[At-Large] India proposes Government controlled Internet

Fri Oct 28 09:50:11 UTC 2011

Well done, Sala!

This was a masterful collation of all the threads, thoughtful analysis and
clear-eyed declaration of principle, in the public interest.

Let 'em know you in the house!!!

Carlton

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

On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 6:45 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <
salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
> "multi-stakeholder".
>
> 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
> following
>
> “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
> http://www.itu.int/osg/csd/intgov/resoultions_2010/PP-10/RESOLUTION_102.pdf
> ]
>
> 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
> http://www.itu.int/osg/csd/intgov/resoultions_2010/PP-10/RESOLUTION_133.pdf
> ]
>
> 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
> consideration.
>
> 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
> maintained!
>
>
> *Disclaimer*
> 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
> list.
>
> Best Regards,
> Sala
>
> 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
> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
> Cell: +679 998 2851
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>