Internet Governance Round-table at British High Commission

The event aimed to bring together stakeholders from government, industry and the non-governmental sectors in India to discuss issues of Internet governance, and forms part of the UK’s commitment and interests in cyber-engagement with India.

The panel included the following members:

1. Julian Evans, the Acting British High Commissioner to India
2. Jonathan Cook, Second Secretary, Foreign Security Policy Team, British High Commission
3. Kamlesh Bajaj, CEO, Data Security Council of India
4. Rahul Jain, Principal Consultant, Data Security Council of India
5. Vikram Tiwathia, Associate Director General, Cellular Operators Association of India
6. Dr. Govind, Senior Director heading the E-Infrastructure & Internet Governance Division, Department of Electronics and Information Technology, Government of India
7. Narayanan, NIXI
8. Dr. Sundeep Oberoi, TCS
9. M.P. Gupta, Professor & Chair, Information Systems and Centre for Excellence in E-Gov, IIT Delhi
10. Somnath Mitra, Xchanging
11. Mahima Kaul, Observer Research Foundation

The British government’s views on cyber-engagement and Internet governance were touched upon, voicing their support for a free, open and secure Internet, upholding human rights. The UK supports a multi-stakeholder approach to Internet governance. However, their position on the Sao Paolo meeting is as yet not officially clear.

Five broad issues were raised for discussion:

1. Balancing the role of government and non-government stakeholders, and the limits of governmental regulation Internet for development
2. Free speech and privacy v. security
3. Practical model of Internet governance (multi-stakeholder or multilateral)
4. India’s contribution, presence or expectations of the Sao Paolo meeting

The speakers raised concerns about the effectiveness of the multi-stakeholder model in light of international law built on the Westphalian model, where governments are effectively the only real law-makers and regulators. In considering whether non-governmental stakeholders (such as NGOs and think-tanks, industry and corporations, individuals) should have an equal voice in IG, concerns were raised about the representativeness of such actors, and accountability that they would have. In this regard, the future and desirability of the ICANN (and the US’ stake in it), and fora like the IGF and the UN-WGEC as platforms for participation were discussed.

While civil society involvement is imperative, government initiatives are necessary to create access to the Internet, and to ensure that the Internet is made safe and utilized for development. This obviously creates tensions between privacy and liberty, and security concerns; one of the speakers spoke of Snowden as the “elephant in the room”. Not only was a common concept of privacy non-existent at the international level, it would also be difficult to achieve (except a  namesake ‘lowest common denominator’ definition), as states must account for their experiences with terrorism as well as cultural differences. For instance, the way the UK deals with privacy/security concerns in comparison with India would be very different. Finally, the possibilities and potential outcomes of the Sao Paolo meeting were touched upon without elaborate discussion on the same.