1

thehindu.com

Yes to multi-stakeholderism
Chinmayi Arun and Sarvjeet Singh

new ideas:A change in Indias stand signals potential openness to

consultative policy-making. In picture, activists staging a protest in
favour of net neutrality in New Delhi. file Photo: Shiv Kumar
Pushpakar
India declared its support for multi-stakeholder governance of the
Internet at the ICANN 53 meeting in Buenos Aires and at the first
Preparatory Meeting for the U.N. General Assemblys overall review
of the implementation of the World Summit on Information
Society outcomes earlier this month. This, in combination with the
governments efforts at consultative policy-making in the context of
net neutrality, may signal the beginning of a more discursive
approach to communication policy.
about:reader?url=http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-opinion/yes-...

Indias statements at both meetings have drawn attention thanks to

the countrys place in the decade-old furious debate still raging over
global Internet governance. Countries such as the U.S. and
Germany have advocated a multi-stakeholder model that consults
governments, industry, civil society and technical community while
making decisions that affect the Internet. This is consistent with
these countries domestic approach to communication policy, which
includes independent regulators that conduct wide consultations
and frame policy after accounting for the concerns of various
stakeholders. India has opposed this point of view in the past,
favouring the multilateral model in which national governments
make decisions through an equal vote, arguing that this is the most
equitable model. This has been consistent with Indias domestic
command-control communication policy, which has tended to
confine citizen participation in governance to the casting of the
vote.
The change in Indias stand globally signals potential openness to
consultative policy-making. Since multi-stakeholder governance is
an ambiguous term , the governments approach to domestic
communication policy may be a good indicator of its intentions for
the Internet. In this context, it is worth taking a close look at how
the net neutrality policy is being made. A clear effort has been made
at consultation and responsiveness. It is a promising start and may
be the beginning of consultative decision-making that gives citizens
more avenues to discuss the best way for them to access
information.

about:reader?url=http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-opinion/yes-...

Consultative approach
Before publishing the net neutrality report this month, the
Department of Telecommunications conducted a series of
consultations. Although these consultations were closed and only
for invited parties, the committee reached out to a wide range of
experts and stakeholders. Reading the report makes it apparent that
many perspectives were invited and incorporated but that we need
to work towards documenting public input better. It is necessary to
find a way to reflect different concerns within a post-consultation
report.
Consultative governance of Internet policy will mean significant
changes both in the process followed and in our deep-seated
attitudes towards governance. If the government has to develop the
uncomfortable habit of being more immediately responsive and
accountable for decisions, we the stakeholders also need to take
responsibility for our own communication policy.
For consultations to work, we will need to provide well-researched
inputs and a continued willingness to engage and see other points
of view, which is a habit that will also take time to develop.
The net neutrality consultation was a promising debut in which the
government took the time to listen and respond, and a range of
citizens made the effort to contribute and engage.
This is not the first time that India has flirted with the idea of multiabout:reader?url=http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-opinion/yes-...

stakeholder governance. At the IGF 2012, the then Minister of

Communications and Information Technology, Kapil Sibal, spoke of
the India's support for the multi stakeholder model. Following this,
the government set up an advisory group for the India Internet
Governance forum, and frequently invites inputs including in the
net neutrality consultation.
Governments and other stakeholders of the world disagree about
what multi-stakeholder governance means. This governance model
has its roots in the phrase enhanced co-operation, a compromise
text inserted in the Tunis Agenda after prolonged negotiation. The
meaning of this term, and the role played by NGOs in making
decisions about the Internet remains elusive after years of
international debate. The failure of the Working Group on
Enhanced Co-operation set up to publish a report on what the
model means illustrates the sensitive international politics within
which the issue is submerged. An actual shift in Indias position
may change the balance of the politics and would be worth watching
out for.
Indias willingness and efforts to support a consultative model
globally is likely to depend on its experience with such a model
locally. The net neutrality consultations and leveraging of the multistakeholder advisory group are, therefore, tangible domestic
experiments.
Multi-stakeholder models can vary in form and can exclude key

about:reader?url=http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-opinion/yes-...

stakeholders. For example, the Cyber Regulatory Advisory

Committee consists of governmental and industry representatives
with just one member from the technical community. Its
characterisation as multi-stakeholder has value since the
government has the option of nominating others to the committee.
But until the actual composition is more representative of different
viewpoints, it will remain an industry-government committee.
Similarly, the governments cyber-security initiatives have tended to
be industry-government conversations. This is troubling since all
these initiatives ought to include people who work to embed human
rights within these systems.
Commendable steps
The recent net neutrality consultations are a step in the right
direction. The departments decision to call for public comment and
response to the report is commendable, especially since the
department is under no legal obligation to do this. If India is serious
about consultative decision-making, it will be worthwhile to build
the more ad hoc processes followed for the net neutrality report into
a constantly-improving system. The TRAI has experience with
inputs from public consultations, and we have a lot to learn from
other democracies that do this on a regular basis.
Indias fears about multi-stakeholder governance have always had
their roots in its concerns about decision-making being dominated
by corporations, especially U.S.-based corporations. This is why our

about:reader?url=http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-opinion/yes-...

government has consistently supported the traditional Westphalian

governance model based on reasoning that a multilateral
conversation between governments is likely to be more equitable
than one in which international companies that are larger than
most countries can dominate. It is good to see that the Indian
government is interrogating this standpoint. This is in keeping with
this governments overhaul of systems to modern decision-making
and accountability systems. India will still need to work out details
and build on existing efforts like the net neutrality consultation and
the multi stakeholder advisory group. We will need to carefully craft
our policies to ensure that the process goes beyond giving industry
a voice, and encourages independent inputs that effectively
safeguard citizens rights.
(Chinmayi Arun and Sarvjeet Singh are with the Centre for
Communication Governance at National Law University Delhi)
Indias shift in position on multi-stakeholderism may
change the balance of politics in global Internet
governance

about:reader?url=http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-opinion/yes-...