In a short response to David Cake’s excellent comments I
would like to clarify that there are fewer “deep differences in
thinking here”
that appear on the surface. The core issue is about strategies for
greater awareness and engagement, and at all levels., and
within ICANN the issue of an effective move to greater
accountability.
First, a brief personal
aside: For a quarter of a century I have been involved with an
Indian NGO, the
Ambedkar Centre for Justice and Peace. ACJP is 99.99% composed of
untouchables
(Dalits) who account for around 250 million Indians. ACJP focuses
on human
rights, atrocity prevention, and access to justice and support for
those abused.
Dalit abuse is constant and wide spread. I am well versed in the
complexities
of Indian policy positions and behavior, both at home and in
international fora.
There are two general parts to the Indian position with
regard to Internet governance. One part is its self-serving
proposals for
greater national control, which need to be opposed as contrary to
the spirit
and core values of the Internet. The other part is India’s approach
to the
civil society elements engaged in Internet governance. There too the
India
intent is to contain and constrain civil society, again in the
government’s own
self interests. What this does is raise a “red flag” (pick you
colour) around strategies
for civil society awareness and engagement. Here we tend to all
agree.
There needs to be more, deeper and broader stakeholder
awareness and engagement at all levels. This includes within India
(and
elsewhere). Not in the terms set by the Indian government, but on
terms that
are the outcome of a multistakeholder dialogue within India (pick
your
country). One risk is that in the absence of country level
engagement at that
level, countries will have more scope to marginalize civil society
representation within the larger multistakeholder processes. For me
that is the
key challenge here.