[At-Large] India proposes Government controlled Internet

Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com
Fri Oct 28 07:45:04 UTC 2011

Dear All,

My analysis of the IBSA Proposal wherein the proposal is made towards the
United Nations (UN) for the creation of an independent institution that will
absorb global internet policy development and they want it to be

The idea behind this is that they would like to see some sort of
harmonisation of global policy development. My forecast on the matter, is
that even if by some snowball's chance in hell that the UN would accept this
proposal, this would of course be relegated to the International
Telecommunications Union (ITU).

We are all aware that all institutions and stakeholders within the various
internet ecosystems that together makes up the Internet Universe exist. When
Governments around the world accepted the WGIG 2005 report they effectively
endorsed the multistakeholder model. The International Chamber of Commerce
(ICC)  Secretary General Jean-Guy Carrier is on public record for saying the

“No single entity or existing organization can provide the answer to new
challenges. We need a new model, and business supports the multistakeholder
approach to addressing these critical socio-economic challenges as we
advance how the online world serves the world’s citizens.”

The existing ITU model has closed memberships and this is true even for the
Dedicated Working Group on International Internet Related Public Policy
issues. This is a closed group I might add. I would submit that some of the
policies issues overlap with Policies discussed within ICANN which is why I
am on record for asking At Large whether there is some level of interface
between ICANN and this Dedicated Working Group. This Dedicated Working Group
was established under Resolution 75. Membership is only exclusive for member
states and the current chair is Mr Majed Al Mazyed from Saudi Arabia.

 Resolution 102 from the ITU Plenipotentiary deals with public policy issues
with ITU's role pertaining to the Internet and the management of Internet
resources including domain names and addresses. [see

Resolution 133 deals from the ITU Plenipotentiary deals with the role of
administrations of member states in the management of
internationalized(multilingual) domain names. [see

I should also state that the 2009 Council Resolution 1305 [which we are
denied access unless you are a member state invited Member States to
recognise the scope of the work of ITU on international Internet-related
public policy matters.] I will say that the approach of the ITU to close
discussions on internet policy and limit it to member states is worrying.
2012 will be a critical year within the ITU as they will be revising alot of
resolutions and positions etc to "make it more relevant".

I am not in anyway criticising ITU and have great respect for the degree of
capacity building  and recognise the role that they play but I strongly
disagree with the policy exclusionary development processes within the ITU.
The ICC also publicly in 2005 issued a Statement to tell ITU about what it
thought of ITU's role in the development of global internet policies and
think that the statement would be available on the ICC website.

There are some who have been vocal of wanting to see more efficient policy
processes and are debating what enhanced cooperation, this is something that
the CEO and the Board will have to manage in the not too distant future.

>From a policy developer perspective, understanding how things sit in the
global landscape and knowing and being aware of key developments that could
affect the existing policy processes is something that someone (if not us -
then someone in Management) should take into consideration as we would like
to know what is being developed so we can see how it affects for instance
the IDN Guidelines etc if I were to give one example. How can the voice of
consumers be represented or at least other critical stakeholders within that
space? I think that these are legitimate questions that require

Recognising that the ICANN Policy space is limited to "managing the
directory" , I have tried to point to Resolutions that point to critical
issues that fall within ICANN's policy space.

Personally I feel that the multistakeholder technology rocks and should be

My views reflect my own and do not in any way reflect my affiliations,
associations etc and I speak for myself on this matter. I was one of those
that attacked this proposal (please note that I did not attack the person(s)
presenting it nor the country as I greatly respect India and the rich
diversity within. I attacked the "proposal/idea" in Nairobi during the
Critical Resources Main Session (transcripts are also public record) and
have also been debating the issues on the civil society governance caucus

Best Regards,

On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 6:21 PM, 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

Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala

Tweeter: @SalanietaT
Cell: +679 998 2851

More information about the At-Large mailing list