Posts
by
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'.
