[At-Large] India proposes Government controlled Internet
Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond
ocl at gih.com
Fri Oct 28 10:28:47 UTC 2011
thanks for this excellent report, and very timely too!
I trust that you'll be "holding the pen" regularly as part of our input
on ICANN-related subjects and indeed look forward to it.
On 28/10/2011 07:45, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro 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
> 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:
>> 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
>>> organizations, negotiate Internet-related treaties, and act as an
>>> 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
>>> UN General Assembly."
>> # And the Government spokesperson argued that this “should not be viewed
>> 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
>> At-Large mailing list
>> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
More information about the At-Large