MacCarthy's article:
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> "In a statement<
> > >>> http://news.dot-nxt.com/2011/10/27/un-ga-india-cirp-proposal> sent
> > >>>> yesterday, India argued for the creation of a new body to be called
> > the
> > >>>> United Nations Committee for Internet-Related Policies (CIRP) which
> > >> would
> > >>>> develop Internet policies, oversee all Internet standards bodies and
> > >>> policy
> > >>>> organizations, negotiate Internet-related treaties, and act as an
> > >>> arbitrator
> > >>>> in Internet-related disputes.
> > >>>> The CIRP would exist under the United Nations, comprise of 50 Member
> > >>>> States, be funded by the United Nations, run by staff from the UN’s
> > >>>> Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) arm, and report
> directly
> > >> to
> > >>> the
> > >>>> UN General Assembly."
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> #  And the Government spokesperson argued that this “should not be
> > viewed
> > >>> as
> > >>> an attempt by governments to ‘take over’ or ‘regulate and
> circumscribe’
> > >> the
> > >>> Internet.” !!
> > >>>
> > >>> #  The IBSA proposal was badly criticized by the Civil Society in the
> > >> lists
> > >>> and at the Nairobi Internet Governance Forum, it appeared that India
> > >> wasn't
> > >>> the prime contributor to that imaginative proposal, but those of us
> who
> > >>> believed that India couldn't have proposed or fully endorsed the
> first
> > >> IBSA
> > >>> proposal --- we were wrong.
> > >>>
> > >>> Sivasubramanian M
> > >>> ISOC India Chennai
> > >>> http://isocindiachennai.org
> > >>> _______________________________________________
> > >>> At-Large mailing list
> > >>> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> > >>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
> > >>>
> > >>> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> At-Large mailing list
> > >> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> > >> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
> > >>
> > >> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
> > >>
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > At-Large mailing list
> > > At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> > > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
> > >
> > > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > At-Large mailing list
> > At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
> >
> > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
> >
> _______________________________________________
> At-Large mailing list
> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
>
> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
>