The internet is a vital global resource, serving as the backbone for communication, commerce, governance, and innovation. Its governance must be fair, transparent, and collaborative to ensure it remains a trusted tool for all. The Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) of ICANN is central to these efforts, bridging the gap between national governments and global internet policy. However, India’s nomination for the Vice Chair position in the 2024 GAC elections has sparked significant concern, given its track record in cybersecurity, disinformation, and regulatory manipulation. This article examines the implications of India’s potential ascension to this critical role and the risks it poses to global internet governance.
India’s nomination for the GAC Vice Chair position reflects its growing ambition to play a leadership role in global digital governance. The GAC, established in 1999, is tasked with ensuring that ICANN’s decisions incorporate governmental perspectives on critical issues such as domain name management, cybersecurity, and data sovereignty. With 183 member governments and 39 observer organizations, the GAC wields considerable influence over policies that impact billions of internet users worldwide.
India’s candidacy for the Vice Chair role aligns with its broader efforts to position itself as a leader in the digital space. From its ambitious “Digital India” initiative to its burgeoning tech industry, India has made significant strides in shaping its digital economy. However, its international track record reveals patterns of behavior that raise questions about its suitability for such an influential position in internet governance.
One of the most concerning aspects of India’s candidacy is its alleged involvement in cyber espionage. Recent accusations by Canada, which labeled India as a cybersecurity threat, underscore the country’s controversial activities in this domain. Reports suggest that India has engaged in cyber surveillance targeting dissidents, foreign governments, and civil society organizations. If elected to the GAC Vice Chair position, India could use its influence to advocate for policies that appear cooperative but subtly facilitate its covert operations. This would not only undermine global trust but also compromise the security frameworks that the GAC is meant to strengthen.
India’s proficiency in conducting disinformation campaigns is another area of concern. The Indian Chronicles, a sprawling campaign involving fake NGOs and media outlets, revealed India’s capacity to manipulate international narratives to serve its interests. By creating false narratives and influencing policymaking through fabricated entities, India demonstrated a troubling willingness to exploit global platforms for its own agenda.
In the context of GAC, such tendencies could manifest in policies that indirectly enable disinformation tactics. For instance, India might advocate for reduced oversight on social media platforms under the guise of promoting freedom of expression. This would create loopholes that allow disinformation to flourish, undermining the integrity of online discourse and the trustworthiness of internet governance. India’s challenges in combating financial crimes further complicate its candidacy. The Financial Action Task Force (FATF) has criticized India for its low conviction rates in money laundering cases, suggesting systemic weaknesses in addressing financial crime. This raises concerns that India, as GAC Vice Chair, might resist efforts to strengthen cross-border financial monitoring, potentially shielding domestic vulnerabilities from international scrutiny.
India’s involvement in dark web activities adds another dimension to this issue. With over 2,400 sellers and 320,000 annual transactions on dark web platforms, India has emerged as a significant hub for illicit online activities. Critics argue that India could use its GAC influence to oppose stringent measures aimed at dismantling such marketplaces, citing concerns about sovereignty or economic impact. This would undermine global efforts to combat cybercrime and secure the digital ecosystem.
ICANN’s reputation as a neutral and collaborative global governance body depends on its ability to maintain trust among stakeholders. The GAC, in particular, is expected to uphold principles of transparency, inclusivity, and impartiality. Allowing a country with India’s track record to assume a leadership role risks compromising these principles.
India’s documented lobbying capabilities, exemplified by campaigns like Indian Chronicles, could lead to GAC policies that disproportionately reflect its national interests. This would erode trust among member states and create divisions within ICANN, undermining its mission to govern the internet as a shared global resource.
India’s bid for the GAC Vice Chair position presents a significant challenge to the integrity of global internet governance. While the role offers an opportunity to incorporate diverse perspectives, it also demands adherence to principles that safeguard the internet as a trusted global resource. India’s history of cyber espionage, disinformation, and regulatory exploitation raises serious doubts about its ability to fulfill these responsibilities. The international community must prioritize the preservation of ICANN’s neutrality and collaborative spirit, ensuring that the internet remains a platform for equitable and inclusive global development.