'India wants core internet infrastructure'

The article by Indrani Bagchi was published in the Times of India on April 24, 2014. Sunil Abraham is quoted.

An MEA team led by Vinay Kwatra, joint secretary told the Net Mundial in Brazil on Thursday, "The elements of India's approach on internet governance respond to its growing complexity and rests in supporting the dynamism, security and openness of a single and un-fragmented cyberspace. We also support innovation, and robust private sector investments to augment internet's continuing growth and evolution."

The Indian position is essentially an MEA position, because there has been little prior inter-agency consultation certainly in the government. In fact, while the MEA had decided upon its team almost a month ago, the Department of Information Technology only woke up last week.

It was only on Friday that the nodal ministry for IT-related issues even agreed to send a team to Brazil on Monday — the same team that the MEA was sending. If nothing else, sources said, this only highlighted the lack of seriousness within the Indian system.

In Brazil, Kwatra said internet should have a democratic governing system, involving everyone, which would essentially mean creating a parallel international system. The internet is essentially owned and led by the US, controlled by the fact that the overwhelming number of root servers are situated in that country. But after the Edward Snowden leaks on

NSA surveillance, the US' intentions and practices have come under a cloud.

While India does not want the status quo to continue, there is no clarity whether India favours a multilateral or a multi-stakeholder system. India, like China, wants a strong state presence in the decision making process of internet governance, because "it is used for transactions of core economic, civil and defence assets at national level and in the process, countries are placing their core national security interests in this medium." On the other hand, it wants unfettered access to knowledge and technology as a nation-building and governance tool.

Additionally, India wants non-governmental stakeholders to be properly audited "there should also be a clear delineation of principles governing their participation - including their accountability, representativeness, transparency, and inclusiveness. Clearly, it makes it even more important that we define the multistakeholderism."

There is a crying need for India to clearly define the future it expects to thrive in.

Sunil Abhraham of the Centre for Internet and Society in Bangalore says India should take the lead in defining new internet rules, keeping its future in mind. "We could use patent pools and compulsory licensing to provide affordable and innovative digital hardware to the developing world. This would ensure that rights-holders, innovators, manufactures, consumers and government would all benefit ... We could explore flat-fee licensing models like a broadband copyright cess or levy to ensure that users get content at affordable rates and rights-holders get some royalty from all internet users in India.

This will go a long way in undermining the copyright enforcement based censorship regime that has been established by the US. When it comes to privacy - we could enact a world-class privacy law and establish an independent, autonomous and proactive privacy commissioner who will keep both private and state actors on a short lease. Then we need a scientific, targeted surveillance regime that is in compliance with human rights principles. This will make India simultaneously an IP and privacy haven and thereby attract huge investment from the private sector, and also earn the goodwill of global civil society and independent media." This is more than the Indian government has thought of.

While no binding decisions are expected from Brazil this week, the high profile event is expected to trigger a high level debate on possible reforms. India, say officials, need to hone its position to come up with concrete proposals. This is imperative, after the US made two crucial decisions on internet governance this year.

In March the US announced by September 2015 it would give up oversight of the Internet Corporation for Assigned of Names and Numbers (ICANN), a non-profit group based in California that assigns domain names. But the US is clear it will not hand over control to any organization that can be controlled by any other country. This week, the US' FCC has dealt a body blow to the concept of "net neutrality" (which essentially functions on the premise that access to the internet is the same for everyone) by allowing companies like Disney and Google to pay for premium internet speeds. Countries like China, Russia, Saudi Arabia (maybe even Iran) seek to control net access for their citizens as a measure of political control. Second, cyber offensives by countries who are ramping up capacity in these fields could take over internet governance structures if they are not crafted carefully enough. On the flip side, as Sunil Abraham of the Centre for Internet and Society puts it, "The US censorship regime is really no better than China's. China censors political speech - US censors access to knowledge thanks to the intellectual property (IP) rightsholder lobby.."

If the US is relinquishing control over ICANN, the next global battle is likely to be over who takes over that mantle. Which, in turn, makes it important to get net governance right. At least China has a plan — it wants the UN to take control. India wants a bit of this and a bit of that, without actually giving it a shape, which makes it impossible for India to shape the future of the debate.