[At-Large] [Governance] India
parminder at itforchange.net
Tue Dec 14 02:00:49 UTC 2021
On 13/12/21 10:13 pm, Murali Shanmugavelan wrote:
> "India has a non aligned background..."?!?!?
India was a major force in building the nonalignment movement -- that is
what 'background' means...
As for the current status, my email amply lays is out, See "... the deep
embeddedness that India has in the US centric techno-sphere...".
Although it still does -- even if just bec it is a big country and needs
enough independence,-- try 'some degree' of maintaining independence,
or, in other words, a 'diversity of dependences', like the S 400
missile story tell us...
> On Sat, 11 Dec 2021 at 14:16, parminder via Governance
> <governance at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>
> 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 treaty...
> 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 law."
>> 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 approach.
>> see: http://en.kremlin.ru/supplement/5745
> Governance mailing list
> Governance at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto:Governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the At-Large