Move to form body with 50 governments to oversee internet governance
The raging controversy over possible excessive state regulation of the internet based on the IT Rules 2011 is now likely to be dwarfed by discussions in Geneva later this week over India's proposal to the United Nations General Assembly, for government control of the Internet.
Led by the Commission on Science and Technology for Development, the Geneva meet is a multi-stakeholder discussion platform on Internet governance structures.
In its proposal submitted to the General Assembly in New York on October 26, 2011, India has argued for a radical shift from the present model of multi-stakeholder led decision-making, to a purely government-run multilateral body that would relegate civil society, private sector, international organisations as well as technical and academic groups to the fringes in an advisory role. The proposal has been floated sans any public consultation, despite the move impacting the country's 800 million mobile and 100 million Internet users.
India is pushing for the creation of a forum called ‘Committee for Internet Related Policies' (CIRP) to develop internet policies, oversee all internet standards bodies and policy organizations, negotiate internet-related treaties and sit in judgment when internet-related disputes come up. The catch is that India's formal proposal is for CIRP to be funded by the U.N., run by staff from the U.N.'s Conference on Trade and Development arm and report directly to the U.N. General Assembly, which means it will be entirely controlled by the U.N.'s member states.
At present, the Internet is governed by a voluntary, multi-stakeholder group called ICANN or Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, which keeps the Internet free and, for the most part, decentralized. ICANN already has a Government Advisory Council (GAC), which invites participation from governments across the world, including India. ICANN is headquartered in California, essentially because the Internet was born in the US. Control by the US government over its governance was eventually handed over to non-profits during President Clinton's tenure.
India's proposal could prove controversial for multi-stakeholder communities within the country and across the world, since it entails moving away from the prevailing democratic ‘equal say' process for internet governance to one in which governments would be front and centre, receiving advice from stakeholders and deciding the way forward.
Ironically, India's move to establish government control over the internet came within months of Anna Hazare's success in gathering large crowds at the Ram Lila grounds in August 2011 – a part of which was fuelled by the internet and social media. By early October, Mr. Hazare powered up his campaign further by blogging, tweeting and launching a Facebook profile to connect with his supporters.
The government of India's statement is amusingly defensive, going into some detail to clarify that its proposals ‘should not be viewed as an attempt by governments to take over and regulate and circumscribe the Internet'. It also naively declares that the move addresses the need for ‘quick footed and timely global solutions and policies'. How a 50-member inter-governmental process lodged within the UN bureaucracy, which will meet once every year for two working weeks in Geneva, can respond to decisions that need to be made quickly is unclear.
In response to a detailed questionnaire sent by The Hindu, the Ministry of External Affairs, directing the queries to the Department of Information Technology (DIT) said, “The Indian position on global Internet governance is determined and guided by the DIT. The Department's instructions for India's position at the upcoming meeting in Geneva are still awaited”. This lack of clarity is despite the fact that the global discussion is scheduled for May 18, just three days away. The DIT did not respond to The Hindu's queries despite repeated reminders.
India's move could be guided by apprehensions over Western governments' proximity to ICANN. While experts say this must be addressed, it certainly must not be at the cost of making the Internet a hostage to 50-odd governments.
Russia and China, along with Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan have already declared extreme positions for government control over the Internet. Last year, Vladimir Putin, who was Russian Prime Minister at the time, stated his goal, to impose ‘international control over the Internet' through the International Telecom Union, a treaty-based organisation under the auspices of the U.N.. Echoing this view, Houlin Zhao, Director of the ITU's Telecommunications Standardization Bureau and a former Chinese government official said, “The whole world is looking to a better solution to internet governance, unwilling to maintain the current situation.” Before this, China, Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan had introduced a UN General Assembly resolution proposing a ‘code of conduct' for the global information society.
Though less extreme, India's proposal appears to be a definite shift towards state control rather than a participative model.
India's proposal may also garner support in Geneva from South Africa and Brazil as part of ‘enhanced cooperation'. With governments around the world spooked by the power of social media and the Internet, which led to the Arab Spring, a wave of demonstrations and protests in the Arab world that toppled decades of dictatorship in countries like Egypt and Libya, it is even possible that India may find passive backing of many governments under the garb of ‘fighting cyber crime and unrest'.
Keywords: internet control, social networking sites, government control of internet, UN General Assembly, Geneva meet, internet governance, IT Rules 2011, Committee for Internet Related Policies
When Parliamentarians who think that IPAD and computers are for
watching the porn, then this what happens. I think India is acting on
behalf of USA in this case which is a trial balloon.
Good way to retain a small portion of India's own intellectual property...and not pay Hollywood actors for what actors in India do so well.
Truth is that the signals between computers can be recognized as universal beneficial, but what is inside the computer should have never been tied as a ways and means of rich politicians in Washington to legally garnish everyone's wages upon Earth.
The copper wires or photoelectric cables are very much the same, but like everything else they even change geometrically.
All the politicia are, is scared of scrutiny, and people getting together to do what they cannot somehow get themselves to do. Their coffers must be really dried up!! now they hide behind mommy!
Do they really want India to slowly become like one of the Arab spring countries?
And i wonder if this is a sickness of just the congress in response to what some in the comments are saying. there is not one honest party with the real interests of India in mind.
Ashu- I don't quite see who elected you as the Supreme Representative
of the People of The World. Glancing from the replies on the page I'd
say you're in the minority. The world is not a simple place with white
and black. Your raving and ranting about the decline of the West only
serves to show your West-phobia, nothing else. As it is, material on
the net can be blocked unilaterally and also removed legally. There is
already an element of vigilance on the net, which is required. But a
governmental organization, that too comprising stalwarts like China
and Russia, overshadowing the net will lead to a shoot-on-sight
situation, which is NEVER good.
Karthik Sekar- There are all sorts of media channels on the net. You
are free to visit them and decide which ones you want to believe. That
is the modern and democratic way, NOT to stifle the voice you disagree
with. How would you feel if the Congress passed a law saying that all
those who vote against it cannot vote? Its the same thing.
This is a bold move and I believe its in the right direction. The internet is as free as the weakest link. Right now I believe the corporate world (along with the US govt) weilds the most control of the internet and is the weakest link. Time to make it more democratic and let the whole world decide what next for the internet. I dont want all my data going through the pentagons computers. :-) for one..
The invitation given by India to all the 50 countries to come and
discuss its proposal for Governmental control over Internet through
the United Nations General Assembly and not coming open about it in
home/India proves that they know what they are doing is not correct.
How can we be sure that our integrity and fundamental right will be
maintained without any harassment once internet comes in the hands of
the Government of India? This move is highly suspicious since it has
come after the Anna Hazare movement. Where was Government of India on
this issue for last 7 years?
This is a clear attempt by the Govt of India to control the internet in its interest. They want licence Raj type control on the last available medium for free speech. Had the internet been controlled by Govt, would we have known about Singhvi's sexcapades? Will we know about what the outside world thinks about us if the Govt filters news from other countries as China does presently. This is very unfortunate. The decisions on internet are being taken by the geriatrics who do not even understand how the internet works.
We are headed for another Emergency. The Congress Party can't help but expose its true colours, in its quest for absolute power. How dare we the ordinary little people express our dissatisfaction with our self-appointed masters. They won't tolerate our impudence, and will see fit to put a stop to it.
reminds me of 1984. Big Brother anyone!
It is a lesson for people who find Internet and its free nature as a refuge from bad politics. We must spend time in electing good leaders, otherwise they will take control of every thing.
ICANN does not control the internet, and isn't as important as the authors of this
article apparently believe. The organizations that control large portions of the net today are the large commercial service providers like cable and telephone companies, because they appear to maximize their business by minimizing their offerings, and by so doing they undermine freedom and progress. "Sure, we'll let you use your phone to be a personal hotspot -- for 50 bells per month!"
At last, someone else who realizes we DO NOT live in democracies. The alternate named is not quite correct. We live in republics modeled after the US where their Oath of Allegiance specifically names the flag and the republic for which it stands. If the internet were to continue its development unfettered we might be able to live in actual democracies where pieces of legislation would be voted on in a open manner by the general public. This is something that the old system cannot survive so it will be fought as much as possible in any country; democracy, as they are so called, communist, fascist, left, right, conservative or liberal, all are threatened with basic change, all will fight to remain as they are.
Fortunately, as another commented, the IP network and the web are designed to be flexible and self correcting if damage occurs. Such things as censorship will be considered by the network in general as damage and there will be ways found to get around it.
Pavan, letting the UN General Assembly control the internet would produce something far from either transparent or democratic. How can something controlled by the Assembly claim to be democratic when so many of the nations that are members are themselves not democratic nations? No thanks.
Recently we saw the Saudi King dismiss one of his chief advisers because
that person was a hardliner and was against the King's progressive
policies like allowing women to vote. It pains me to see the Saudi King
going forward (a small step no doubt, but forward!) while our democracy
of 60 years goes backwards, trying to troll the net, looking for anything that might irk it.
There will always be voices of dissent in a democracy. Without a
strong and coherent opposition, governance becomes a meaningless fad.
The internet is a platform that enables the common man to air his
grievances. Granted, some of these protests may be in bad taste. But
the answer to that is to pursue those cases individually, not to
enforce a clampdown. By pursuing the cases individually you allow the
aggrieved party to put forth his version of events and the resulting
debate shows the way forward for good governance.
The govt argues that some of the content on the internet is demeaning
towards important personalities and institutions, and so erodes their
credibility and makes people lose confidence in them. The obvious
answer is that stifling a platform of expression will not bring back
their respect, rather it will bring ridicule on them, that they are so
self-conscious (to use a very gentle word) that they cannot stand the
least bit of criticism, like Snow White's stepmother.
pavan- Firstly the ICANN etc agreements don't mean that the US decides
what goes on the net, but it means that if someone has any issue with
anything available on the net and wants it taken off the net globally, that individual will have to fight out the issue in a US court as per US law. There's a big difference between what you are alleging and what the reality is.
Secondly, to quote senior counsel Ram Jethmalani, our esteemed govt has a habit of going Fascist. I wouldn't trust such a govt with even a quantum of control of internet regularization. If clampdowns were the answer to everything, I could even argue that the best law and order apparatus would be to torture everybody suspected of a crime. See where that gets you? The most that the govt can do maintaining fairness in the matter is to seek to establish a Global Internet Content Regularization law corpus with every country having internet access having a say in the matter.
Clearly government of India is afraid of the power and reach that the
internet has over it. The internet gives power to an ordinary citizen
to share information and ideas. Particularly after the movement by
Shri Anna Hazare and his team.... which actually brought the reality
in the face of the government of reach and influence of the
internet.... the Govt. of India now wants to control this particular
form of expression of the common man. This is against our fundamental
right of expression.
I would like to know the reasons that the GOI will put forward in
Geneva to control the internet and yes also in what ways do they want
to control it. Will follow this conference with a very close eye..
This article is well informed and timely and warns of the dangers ahead.
This proposal was made in the UN General Assembly by Dushyant Singh, MP
on 26 Oct 2011. The text of his proposal is at
www.un.int/india/2011/ind1945.pdf . Comments on it are at igfwatch.org
.
Surprisingly the media did not comment on it at that time and warn of
the dangers inherent in the proposal, as well as why it was formally
made without a full discussion in India.
"Internet was born in the US".
Come on, we all know where Internet was born.
I can't wait for internet users the world over, not just India, to put their creativity to
work when they hear this. Imagine the number of Kapil Sibal and Manmohan Singh
cartoons we will get. I expect it will be hilarious.
It has unfortunately become necessary to regulate the internet due to
the abuses by all parties concerned. Right now certain powers use this
to push their political, commercial and hegomonic agenda and are
content to let it be free in most areas that serve them. But even they
act when it is inconvenient as did the USA with respect to the
WikiLeaks. Countries like India will never reach their full political
and economic independence and status without due protection from others
using it to distort public opinion. We also need to get a handle on
the various acts of crime done using the internet.
we need western style presidency and not congress dictatorship .I
guess RK Hegde and people in the Left had touted this . we would want
something that France/US has has.
We don't have democracy. What we are practicing is "MAJOCRACY", which
means who ever managed to pass the post with a "single" vote majority shall have the right to dance over the head of others. Also, our democracy is such that, it took a tangent to form a government whether in state of central sphere, just to manage the required number to rule the country at their wish and will. There is no true reflection of peoples aspiration, that is why it is time for us think about democracy and define it properly and ban all kind of post election or pre-election alignments. Let us have a USA style Presidential form of democracy, where at least people will have the right to choose their
prime minister and chose their other ministers.
Internet is for common man and now the cruel minds that we elect every
five years don't want us to speak out on issues of inefficiency!
Government expecting Monopoly of internet is a serious threat to our
Democracy and Freedom.
I disagree with the article. The current internet logistic is managed by private entities like ICANN and IANA under contractual arragements with the US. These companies are subject to US jurisdiction and law. That means the laws to control internet are currently being developed entirely by the West(US) through such bodies. The reason behind CIRP could be a move towards creation of a transparent, democratic and multilateral mechanism with participation from all developed as well as developing countries alike.
A more transparent internet governance would only be a step towards preventing countries to use internet or ICTs for instrument of warfare. India with its status of leaders in IT, it is very essential for India to have a greater say in internet related policy issues.
Now they monitor our virtual lives, later they will claim a stake in our real lives!
Internet remains the last bastion of free speech, and governments all over the world want to curb this powerful tool, in the garb of fighting crime.
This move is clearly glorifies the intellectual moves made by different
characters behind the anti corruption movement in the nation. People in
the government do not have time and resources to spend on something
worth but always willing to spend on getting the escape routes ready.
This is one of the many moves taken that shows the incompetence of the
government to lead India to a prosperous tomorrow.
I am completely against this idea of 'controlling' the internet.
Governments will keep changing every five years, out of which 4 years
are spent in merely taking down opposition parties and other minor
political outfits. Internet is above the petty, narrow-minded ideals
of these politicians. I admit that there are some benefits of taking
control over the internet such as protecting copyright policies and
preventing terrorism. But at the same time, giving so much power to
one entity is not justified. As the writer has rightly put, the
internet cannot become a hostage to the whims and fancies of some
individuals who pull the strings under the name of Government and
National Interests.
A control on the media is needed for the nations to protect their
interest from foreign state players. The incident of Arab spring was
completely orchestrated by the western media controlled by their
respective gov. Right through history media has been used for
nefarious purposes which portrayed the allied forced as the guardian
angels of the world when they were just as cruel as the axis forces.
Right now the media is used as a tool to destabilise smaller countries
making it easy for the larger ones to control their resources.
While the misuse of the media is to be contained, this should not be
used against whistle blowers like the wikileaks and other independent news channels. Hence an effective mechanism is needed to channelise the flow on information as people have the right to know the truth without being manipulated.
Another happy sign of the decline of the west. The people of the world have had enough of this so-called free speech, which is in reality just another name for filth, evil, and transgression.
The government of today(on the advice of the beurocracy) is behaving like the Indra
Gandhi government just prior to the days of an emergency
The government is unpopular and the beurocracy for the first time is being
questioned and being asked to be accountable to the people and they wish to
supress truly popular democratic movements against the government(be it the
opposition, adivasi's , etc)
In fact the government of India todays judging by the laws it is passing is no
different from the likes of totalatarian rulers
Unfortunate !
I cannot find a better reaction to this cause ! Given that many other
countries also would be willing to 'cooperate' , the expected control
might come even faster than we could imagine. Is there a savior ?
India's proposal for government control over the Internet will be supported by China, Russia, and all other tin pot dictators and banana republics. It will be opposed by all genuine democracies and free societies. Our hollow claim to being the world's largest democracy will be fully exposed at the UN.
Indian Government is clearly scared of the reach and speed of the Internet and specifically social media. Internet is like light. And I do not want my government to imopse any filters to it. It will only make things darker.
Please Email the Editor