India changes its internet governance position — backs away from UN proposal

29 Oct 2012 | Digital Freedom, India

Following outrage from India’s civil society and media, it appears the country’s government has backed away from its proposal to create a UN body to govern the internet. The controversial plan, which was made without consulting civil society, angered local stakeholders, including academics, media, and industry associations. Civil society expressed fear that a 50-member UN body, many of whom would seek to control the internet for their own political ends, would restrict the very free and dynamic nature of the internet. The proposal envisaged “50 member States chosen on the basis of equitable geographic representation” that would meet annually in Geneva as the UN Committee for Internet-Related Policies (UN-CIRP).

Rajeev Chandrasekhar, Indian parlimentarian and critic of the proposal, said: “CIRP seems like a solution in search of a problem”. At present, ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers), a non-profit with ties to the US State Department, serves as the platform for internet governance, using an organisational structure that allows input from the wider internet community and not just governments of the world.

Sachin Pilot, India’s Minister of State for Telecom

However at the 4-5 October Conference on Cyberspace in Budapest, the Minister of State for Telecom, Sachin Pilot, indicated that India was moving away from the “control of the internet by government or inter-governmental bodies”, and moving instead towards enhanced dialogue. Pilot has now confirmed the change to Index, saying that the Indian government has now decided to “nuance” its former position.

The sudden move can be explained by India’s decision to now develop its own stance, claiming that it was initially just supporting proposals made at the India, Brazil and South Africa seminar (IBSA) on Global Internet Governance in Brazil in September 2011. However, there are indicators that the country might have played an active role in pushing for the new body.

The government representatives present at the IBSA seminar drafted a set of recommendations focused on institutional improvement, which pushed for the UN to establish a body “in order to prevent fragmentation of the internet, avoid disjointed policymaking, increase participation and ensure stability and smooth functioning of the internet”. The proposal was to be tabled until the IBSA Summit on 18 October 2011, but according to a Daily Mail report, Indian bureaucrats publicly discussed the proposal at the 2011 Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in Kenya, saying that the move “was criticised across the board by all countries and scared away both Brazil and South Africa.” The report also alleges that the Indian government only consulted one NGO — IT for Change — in drafting the proposal presented in Brazil, despite repeated offers from other participants to pay for members of the country’s third sector to participate in the seminar. India’s proposed UN-CIRP was slammed for moving away from multi-stakeholderism and instead opting for government-led regulation.

Whatever the truth behind the Indian government’s motives in proposing UN-CIRP, its new and more “nuanced” position is a welcome move. It remains to be seen if India will maintain its new stance at the upcoming IGF, which will be held from 6-9 November in Baku, Azerbaijan.

Mahima Kaul is a journalist based in New Delhi. She focuses on questions of digital freedom and inclusion

Global media community condemns response to killing of journalists

22 Oct 2012 | Azerbaijan Statements, Campaigns

day to end impunityIndex on Censorship joined more than 40 global media organisations demanding governments, the United Nations and industry take action against violence towards journalists.

The joint statement was delivered yesterday to the UN Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and marks the second International Day to End Impunity on November 23. The issue will be discussed at the 2nd UN Inter Agency meeting on Safety of Journalists and the Issue of Impunity, to take place 22-23 November in Vienna. (more…)

Illiteracy and free expression

15 Aug 2012 | Uncategorized

Among the many issues concerning freedom of expression, it becomes easy to forget illiteracy, even though it serves as one of the most basic barriers to freedom of expression. Illiteracy limits the ability to access and receive information as well as to share and pass on information in written form — on — or offline. As such it is a block to participation in social and political life including writing on or engaging with a range of issues and debates. UNESCO in 2008 reported that 796 million adults worldwide are unable to read and write — an 8 per cent increase in literacy globally in the past 20 years. In 1995 the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression said “the right to seek or have access to information is one of the most essential elements of freedom of speech and expression”.

Of the 796 million illiterate adults, 64 per cent of them are women, which not only reflects a deficiency in gender equality, but also reflects how in some cases lack of access can be a part of restricting the rights of women. According to UNHCHR resolution 2003/42, higher illiteracy rates can be a part of keeping them from being able to freely communicate, and contributes to constraining their rights to freedom of expression.

While a hindrance to freedom of expression, a high literacy rate does not necessarily correlate with a democratic and free society. While UNESCO estimates China’s literacy rate to be 94 per cent in adults, the single-party state  is notorious for its extreme censorship of both the internet and the press, and has earned a ranking of “not free” from the US-based organisation Freedom House this year. Democratic India, meanwhile has a literacy rate of 62.8 per cent in adults.

Illiteracy is not only a problem in developing countries, but also an ongoing obstacle in developed nations. In 2010, the Literacy Trust estimated that 1 in 6 adults in the UK is illiterate. In the United States, the US Education Department released a 2009 report stating that 32 million American adults are practically illiterate — struggling with even the most basic of literacy skills. Lower literacy means less citizens engaged with major debates within a state, or even access to basic information.

Such shocking numbers only mean that a significant portion of the populations of both the United States and United Kingdom are unable to adequately access information about issues, making it difficult to be an informed decision maker — something crucial for every member of a democratic society.

Sara Yasin is an Editorial Assistant at Index on Censorship