Muzzlers of the Free Internet: India is lobbying for bureaucrats to run the worldwide web



In recent months Internet governance has emerged as one of the most widely discussed issues in India because it covers aspects that are core to the access and penetration of the Internet in the country.



More so because social media is wreaking havoc on the political class as it slams, pokes fun and ridicules them.



The nature of the beast is such that you cannot muzzle it, more so in a country like India where free speech is a Fundamental Right enshrined in the Constitution.

India's proposal seeks to surrender Internet control and content filtering to an inter-government, 50-member body where multi-stakeholder groups would at best have an advisory role

Internet governance came into the limelight first when India submitted a proposal for a UN Committee on Internet Related Policy (CIRP) at the 66th General Assembly on Oct 26, 2011.



This proposal, which was submitted in a clandestine manner without any consultation with any domestic stakeholder, received wide criticism, especially when the international media exposed it within days of its submission at the UN General Assembly.



At the very kernel of the challenge are shortcomings, lack of transparency and architectural inadequacies - all pointing to a downright disaster.

Mail Today recently did a big exposé on how this proposal was driven by the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) and revealed confidential communication between Indian diplomats in Geneva and Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) in New Delhi showing anger, contempt and deep suspicion within the MEA, not only for the US government (with whom India has an MoU for cyber security cooperation), but also for the G8 and even the G20.

The correspondence mocked America's 'Indo-US goodwill' and 'bilateral friendship'.

Now a deeper investigation into this devious CIRP proposal (which is incidentally not available on any Government of India website, pointing to a complete lack of ownership by any ministry of the Government of India) has revealed that a much more sinister game was at play between July and October 2011, as this proposal, which would allow 50 governments to become a part of an inter-government body to control the Internet without any direct participation from business, civil society or academia, was made to the world's largest and often secretive bureaucracy, the United Nations.



Documents in possession of Mail Today reveal that the Brazilians on June 23, 2011, approached the MEA for an India-Brazil-South Africa (IBSA) Multi-Sector Seminar to be organised on September 1 and 2, 2011, in Rio de Janeiro.



The genesis of the move dates back to a seminar held in Rio de Janeiro in September last year. (From left) Brazil's President Dilma Rousseff, her South African counterpart, Jacob Zuma, and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh at the summit inauguration

The proposal clearly outlined that the seminar would involve representatives from government, private sector and civil society.

It left the organisation of the seminar to civil society identifying two people - Marilia Maciel of Fundacao Getulio Vargas, Brazil, and Parminder Jit Singh from an Indian NGO named IT for Change.



The proposal emphasised the need for multi-stakeholder participation.

On July 7, referring to such a document, A Gopinath, Permanent Representative from India to the UN, wrote a four-page email to the MEA as well as the Secretary and Joint Secretary, Department of Information Technology (DIT), explaining the background and the need for India to participate in the seminar.

He also made out an elaborate case for K Nandini, Counsellor (Economic), at the Geneva mission to participate in the event along with a representative from the National Informatics Centre (NIC) and IT for Change.



He went so far as to seek funding from the National Internet Exchange of India (NIXI) to help IT for Change representatives travel for the Rio event. This was the first indication that the MEA was keen on getting IT for Change into Rio for the discussion.



On July 25, the Permanent Mission of Brazil in Geneva wrote a second letter outlining the objectives of the seminar and again emphasising the multi-stakeholder nature of the event.



The Brazil Internet Steering Committee offered to pay for the travel and accommodation cost for the 'third sector' from India.



This was unusual because India and not Brazil should be paying for Indians to participate at a conference in Rio.

Following this correspondence, on July 29, K Nandini conveyed the Brazilian offer for funding to the DIT with a request to disseminate information about the event to Indian stakeholders, particularly the private sector and academia.



Within three days, on August 2, a second note went out from K Nandini to the MEA in New Delhi, with copies to the DIT, explaining that the rationale for an Independent body under the UN system had drawn support from Brazil, South Africa, Honduras, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Venezuela.



Ironically most of these countries, which like India sought intergovernmental control over the Internet, are either authoritarian regimes at present or have been in the past.



Brazil had military dictators till a few years ago and South Africa had apartheid written into its law.

And our Foreign Service officers were parading the support of such countries in seeking an inter-government body.



On September 1 and 2, the IBSA seminar, which is said to be the birthplace of India's UN-CIRP, took place in Rio.



Shockingly, not a single representative from either industry or academia, which had been repeatedly requested for by the Brazilians to make the event multi-stakeholder in nature, was sent to the conference.



Inexplicably, a representative of IT for Change, which was supposed to organise the seminar, got listed as a speaker at the event.



The agenda lists two more speakers, both from India's civil society, but it seems only one of them finally travelled.



The reading of the agenda also shows that hardly any representation from business or academia was available at this now-famous IBSA event that led to the formulation of CIRP.

IT for Change prepared a 20-page document titled 'A Development Agenda in Internet Governance' specifically for the IBSA seminar in Rio and it is available on the Net. Nothing unusual about this - such approach papers are routine.



But it's what happened next that shows connivance between civil society and the government of the worst possible kind not only to keep academia, media and industry out of the dialogue, but in fact to ensure that the vast majority of civil society remained in the dark.



Between September 27 and 30, an over-zealous set of bureaucrats in India started discussion on the IBSA proposal at the Internet Governance Forum meeting in Kenya.



This was criticised across the board by all countries and scared away both Brazil and South Africa, who were completely unprepared for a discussion. In fact, members of civil society other than those who had travelled to Rio where questioned by the Brazilians as to why the IBSA proposal was publically floated at the IGF without prior consultation.



The recommendations arising out of the IBSA seminar, which was ostensibly multi-stakeholder but in reality far from it, added up to a page and half with very general statements and absolutely no indication of the kind of treaty making, funding and control structure that the UN-CIRP finally saw.

It had six mandates, but clearly none of these represented a multi-stakeholder dialogue even remotely.



Suddenly on October 5, the Indian Permanent Mission in Geneva generated a draft document for the CIRP and emailed it to the DIT.



Simultaneously it also sought permission for presenting the IBSA statement at the next meeting in South Africa.



The language of the joint declaration is very general and has absolutely no mention (paragraphs 40-43) of either CIRP or control or oversight or a treaty. And a DIT approval was given on October 17, a day before the joint statement was to be made.

On October 21, Gopinath again wrote to the MEA and Secretary, DIT, painstakingly explaining the need for a UNCIRP, and that Brazil and South Africa "have sought more time to consolidate their positions". This is where the penny drops.



India walks away from the IBSA statement, rewrites the entire document, which takes large sections from the IT for Change proposal that was presented at Rio.

Specific issues that are lifted from the IT for Change proposal, without any pubic consultation whatever, include the name 'CIRP'.



This was never a part of the IBSA's Rio recommendations; it was in fact proposed by IT for Change on Page 19 of its document.



Second, while the UNCIRP and the IBSA proposal are quite critical about the functions of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), the government's CIRP proposal simply borrows from the IT for Change proposal and wants ICCAN and its registries to fund CIRP. Imagine, ICANN funding CIRP, which will then oversee ICANN.



There can't be a worse arrangement.

It also seeks funding from the UN, thereby making it a prisoner of inter-governmental funding and control of bureaucrats.



Third, without even a whisper in the Rio recommendations, India's CIRP proposal borrows the idea, again from the IT for Change proposal, of relegating a multi-stakeholder participation - business, civil society and academia - into an advisory role.



The CIRP adds a fourth advisory group drawn from international organisations.

It is understandable that the government would want to move all stakeholder groups into an advisory role and thereby destroy the multistakeholder character of the dialogue.



But why is a civil society NGO selling the idea of multi-stakeholder participation down the drain?

Fourth, CIRP copies the idea of having a working relationship with the IGF, rather than using IGF to build multi-stakeholder dialogue.



Following the above occurrences, on October 26, the government makes a proposal at the 66th UN General Assembly in New York.



The paper trail also shows that the CIRP proposal, the vast majority of which is lifted from the IT for Change document presented in Rio, got a one-line approval at 8:55 p.m. on October 25, 2011, from the DIT, which was received with much glee by the Indian Permanent Mission in Geneva.



This in turn was conveyed to New York, allowing the statement to be made, thereby permanently surrendering Internet control and content filtering to an intergovernmental, 50-member body in which multi-stakeholder groups would at best have an advisory role.

It remains to be seen if the government will continue to propagate this proposal at IGF in Baku, Azerbaijan, in November this year, or push any further after this exposé at the UN General Assembly in New York.



Documents also reveal that the ministerial approval for UN-CIRP was received in May 2012, eight months after the proposal was made.



There's no record of any such approval approval before the October 2011 announcement.



