[IANAtransition] Input from the Government of India

Sivasubramanian M isolatedn at gmail.com
Thu May 8 05:41:04 UTC 2014

Dear Nick,

Thank you again for writing. It is beyond the purview of us, ALL OF US,
here in this list, in our roles as Internet Governance participants from
the Internet, to identify Policy as emerges from a Nation State as Policy
of a Political party or that of its Leader. For all of us, Prime Minister
of a Nation State is Prime Minister, whether he is incoming Prime Minister,
Outgoing Prime Minister or Continuing Prime Minister. If I am talking with
my Internet Hat, I would make no references whatsoever about the Elections
in India. Most of the Internet Governance participants do view the general
affairs of the Nation States with detachment.

If I must take Elections in consideration, if it is absolutely necessary,
then I will only consider this factor: In general, during Election Time,
the political and diplomatic statements or Diplomatic positions or even
Diplomatic protests from a Government may have to viewed as Statements of
local public appeal, rather than actual Diplomatic positions. Perhaps this
is understood at the highest levels of Global Policy circles, perhaps it is

To that extent, it is wiser to wait for the Elections to be over for high
level discussions on policy, again, not being attached or or desirous of
any particular electoral outcome.

I will now send a letter with a copy to the Prime Minister now. And will
send another letter again to the Prime Minister the first day after taking
Oath of Office.  Irrespective of whether it is a Continuing Prime Minister
or New Prime Minister from the same Political or different Political
alliance, ask "Why did YOU have this position on Internet Governance? Why
do u have a policy that hurts the Multi-Stakeholder process and Internet

Thank you
Sivasubramanain M

Sivasubramanian M <https://www.facebook.com/sivasubramanian.muthusamy>

On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 10:04 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton at consensus.pro>wrote:

>   Dear Siva, by all means do write, but you may want to copy not the
> current minister but the one who will shortly replace him. The current one
> is a lame duck, and likely spending his time electioneering rather than
> reading his correspondence ;)
> My experience is that you can choose to view things apolitically,  but
> that doesn't mean that they are, and when it comes to governments and
> policy,  the decisions always have some if not a lot of politics to them.
> On 7 May 2014 23:55:44 Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Dear Nick Ashton-Hart,
>> Thank you for responding.
>> India is in the middle of elections, but, we could view this
>> apolitically, without being drawn into the ideologies between parties, in
>> the sense that Policy is an ongoing process :)  It is the Government of
>> India that I am differing with. Not this Government or the Past Government
>> or the next.
>> I want to write to Mr Satyanarayana, Secretary to the Department of
>> Technology with a copy to the Minister, as a person from the Internet. I
>> will take some inputs from Members of our Chapter and it would be of great
>> help if participants of this list could share, on this list, your thoughts
>> on the positions of Nation States including India that are hesitant to
>> embrace the multi-stakeholder model.
>> Thank you.
>> Sivasubramanian M
>> Sivasubramanian M <https://www.facebook.com/sivasubramanian.muthusamy>
>> On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 2:27 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton at consensus.pro>wrote:
>>> I think we all need to keep in mind that India is right in the middle of
>>> an election that is very likely to result in a very different government
>>> than is currently in power once the results are counted etc in a matter of
>>> days.
>>> On 7 May 2014, at 21:25, Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hello All,
>>> Government of India's inputs are  copied below with comments. All
>>> comments as an individual who believes that other Stakeholder groups in
>>> India might have a position different from that expressed in this document
>>> by the Government of India. What I see as problem areas are highlighted in
>>> different colors, based on my own perception of the sensitivity of the
>>> wording:
>>> The differences with the positions of the Government of my own country
>>> are freely and openly expressed here with the belief that our Government
>>> would tolerate this freedom of expression from someone who believes in the
>>> multi-stakeholder process of Internet Governance :)
>>> [1] Government of india notes the announcement by the US NTIA of its
>>>> intent to transition its role on coordination of Internet DNS as a
>>>> first step in the right direction aimed at attempting to reform one of
>>>> the aspects of Internet Governance.
>>> *"evolve" would have been a milder choice. Why does the Government of
>>> India use the word "reform" here? *
>>> 2. In continuation of India’s commitment to maintain an open, safe and secure
>>>> Internet, and as a key stakeholder in the global internet space, Indiawill engage
>>>> constructively and actively with other important stakeholders to develop
>>>> a transition proposal that is representative, democratic and
>>>> transparent.
>>> *The reference to "India's commitment to maintain an open, safe and
>>> secure Internet" is very positive. Interesting to see how the word
>>> "stakeholder" is used here. Does India imply that India as a country is a
>>> Stakeholder, thereby hinting at an inclination to classify Stakeholders as
>>> Nation States (represented by Governments only?) It looks like the
>>> Government of India is talking about multilateralism here using the very
>>> word "stakeholder".*
>>> 3. The announcement is a recognition of the Widety held View that this aspect
>>>> of internet Governance, as also others, needs to be made representative
>>>> , democratic and that inclusive and the institutions responsible for
>>>> managing and regulating the internet need to be Internationalised.
>>> *The choice of words "representative" and "democratic" are words
>>> apparently positive, especially for anyone who does not understand the
>>> history of Internet and internet Governance. These words are used to
>>> emphasize multilateral governance in place of multi-stakeholder governance.
>>> Internet Governance needs to be a multi-stakeholder process, whereby Civil
>>> Society, Business and Technical Community would be stakeholders together
>>> with Governments in Internet Governance.*
>>> 4. lndia believes that the transitional proposal should have a proper international
>>>> legislative authority for it to have legitimacy, credibility and acceptability
>>>> by the international community.
>>> *Very uncomfortable with what is implied by a "proper international
>>> legislative authority". Perhaps the Government of India adores the ITU ?*
>>> 5. Efforts to frame a transition proposal are an initial move towards addressing
>>>> only one aspect of Internet Governance. While India would actively participate
>>>> in this process, We do not see it subsuming discussions and
>>>> considerations that are taking place elsewhere in multiìateral foraand international
>>>> mechanism on the management of the Core Internet Resources and on the
>>>> entire of range of International Public Policies in the Cyber Space.
>>> # *What Multilateral fora is referred to here that "the Government of
>>> India does not "see it subsuming" ? *
>>> 6. As We, along with other stakeholders Work to develop a transition
>>>> plan,ICANN shouid ensure that the process is representative anc!
>>>> democratic. There should be full participation of all the stakeholders
>>>> in accordance with Tunis agenda.
>>> *Does the Government of India here implies Other Governments? This
>>> reference to Stakeholders, read together with the way the word
>>> "stakeholder" is used to denote a whole country in point [1] could mean
>>> that India implies "other Governments" here. *
>>>  *Sivasubramanian M*
>>> *Internet Society India Chennai Chapter*
>>> Sivasubramanian M <https://www.facebook.com/sivasubramanian.muthusamy>
>>> On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 11:42 PM, Ergys Ramaj <ergys.ramaj at icann.org>wrote:
>>>> Attached.
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> ianatransition mailing list
>>>> ianatransition at icann.org
>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ianatransition
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> ianatransition mailing list
>>> ianatransition at icann.org
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ianatransition
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ianatransition/attachments/20140508/8d6cfc0e/attachment.html>

More information about the ianatransition mailing list