India proposes Government controlled Internet
Hello, http://news.dot-nxt.com/2011/10/27/india-proposes-government-control-interne... 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
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@gmail.com>wrote:
Hello,
http://news.dot-nxt.com/2011/10/27/india-proposes-government-control-interne...
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@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
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@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@gmail.com
wrote:
Hello,
http://news.dot-nxt.com/2011/10/27/india-proposes-government-control-interne...
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@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@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
Dear Sala, 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. Kindest regards, Olivier 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 "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@gmail.com>wrote:
Hello,
http://news.dot-nxt.com/2011/10/27/india-proposes-government-control-interne...
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@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
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@gmail.com>wrote:
Hello,
http://news.dot-nxt.com/2011/10/27/india-proposes-government-control-interne...
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@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
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@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@gmail.com
wrote:
Hello,
http://news.dot-nxt.com/2011/10/27/india-proposes-government-control-interne...
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@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@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
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@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@gmail.com
wrote:
Hello,
http://news.dot-nxt.com/2011/10/27/india-proposes-government-control-interne...
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@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@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@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
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@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@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@gmail.com
wrote:
Hello,
http://news.dot-nxt.com/2011/10/27/india-proposes-government-control-interne...
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@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@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@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@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
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@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@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@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@gmail.com
wrote:
Hello,
http://news.dot-nxt.com/2011/10/27/india-proposes-government-control-interne...
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@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@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@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@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@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
participants (5)
-
Carlton Samuels -
Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond -
Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro -
Sivasubramanian M -
William Drake