The Centre for Internet and Society
https://cis-india.org
These are the search results for the query, showing results 1 to 11.
Comments on the Right to Information Rules, 2017
https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/comments-on-the-right-to-information-rules-2017
<b>On March 31st, 2017, the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Personnel and Training released a Circular framing rules under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (“RTI Rules”). The Ministry invited comments on on the RTI Rules. CIS submitted its comments on April 25, 2017.</b>
<h3 dir="ltr">1. Preliminary</h3>
<p dir="ltr">1.1 On March 31st, 2017, the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Personnel and Training released a Circular framing rules under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (“RTI Rules”). The Ministry invited comments on on the RTI Rules.</p>
<h3 dir="ltr">2. The Centre for Internet and Society</h3>
<p dir="ltr">2.1. The Centre for Internet and Society, (“CIS”), is a non-profit organisation that undertakes interdisciplinary research on internet and digital technologies from policy and academic perspectives. The areas of focus include digital accessibility for persons with diverse abilities, access to knowledge, intellectual property rights, openness (including open data, free and open source software, open standards, and open access), internet governance, telecommunication reform, digital privacy, and cyber-security.</p>
<h3 dir="ltr">3. Comments</h3>
<p dir="ltr">3.1 General Comments</p>
<p dir="ltr">The new RTI Rules introduce various procedural hurdles and provides a great deal of discretionary power to the CIC in dealing with RTI applications and appeals. One of the provisions which has attracted attention in the past also is the abatement of appeals upon the death of the RTI applications. This provision, explored in more detail is especially objectionable in light of the threats that RTI activists face.</p>
<p><strong id="docs-internal-guid-f3638231-aeb5-9d2f-4329-a2fd7d07f81a"><br /></strong></p>
<p dir="ltr">3.2 Specific Comments</p>
<p dir="ltr">3.2.1 Rule 4 of the RTI Rules states that the fees for providing information under the RTI Act would be ‘as notified by Central Government from time to time’. While the RTI Rules also prescribe the fee for filing RTI applications, this phrase provides a window to increase the fees through subsequent notifications. We recommend that the phrase “or as notified by Central Government from time to time” be deleted in order prevent prohibitive increase in the fees in future.</p>
<p><strong><br /></strong></p>
<p dir="ltr">3.2.2 Rule 4 of the RTI Rules also specifies the fees for provision of information via floppies and diskettes. There is no plausible reason to engage in continued rulemaking applicable to outdated modes of data storage. It would be of much more help if the rules were to prescribe fees for CDs, DVDs and email. We also submit that no fees need be charged for information provided through emails, and this mode of communication must be adopted where possible.</p>
<p><strong><br /></strong></p>
<p dir="ltr">3.2.3 Rule 8 (1)(viii) states that every appellant must affirm that they have not filed an appeal pertaining to similar matters before the Commission or any court. However, the same matter can lead to multiple counts of causes of actions, and the principle of res judicata barring further action should not apply in these cases. Therefore, it is recommended that this requirement is deleted.</p>
<p><strong><br /></strong></p>
<p dir="ltr">3.2.4 Rule 12 permits the withdrawal of an appeal on the request of the appellant and the abatement of an appeal on the death of the appellant. This provisions needs to be evaluated in light of the increasing number of cases of threats received by RTI activists. There have been close to 400 documented cases of attacks on RTI applicants,[1] including cases of murder and physical assault. This provision will serve to enable withdrawal of RTI appeals through harassment and other means of coercion.</p>
<p><strong><br /></strong></p>
<p dir="ltr">Further, the abatement of an appeal upon death of an RTI appellant is a clause without any merit and could translate into murders of appellants to cause abatement of the appeal. Additionally, the Supreme Court’s judgment in the matter of Union of India v. Namit Sharma[2] must be kept in mind which clarified the position that RTI applications and appeals are not in the nature of lis and deal with the question of whether requested information ought to be disclosed. Therefore, there is no reason why appeals should abate upon the demise of the appellant.</p>
<p><strong><br /></strong></p>
<p dir="ltr">3.2.5 Rule 14 permits the CIC to return complaints due to non-compliance with the procedural rules in Rule 13. Such rules[3] have been used in the past to return complaints on unreasonable or artificial grounds. This is an example of additional procedural hurdles introduced by through the rulemaking process instead of making the process more citizen friendly.</p>
<p><strong><br /></strong></p>
<p dir="ltr">3.2.6 Rule 15 (iii) of the RTI Rules gives the CIC the discretion to close a case without even allowing hearing to the applicant. There is no requirement on the CIC to provide a detailed reasoning of its determination either. This rule is in violation of the right to be heard before adjudication under natural justice principles.</p>
<p> </p>
<p dir="ltr">3.7 The redressal mechanism under Rule 16 of the RTI Rules leaves a lot to be desired. Beginning with the use of the term ‘communication’ to refer to the complaint regarding a non-compliance of the CIC’s order, the rule takes a cavalier approach to addressing the significant number of cases of non-compliance with the CIC’s order. Further, there is no clear procedure spelt out with regard to how the CIC will deal with such matters and whether parties may be heard before making an adjudication. Further, there is an inconsistency in that a communication may be rejected if not submitted in the prescribed format, whereas in the case of appeals it clearly stated that they may not be returned/rejected only on the ground of non-compliance with the format.</p>
<p dir="ltr"> </p>
<p dir="ltr">[1] http://attacksonrtiusers.org</p>
<p dir="ltr">[2] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/47938967/</p>
<p dir="ltr">[3] Rule 9 of the RTI Rules, 2012.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/comments-on-the-right-to-information-rules-2017'>https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/comments-on-the-right-to-information-rules-2017</a>
</p>
No publisheramberOpennessRTICall for Comments2017-04-27T09:25:42ZBlog EntryMHRD IPR Chair Series: Information Received from JNU
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/mhrd-ipr-chair-series-information-received-from-jnu
<b>This post provides a factual description about the operation of Ministry of Human Resource Development IPR Chair’s Intellectual Property Education, Research and Public Outreach (IPERPO) scheme in the Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi.</b>
<p>The author has analysed all the data received through which, the author seeks to trace the presence of unjustified underutilisation of funds by the aforementioned university as provided by the MHRD during the period of 2013-2014.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">To collect the information for the given study, an RTI application was filed to the Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi on 18/12/2014 by the Centre for Internet and Society. The reply to RTI application was received on 24/02/2015. Subsequently, a second RTI application was filed by the Centre for Internet and Society on 09/02/2015. The University replied to the same on 26/03/2015.</p>
<p>These are the documents received by CIS from JNU:</p>
<ul>
<li>For the response to the first RTI application <a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/JNU%20-%20Receipt%20of%20RTI-%20request%20for%20payment%20-%2026.3.15.pdf" class="external-link">click here</a></li>
<li>For the response to the second RTI application <a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/JNU%20-%20Replies%20to%20RTI%20-%2024.2.15.pdf" class="external-link">click here</a></li>
<li>For the report submitted by the University <a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/JNU%20-%20Reply%20and%20report%20-%2010.3.15.pdf" class="external-link">click here</a></li>
</ul>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Hereinafter, in order to receive any information about Jawaharlal University’s RTI reply, kindly refer to the above mentioned links. Following are the queries mentioned in the RTI application along with their replies.</p>
<ul>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">Reports on the implementation of the IPERPO scheme of the Ministry of Human Resource Development and the implementation of the MHRD IPR Chair funded under the scheme at JNU.<br />Reply: The University submitted that there has been a release of Rs. 10,00,000 as a sanctioned amount by the MHRD under the IPERPO scheme. However, the same has not been utilized in any manner to further the objectives of the scheme. The reason is that the University believes this amount to be inadequate and has requested additional funds from the MHRD.</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Documents on the release of grants to the MHRD IPR Chairs under the IPERPO scheme at JNU for the year 2013-14. <br />Reply: The University clubbed the answer to this with the aforementioned query.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">Documents relating to receipts of utilization certificates and audited expenditure statements and matters related to all financial sanctions with regard to funds granted to the MHRD IPR Chair established under the IPERPO Scheme for the year 2013-14 at JNU. <br />Reply: The University has not provided any such documents in relation to the grant received.</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Documents regarding all matters related to finance and budget related to the MHRD IPR Chair under the IPERPO scheme 2013-14 established at JNU. <br />Reply: The University did not submit any documents in this regard and replied that this information may be sought from the concerned Centre/School.</li>
</ul>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><strong>Comparative Analysis between University Response and the guidelines of MHRD Scheme Document</strong><strong><br /> </strong>The Scheme Document of MHRD (http://copyright.gov.in/Documents/scheme.pdf) is a comprehensive document which consists of guidelines regarding Intellectual Property Education, Research and Public Outreach. It talks about a list of objectives, purposes, conditions and eligibility criteria for a University to ensure in order to implement IPERPO in a truest sense. This document provides the procedural as well as qualifying conditions for an Institute to ensure or fulfil before applying for the MHRD grant. Some of these conditions include maintenance of utilization certificates, audit reports, expenditure statements and event information which would be open to access on demand by MDHR or <strong>Comptroller and Auditor General of India.</strong></p>
<p>A. Objectives <br /> The University has submitted that there have been no activities undertaken to further the objectives of the IPERPO scheme.</p>
<p>B. Eligibility <br /> Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi is recognized by the University Grants Commission. Therefore, it fulfils the eligibility criteria mentioned in the scheme document.</p>
<p><strong>Financial Analysis<br /></strong>The University has not provided any documents on this subject.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/mhrd-ipr-chair-series-information-received-from-jnu'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/mhrd-ipr-chair-series-information-received-from-jnu</a>
</p>
No publishernehaaIntellectual Property RightsRTIRTI ApplicationAccess to Knowledge2016-05-15T03:43:30ZBlog EntryMHRD IPR Chair Series: Information Received from Tezpur University
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/mhrd-ipr-chair-series-information-received-from-tezpur-university
<b>This post provides a factual description about the operation of Ministry of Human Resource Development IPR Chair’s Intellectual Property Education, Research and Public Outreach (IPERPO) scheme in Tezpur University. The author has analysed all the data received under various heads such as income, grants from MHRD, planned and non planned expenditure, nature and frequency of programmes organised and the allocation of funds for the same.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Throughout the course of observation and presentation of the analysed data, the author seeks to trace the presence of unjustified underutilisation of funds by the aforementioned university as provided by the MHRD during the period 2013-2014.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">To collect the information for the given study, an RTI application was filed to the Tezpur University on 16/01/2015 by the Centre for Internet and Society. The reply to RTI application was received on 05/02/2015. These are the documents received by CIS from Tezpur University:</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">For RTI Response <a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/tezpur-receipt-of-rti" class="internal-link">click here</a> (Tezpur Receipt of RTI). Also see <a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/tezpur-forwarded-response-1" class="internal-link">Tezpur Forwarded Response</a> <br />For complete supporting documents see (<a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/tezpur-annual-report" class="internal-link">Tezpur- Annual Report</a>, <a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/tezpur-financial-statement" class="internal-link">Financial Statement</a>, <a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/report-on-ipr-cell" class="internal-link">Report on IPR Cell</a>)</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Hereinafter, in order to receive any information about Tezpur University’s RTI reply, kindly refer to the above mentioned links. Following are the queries mentioned in the RTI application along with their replies.</p>
<ol style="text-align: justify; "> </ol>
<div style="text-align: justify; "><strong>1. </strong><strong>Reports on the implementation of the IPERPO scheme of the Ministry of Human Resource Development and the implementation of the MHRD IPR Chair funded under the scheme at Tezpur University from 2003-2014</strong></div>
<ol style="text-align: justify; "> </ol>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Reply: Tezpur University has submitted detailed documents for the period 2013-2014 in order to highlight various activities undertaken by the University to implement the IPERPO scheme. This information is sent to CIS through summary documents, notices and newsletters.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><strong>2. </strong><strong>Documents detailing the release of grants to the MHRD IPR Chairs under the IPERPO Scheme</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Reply: The University received a grant of Rs.25,00,000 from MHRD under the IPERPO scheme for the period 2013-2014.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><strong>3. </strong><strong>Documents relating to receipts of utilisation certificates and audited expenditure statements and matters related to all financial sanctions with regard to funds granted to the MHRD IPR Chair established under the IPERPO scheme at Tezpur University</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Reply: The University has submitted the utilisation certificate for the period 2013-2014 along with the expenditure statement.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><strong>4. </strong><strong>Documents regarding all matters pertaining to finance and budget related the MHRD IPR Chair under the IPERPOs scheme established at Tezpur University</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><strong> </strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Reply: As per the documents submitted to CIS, the proposed budget for the period 2013-2014 is not submitted by the University. However, the budget for the period 2014-2015 is submitted and the sum of Rs. 49,79,231 is proposed by the University.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">2.0 Comparative Analysis between University Response and the guidelines of MHRD Scheme Document</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Scheme Document of MHRD (<a href="http://copyright.gov.in/Documents/scheme.pdf"><span>http://copyright.gov.in/Documents/scheme.pdf</span></a>) is a comprehensive document which consists of guidelines regarding Intellectual Property Education, Research and Public Outreach. It talks about a list of objectives, purposes, conditions and eligibility criteria for a University to ensure in order to implement IPERPO in a truest sense. This document provides the procedural as well as qualifying conditions for an Institute to ensure or fulfil before applying for the MHRD grant. Some of these conditions include maintenance of utilization certificates, audit reports, expenditure statements and event information which would be open to access on demand by MDHR or Comptroller and Auditor General of India.</p>
<ol style="text-align: justify; "> </ol>
<div style="text-align: justify; ">Objectives</div>
<ol style="text-align: justify; "> </ol>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In order to fulfil the objectives mentioned in the scheme document, Tezpur University undertook following activities:</p>
<ol style="text-align: justify; ">
<li>Conducted courses in the mainstream undergraduate, post graduate and PhD programmes </li>
<li>Facilitated assessment and IPR filings of university innovations </li>
<li>Field work on Geographical Indication: Muga Silk of Assam</li>
<li>Training of IPR Officers</li>
<li>Outreach programmes at Dilbrugarh University and Silchar</li>
<li>Colloquium on Contemporary Physics and the Role of IPR</li>
<li>Training programmes on traditional knowledge and communication with stakeholders </li>
</ol> <ol style="text-align: justify; "> </ol>
<div style="text-align: justify; ">Eligibility</div>
<ol style="text-align: justify; "> </ol>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Tezpur University is recognized by the University Grants Commission. Therefore, it fulfils the eligibility criteria mentioned in the scheme document.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">3.0 Financial Analysis</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Tezpur University received grants in two instalments for the same financial year (2013-2014). The first instalment was sanctioned on 19<sup>th</sup> August 2013 and the second instalment was sanctioned on 26<sup>th</sup> March 2014.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Financial Year 2013-2014</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><img src="https://cis-india.org/home-images/copy9_of_Utilization.jpg" alt="Utilization" class="image-inline" title="Utilization" /></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In this financial year a total grant of Rs. 33,00,000 was sanctioned to the University in two instalments of Rs. 25,00,000 and Rs. 8,00,000. Out of this, a total sum of Rs. 35,24,446 was utilised by the University.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><img src="https://cis-india.org/home-images/Expenditure.jpg" alt="Expenditure" class="image-inline" title="Expenditure" /></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">It is clear from the above drawn chart that the maximum amount of money was spent on the salaries of Chair Professor and his staff.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/mhrd-ipr-chair-series-information-received-from-tezpur-university'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/mhrd-ipr-chair-series-information-received-from-tezpur-university</a>
</p>
No publisherKaran TripathiIntellectual Property RightsRTIAccess to Knowledge2016-04-26T16:27:55ZBlog EntryRTI regarding Smart Cities Mission in India
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/rti-on-smart-cities-mission-in-india
<b>Centre for Internet & Society (CIS) had filed an RTI on 3 February 2016 before the Ministry of Urban Development (MoUD) regarding the Smart Cities Mission in India. The RTI sought information regarding the role of various foreign governments, private industry, multilateral bodies that will provide technical and financial assistance for this project and information on Government agreements regarding PPP’s for financing the project.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">A response to the RTI <a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/rti-smart-cities-mission-in-india.pdf" class="internal-link">is here</a>.</p>
<hr style="text-align: justify; " />
<ol style="text-align: justify; ">
<li> The various government, private industry and civil society actors involved in the Smart Cities Mission.</li>
<li>The various agreements the Government has undertaken through PPP’s for financing the mission.</li>
<li>Role of private companies in this project.</li>
<li>The process for selecting the cities for this mission and ministry responsible for this task.</li>
<li>The various international organisations, foreign governments and multilateral bodies that will provide technical and financial assistance for this project.</li>
</ol>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The MoUD sent its reply to the RTI application and the response is as follows:</p>
<ul style="text-align: justify; ">
<li>With reference to the first query, the answer provided was that the mission statement and guidelines are available on the Missions website - smartcities.gov.in. This mission statement essentially envisages the role of citizens/citizen groups such as Resident Welfare Associations, Taxpayers Associations, Senior Citizens and Slum Dwellers Associations etc, apart from the government of India, States, Union Territories and Urban local bodies.</li>
<li>Regarding information about agreements for the purpose of financing the project, it has been provided in the response that the Ministry would facilitate the execution of MoU’s between Foreign Agencies and States/UT’s for assistance under this mission. The two agreements that have been executed include the MoU between the United States Trade and Development Agency (USTDA) and the French Agency for Development (AFD) for the States/UT’s of Andhra Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, Maharashtra, Chandigarh and Puducherry. They have also provided us with copies of the same and they have been summarised below. They also go on to state that various countries like Spain, Canada, Germany, China, Singapore, UK and South Korea have also shown interest in collaborating with the Ministry for the development of Smart Cities.</li>
<li>CIS sought the documents relating to role of private actors in this field. This information could not be provided by the Department since it was not available with them. Further, an application has been sent to the SC-III Division for providing the information directly to us.</li>
<li>As regards the fourth query, the information provided states that the role of the government, States/UT’s and Urban Local Bodies has been envisaged in para 13 of the Smart Cities Mission Statement - smartcities.gov.in</li>
<li>With respect to the query regarding the foreign actors involved, the information provided states that the documents relating to the involvement of the same are scattered in different files. Compilation of such information would divert the limited resources of the Public Authority disproportionately. Another application must be filed if any specific information is required.</li>
</ul>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Copies of several MoUs signed between Foreign Development Agencies and States (for the respective cities) that were shared with us are:</p>
<ul style="text-align: justify; ">
<li>Memorandum of Understanding between the United States Trade and Development Agency(USTDA) and the Government of Andhra Pradesh of the Republic of India on Cooperation to support the development of Smart Cities in Andhra Pradesh-namely Visakhapatnam.</li>
<li>Memorandum of Understanding between the United States Trade and Development Agency (USTDA) and the Government of Rajasthan of the Republic of India on Cooperation to support the development of Smart Cities in Rajasthan- namely Ajmer.</li>
<li>Memorandum of Understanding between the United States Trade and Development Agency (USTDA) and the Government of Uttar Pradesh of the Republic of India on Cooperation to support the development of Smart Cities in Uttar Pradesh- namely Allahabad.</li>
<li>Memorandum of Understanding between the Agence Francaise De Developpement and the Government of the Union Territory of Chandigarh of the Republic of India on Technical Cooperation in the field of Sustainable Urban Development. </li>
<li>Memorandum of Understanding between the Agence Francaise De Developpement and the Government of Maharashtra on Technical Cooperation in the field of Sustainable Urban Development.</li>
<li>Memorandum of Understanding between the Agence Francaise De Developpement and the Government of the Union Territory of Puducherry of the Republic of India on Technical Cooperation in the field of Sustainable Urban Development.</li>
</ul>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Key clauses under the MoU between the United States Trade and Development Agency (USTDA) and the governments of Andhra Pradesh, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh are:</p>
<ul style="text-align: justify; ">
<li>The MoU undertaken by the USTDA for the development of Visakhapatnam, Allahabad and Ajmer clearly establishes that the document only cements the intention of the body to assist in the development of these cities and funding must be addressed separately.</li>
<li>The USTDA intends to contribute specific funding for feasibility studies, study tours, workshops/training, and any other projects mutually determined, in furtherance of this interest. The USTDA will also fund advisory services for the same. </li>
<li>The USTDA will seek to bring in other US government agencies such as the Department of Commerce, the US Export Import Bank and other trade and economic agencies to encourage US-India infrastructure development cooperation and support the development of smart cities in Vishakhapatnam, Allahabad and Ajmer.</li>
<li>One of the key points the USTDA stresses on is the creation of a Smart Solutions for Smart Cities Reverse Trade Mission, where Indian delegates will get a chance to showcase their methodologies and inventions in the United States. </li>
<li>The MoU also talks about involving industry organisations in the development of Smart Cities, to address important aviation and energy related infrastructure connected to developing smart cities.</li>
<li>The respective State Governments of the cities will provide resources for the development of these smart cities, including technical information and data related to smart cities planning; staff, logistical and travel support, and state budgetary resources will be allocated accordingly.</li>
</ul>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Key clauses under the MoU between the Agency Francaise De Developpement (AFD) and the governments of Maharashtra, Chandigarh and Puducherry are:</p>
<ul style="text-align: justify; ">
<li>The MoU with AFD is along the same lines but with more detail provided in the field of research in sustainable urban development. It comprises of four articles dealing with implementation, research, resource allocation and cooperation. </li>
<li>The AFD clearly states that it will adopt an active role in managing and implementing the project.</li>
<li>The AFD will equip the respective state governments with a technical cooperation programme which will include a pool of French experts from the public sector, complemented by experts from the private sector. </li>
<li>The MoU goes on to state the various vectors of sustainable urban development that will be the focal point of this project – urban transport, water and waste management, integrated development and urban planning, architecture and heritage, renewable energy, energy efficiency etc. </li>
<li>Apart from strategizing, the AFD looks to provide technical support as well. This technical expertise would be used to strengthen strategy and management of urban services in the city. </li>
<li>They would also play a key role in management through the creation of a Special Purpose Vehicle(SPV) to build strategic management (Human Resources, finance, potential market assessment) and capacity building for financial management.</li>
<li>As per Article II of the MoU, this support framework will be accompanied by annual reviews, a policy similar to the USTDA Smart Solutions for Smart Cities Reverse Mission with Indian and French counterparts, collaboration between academic and research institutions for the exchange of information, documentation and results of research in the field of smart cities (a key policy to establish firm research groundwork and increase cooperation and innovation), capacity building research and development. </li>
<li>Article III of the MoU deals with resource allocation wherein the respective State Governments will assist AFD by providing technical information and data related to smart cities planning, and also meet their logistical requirements.<br /><br /></li>
</ul>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/rti-on-smart-cities-mission-in-india'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/rti-on-smart-cities-mission-in-india</a>
</p>
No publisherPaul ThottanSmart CitiesRTI ApplicationRTIInternet Governance2016-04-21T02:25:28ZBlog EntryDeitY says 143 URLs have been Blocked in 2015; Procedure for Blocking Content Remains Opaque and in Urgent Need of Transparency Measures
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/deity-says-143-urls-blocked-in-2015
<b>Across India on 30 December 2014, following an order issued by the Department of Telecom (DOT), Internet Service Providers (ISPs) blocked 32 websites including Vimeo, Dailymotion, GitHub and Pastebin.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify;">In February 2015, the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) requested the Department of Electronics and Information Technology (DeitY) under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) to provide information clarifying the procedures for blocking in India. We have received a response from DeitY which may be <a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/response-deity.clarifying-procedures-for-blocking.pdf" class="external-link">seen here</a>.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">In this post, I shall elaborate on this response from DeitY and highlight some of the accountability and transparency measures that the procedure needs. To stress the urgency of reform, I shall also touch upon two recent developments—the response from Ministry of Communication to questions raised in Parliament on the blocking procedures and the Supreme Court (SC) judgment in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India.</p>
<h2 style="text-align: justify;">Section 69A and the Blocking Rules</h2>
<p align="JUSTIFY" class="western">Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2008 (S69A hereinafter) grants powers to the central government to issue directions for blocking of access to any information through any computer resource. In other words, it allows the government to block any websites under certain grounds. The Government has notified rules laying down the procedure for blocking access online under the Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public Rules, 2009 (Rules, 2009 hereinafter). CIS has produced a poster explaining the blocking procedure (<a href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/blocking-websites.pdf/at_download/file">download PDF</a>, 2.037MB).</p>
<p align="JUSTIFY" class="western">There are <em>three key aspects</em> of the blocking rules that need to be kept under consideration:</p>
<h3 align="JUSTIFY" class="western">Officers and committees handling requests</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Designated Officer (DO)</strong> – Appointed by the Central government, officer not below the rank of Joint Secretary.<br /><strong>Nodal Officer (NO)</strong> – Appointed by organizations including Ministries or Departments of the State governments and Union Territories and any agency of the Central Government. <br /><strong>Intermediary contact</strong>–Appointed by every intermediary to receive and handle blocking directions from the DO.<br /><strong>Committee for Examination of Request (CER)</strong> – The request along with printed sample of alleged offending information is examined by the CER—committee with the DO serving as the Chairperson and representatives from Ministry of Law and Justice; Ministry of Home Affairs; Ministry of Information and Broadcasting and representative from the Indian Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT-In). The CER is responsible for examining each blocking request and makes recommendations including revoking blocking orders to the DO, which are taken into consideration for final approval of request for blocking by the Secretary, DOT. <br /><strong>Review Committee (RC) </strong>– Constituted under rule 419A of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1951, the RC includes the Cabinet Secretary, Secretary to the Government of India (Legal Affairs) and Secretary (Department of Telecom). The RC is mandated to meet at least once in 2 months and record its findings and has to validate that directions issued are in compliance with S69A(1).</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;">Provisions outlining the procedure for blocking</h3>
<p>Rules 6, 9 and 10 create three distinct blocking procedures, which must commence within 7 days of the DO receiving the request.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">a) Rule 6 lays out the first procedure, under which any person may approach the NO and request blocking, alternatively, the NO may also raise a blocking request. After the NO of the approached Ministry or Department of the State governments and Union Territories and/or any agency of the Central Government, is satisfied of the validity of the request they forward it to the DO. Requests when not sent through the NO of any organization, must be approved by Chief Secretary of the State or Union Territory or the Advisor to the Administrator of the Union Territory, before being sent to the DO.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">The DO upon receiving the request places, must acknowledge receipt within 24 four hours and places the request along with printed copy of alleged information for validation by the CER. The DO also, must make reasonable efforts to identify the person or intermediary hosting the information, and having identified them issue a notice asking them to appear and submit their reply and clarifications before the committee at a specified date and time, within forty eight hours of the receipt of notice.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Foreign entities hosting the information are also informed and the CER gives it recommendations after hearing from the intermediary or the person has clarified their position and even if there is no representation by the same and after examining if the request falls within the scope outlined under S69A(1). The blocking directions are issued by the Secretary (DeitY), after the DO forwards the request and the CER recommendations. If approval is granted the DO directs the relevant intermediary or person to block the alleged information.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;" class="western">b) Rule 9 outlines a procedure wherein, under emergency circumstances, and after the DO has established the necessity and expediency to block alleged information submits recommendations in writing to the Secretary, DeitY. The Secretary, upon being satisfied by the justification for, and necessity of, and expediency to block information may issue an blocking directions as an interim measure and must record the reasons for doing so in writing.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;" class="western">Under such circumstances, the intermediary and person hosting information is not given the opportunity of a hearing. Nevertheless, the DO is required to place the request before the CER within forty eight hours of issuing of directions for interim blocking. Only upon receiving the final recommendations from the committee can the Secretary pass a final order approving the request. If the request for blocking is not approved then the interim order passed earlier is revoked, and the intermediary or identified person should be directed to unblock the information for public access.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;" class="western">c) Rule 10 outlines the process when an order is issued by the courts in India. The DO upon receipt of the court order for blocking of information submits it to the Secretary, DeitY and initiates action as directed by the courts.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;" class="western">Confidentiality clause</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Rule 16 mandates confidentiality regarding all requests and actions taken thereof, which renders any requests received by the NO and the DO, recommendations made by the DO or the CER and any written reasons for blocking or revoking blocking requests outside the purview of public scrutiny. More detail on the officers and committees that enforce the blocking rules and procedure can be found <a href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/is-india2019s-website-blocking-law-constitutional-2013-i-law-procedure">here</a>.</p>
<h2>Response on blocking from the Ministry of Communication and Information Technology</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify;">The response to our RTI from E-Security and Cyber Law Group is timely, given the recent clarification from the Ministry of Communication and Information Technology to a number of questions, raised by parliamentarian Shri Avinash Pande in the Rajya Sabha. The questions had been raised in reference to the Emergency blocking order under IT Act, the current status of the Central Monitoring System, Data Privacy law and Net Neutrality. The Centre for Communication Governance (CCG), National Law University New Delhi have extracted a set of 6 questions and you can read the full article <a href="https://ccgnludelhi.wordpress.com/2015/04/24/governments-response-to-fundamental-questions-regarding-the-internet-in-india/">here</a>.</p>
<p align="JUSTIFY" class="western">The governments response as quoted by CCG, clarifies under rule 9—the Government has issued directions for emergency blocking of <em>a total number of 216 URLs from 1st January, 2014 till date </em>and that <em>a total of 255 URLs were blocked in 2014 and no URLs has been blocked in 2015 (till 31 March 2015)</em> under S69A through the Committee constituted under the rules therein. Further, a total of 2091 URLs and 143 URLs were blocked in order to comply with the directions of the competent courts of India in 2014 and 2015 (till 31 March 2015) respectively. The government also clarified that the CER, had recommended not to block 19 URLs in the meetings held between 1<sup>st</sup><sup> </sup>January 2014 upto till date and so far, two orders have been issued to revoke 251 blocked URLs from 1st January 2014 till date. Besides, CERT-In received requests for blocking of objectionable content from individuals and organisations, and these were forwarded to the concerned websites for appropriate action, however the response did not specify the number of requests.</p>
<p align="JUSTIFY" class="western">We have prepared a table explaining the information released by the government and to highlight the inconsistency in their response.</p>
<table class="grid listing">
<colgroup> <col width="331"> <col width="90"> <col width="91"> <col width="119"> </colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td rowspan="2">
<p align="LEFT"><strong>Applicable rule and procedure outlined under the Blocking Rules</strong></p>
</td>
<td colspan="3">
<p align="CENTER"><strong>Number of websites</strong></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p align="CENTER"><em>2014</em></p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="CENTER"><em>2015</em></p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="CENTER"><em>Total</em></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p align="LEFT">Rule 6 - Blocking requests from NO and others</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="CENTER">255</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="CENTER">None</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="CENTER">255</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p align="LEFT">Rule 9 - Blocking under emergency circumstances</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="CENTER">-</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="CENTER">-</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="CENTER">216</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p align="LEFT">Rule 10 - Blocking orders from Court</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="CENTER">2091</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="CENTER">143</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="CENTER">2234</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p align="LEFT">Requests from individuals and orgs forwarded to CERT-In</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="CENTER">-</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="CENTER">-</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="CENTER">-</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p align="LEFT">Recommendations to not block by CER</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="CENTER">-</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="CENTER">-</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="CENTER">19</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p align="LEFT">Number of blocking requests revoked</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="CENTER">-</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="CENTER">-</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="CENTER">251</p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p>In a <a href="http://sflc.in/deity-says-2341-urls-were-blocked-in-2014-refuses-to-reveal-more/">response </a>to an RTI filed by the Software Freedom Law Centre, DeitY said that 708 URLs were blocked in 2012, 1,349 URLs in 2013, and 2,341 URLs in 2014.</p>
<h2>Shreya Singhal v. Union of India</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify;">In its recent judgment, the SC of India upheld the constitutionality of 69A, stating that it was a narrowly-drawn provision with adequate safeguards. The constitutional challenge on behalf of the People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) considered the manner in which the blocking is done and the arguments focused on the secrecy present in blocking.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">The rules may indicate that there is a requirement to identify and contact the originator of information, though as an expert <a href="http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/but-what-about-section-69a/">has pointed out</a>, there is no evidence of this in practice. The court has stressed the importance of a written order so that writ petitions may be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. In doing so, the court seems to have assumed that the originator or intermediary is informed, and therefore held the view that any procedural inconsistencies may be challenged through writ petitions. However, this recourse is rendered ineffective not only due to procedural constraints, but also because of the confidentiality clause. The opaqueness through rule 16 severely reigns in the recourse that may be given to the originator and the intermediary. While the court notes that rule 16 requiring confidentality was argued to be unconstitutional, it does not state its opinion on this question in the judgment. One expert, holds the <a href="https://indconlawphil.wordpress.com/2015/03/25/the-supreme-courts-it-act-judgment-and-secret-blocking/">view</a> that this, by implication, requires that requests cannot be confidential. However, such a reading down of rule 16 is yet to be tested.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Further, Sunil Abraham has <a href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/economic-and-political-weekly-sunil-abraham-april-11-2015-shreya-singhal-and-66a">pointed</a> out, “block orders are unevenly implemented by ISPs making it impossible for anyone to independently monitor and reach a conclusion whether an internet resource is inaccessible as a result of a S69A block order or due to a network anomaly.” As there are no comprehensive list of blocked websites or of the legal orders through which they are blocked exists, the public has to rely on media reports and filing RTI requests to understand the censorship regime in India. CIS has previously <a href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/analysing-blocked-sites-riots-communalism">analysed</a> the leaked block lists and lists received as responses to RTI requests which have revealed that the block orders are full of errors and blocking of entire platforms and not just specific links has taken place.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">While the state has the power of blocking content, doing so in secrecy and without judical scrutiny, mark deficiencies that remain in the procedure outlined under the provisions of the blocking rules . The Court could read down rule 16 except for a really narrow set of exceptions, and in not doing so, perhaps has overlooked the opportunities for reform in the existing system. The blocking of 32 websites, is an example of the opaqueness of the system of blocking orders, and where the safeguards assumed by the SC are often not observed such as there being no access to the recommendations that were made by the CER, or towards the revocation of the blocking orders subsequently. CIS filed the RTI to try and understand the grounds for blocking and related procedures and the response has thrown up some issues that must need urgent attention.</p>
<h2>Response to RTI filed by CIS</h2>
<p align="JUSTIFY" class="western">Our first question sought clarification on the websites blocked on 30<sup>th</sup><sup> </sup>December 2014 and the response received from DeitY, E-Security and Cyber Law Group reveals that the websites had been blocked as “they were being used to post information related to ISIS using the resources provided by these websites”. The response also clarifies that the directions to block were issued on <em>18-12-2014 and as of 09-01-2015</em>, after obtaining an undertaking from website owners, stating their compliance with the Government and Indian laws, the sites were unblocked.</p>
<p align="JUSTIFY" class="western">It is not clear if ATS, Mumbai had been intercepting communication or if someone reported these websites. If the ATS was indeed intercepting communication, then as per the rules, the RC should be informed and their recommendations sought. It is unclear, if this was the case and the response evokes the confidentiality clause under rule 16 for not divulging further details. Based on our reading of the rules, court orders should be accessible to the public and without copies of requests and complaints received and knowledge of which organization raised them, there can be no appeal or recourse available to the intermediary or even the general public.</p>
<p align="JUSTIFY" class="western">We also asked for a list of all requests for blocking of information that had been received by the DO between January 2013 and January 2015, including the copies of all files that had accepted or rejected. We also specifically, asked for a list of requests under rule 9. The response from DeitY stated that since January 1, 2015 to March 31, 2015 directions to block 143 URLs had been issued based on court orders. The response completely overlooks our request for information, covering the 2 year time period. It also does not cover all types of blocking orders under rule 6 and rule 9, nor the requests that are forwarded to CERT-In, as we have gauged from the ministry's response to the Parliament. Contrary to the SC's assumption of contacting the orginator of information, it is also clear from DeitY's response that only the websites had been contacted and the letter states that the “websites replied only after blocking of objectionable content”. </p>
<p align="JUSTIFY" class="western">Further, seeking clarification on the functioning of the CER, we asked for the recent composition of members and the dates and copies of the minutes of all meetings including copies of the recommendations made by them. The response merely quotes rule 7 as the reference for the composition and does not provide any names or other details. We ascertain that as per the DeitY website Shri B.J. Srinath, Scientist-G/GC is the appointed Designated Officer, however this needs confirmation. While we are already aware of the structure of the CER which representatives and appointed public officers are guiding the examination of requests remains unclear. Presently, there are 3 Joint Secretaries appointed under the Ministry of Law and Justice, the Home Ministry has appointed 19, while 3 are appointed under the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. Further, it is not clear which grade of scientist would be appointed to this committee from CERT-In as the rules do not specify this. While the government has clarified in their answer to Parliament that the committee had recommended not to block 19 URLs in the meetings held between 1st January 2014 to till date, it is remains unclear who is taking these decisions to block and revoke blocked URLs. The response from DeitY specifies that the CER has met six times between 2014 and March 2015, however stops short on sharing any further information or copies of files on complaints and recommendations of the CER, citing rule 16.</p>
<p align="JUSTIFY" class="western">Finally, answering our question on the composition of the RC the letter merely highlights the provision providing for the composition under 419A of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951. The response clarifies that so far, the RC has met once on 7th December, 2013 under the Chairmanship of the Cabinet Secretary, Department of Legal Affaits and Secretary, DOT. Our request for minutes of meetings and copies of orders and findings of the RC is denied by simply stating that “minutes are not available”. Under 419A, any directions for interception of any message or class of messages under sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 issued by the competent authority shall contain reasons for such direction and a copy of such order shall be forwarded to the concerned RC within a period of seven working days. Given that the RC has met just once since 2013, it is unclear if the RC is not functioning or if the interception of messages is being guided through other procedures. Further, we do not yet know details or have any records of revocation orders or notices sent to intermediary contacts. This restricts the citizens’ right to receive information and DeitY should work to make these available for the public.</p>
<p align="JUSTIFY" class="western">Given the response to our RTI, the Ministry's response to Parliament and the SC judgment we recommend the following steps be taken by the DeitY to ensure that we create a procedure that is just, accountable and follows the rule of law.</p>
<p align="JUSTIFY" class="western">The revocation of rule 16 needs urgent clarification for two reasons:</p>
<ol>
<li>Under Section 22 of the RTI Act provisions thereof, override all conflicting provisions in any other legislation.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify;">In upholding the constitutionality of S69A the SC cites the requirement of reasons behind blocking orders to be recorded in writing, so that they may be challenged by means of writ petitions filed under <a href="http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1712542/">A</a><a href="http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1712542/">rticle 226</a> of the Constitution of India.</li></ol>
<p style="text-align: justify;">If the blocking orders or the meetings of the CER and RC that consider the reasons in the orders are to remain shrouded in secrecy and unavailable through RTI requests, filing writ petitions challenging these decisions will not be possible, rendering this very important safeguard for the protection of online free speech and expression infructuous. In summation, the need for comprehensive legislative reform remains in the blocking procedures and the government should act to address the pressing need for transparency and accountability. Not only does opacity curtial the strengths of democracy it also impedes good governance. We have filed an RTI seeking a comprehensive account of the blocking procedure, functioning of committees from 2009-2015 and we shall publish any information that we may receive.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/deity-says-143-urls-blocked-in-2015'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/deity-says-143-urls-blocked-in-2015</a>
</p>
No publisherjyotiCensorshipFreedom of Speech and ExpressionRTIIntermediary LiabilityAccountabilityFeatured69AInternet GovernanceChilling EffectTransparencyHomepageBlocking2015-04-30T07:37:40ZBlog EntryNational IPR Policy Series: RTI Requests by CIS to DIPP + DIPP Responses
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/national-ipr-policy-series-rti-requests-by-cis-to-dipp-dipp-responses
<b>In earlier blog posts, we have discussed the development of India’s National IPR Policy (“the Policy”); comments by the Centre for Internet and Society (“CIS”) to the IPR Think Tank before the release of the first draft of the Policy and CIS’ comments to the IPR Think Tank in response to the first draft of the Policy. Continuing our National IPR Policy Series, this article documents our requests to the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (“DIPP” / “the Department”) under the Right to Information (“RTI”) Act, 2005 and the responses of the Department.</b>
<p><a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/national-ipr-policy-series-dipp-response.pdf" class="external-link">View the PDF here</a>.</p>
<hr />
<h3>Details of RTI Requests Filed by CIS</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In February, 2015, <a href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/rti-requests-dipp-details-on-constitution-and-working-of-ipr-think-tank">CIS had filed three RTI requests</a> with the DIPP. <a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-rti-request-to-dipp-number-1-february-2015/view">The first request</a> was four-pronged, seeking information related to <i>first,</i> the process followed by the Department in the creation of the IPR Think Tank; <i>second, </i>details and documents of a meeting held to constitute the Think Tank; <i>third, </i>details and documents of all/multiple meetings held to constitute the Think Tank; <i>fourth</i>, details of a directive/directives received from any other Government Ministry/authority directing the constitution of the Think Tank and <i>fifth,</i> the process of shortlisting the members of the Think Tank by the DIPP.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-rti-request-to-dipp-number-2-february-2015/view">In our second RTI request,</a> <i>first,</i> we requested details of the process followed by the Think Tank in the formulation of the Policy; <i>second, </i>we requested all documents relating to a meeting held for the formulation of the Policy; <i>third, </i>we requested all documents held for multiple meetings for the creation of the Policy and <i>fourth,</i> we requisitioned all suggestions and comments received by the Think Tank from stakeholders <b>before</b> the release of the Policy, that is, those suggestions/comments received in November, 2014.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In our <a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-request-to-dipp-3.pdf" class="external-link">third RTI request</a>, also filed on also filed in February, 2015, we had asked the DIPP to indicate all suggestions and comments received by the IPR Think Tank from different stakeholders in response to the first draft of the National IPR Policy (to have been submitted on or before January 30, 2015 <a href="http://dipp.nic.in/English/acts_rules/Press_Release/pressRelease_IPR_Policy_30December2014.pdf">as per DIPP’s Public Notice</a>).</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Responses by DIPP to CIS' RTI Requests</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The DIPP replied to our three RTI requests in multiple stages. At first, <a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/dipp-response-improper-payment.pdf" class="external-link">in a letter dated 12 February, 2015</a>, we were directed to resubmit our application , seemingly because we hadn’t addressed the Postal Money Order to the correct authority, and were directed to do the same. Funnily enough, we received three other responses – one for each of our RTI requests (the first of these is not dated; the second one is dated 19 February, 2015 and then revised to 26 February, 2015; and the third is also dated 26 February, 2015).</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">The First Response: On the Constitution of the Think Tank</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In the <a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/dipp-response-1.pdf" class="external-link">first of their responses</a> to these requests, the Department has grouped our queries into five questions and provided a point-wise response to these questions, as under:</p>
<ul>
<li style="text-align: justify; "><b>Please indicate in detail the process followed by the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion for the constitution for an IPR Think Tank to draft the National Intellectual Property Rights Policy under Public Notice No. 10 (22)/2013 –IPR-III dated November 13, 2014 (sic).</b></li>
</ul>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In its response the Department notes that it convened an <i>interactive meeting on IPR issues</i> which was chaired by the Minister for Commerce and Industry (Independent Charge), i.e., Ms. Nirmala Sitharaman. As per the Department’s response, this meeting was held on 22 September, 2014 (<b>“the Meeting”</b>) and was aimed at discussing <i>issues related to IPRs, including finalization of the Terms of Reference for IPR Think-Tank proposed to be established </i>(sic.) The Department also notes that <i>representatives from various Ministries/Departments, Member of various Expert Committees constituted by the Department, besides IP experts and other Legal Practitioners</i> (sic) were invited to the meeting. The Department then states that the composition of the Think Tank was decided <i>on the basis of the discussions held in the department after the said interactive Meeting</i> (sic).</p>
<ul>
<li style="text-align: justify; "><b>If there was a meeting held to decide on the same, please include all necessary documents including the minutes of the meeting, records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinion, advices, press releases, circulars, orders etc in which the constitution of the aforesaid mentioned IPR Think Tank was decided (sic).</b></li>
</ul>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Department has attached the Minutes of the Meeting held on 22 September, 2014 (<b>“the Minutes”</b>) and states that there were no documents or papers that were circulated at this meeting and that the participants were asked to present their views on various IP issues at this meeting.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>Excerpts from the Minutes</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Secretary of the Department (Shri Amitabh Kant) refers to a (then) recent announcement made by the Minister of State for Commerce and Industry (<b>“the Minister”</b>) on the formulation of the National IPR Policy and the establishment of an IPR Think Tank and states that the meeting had been convened to <i>discuss on various IPR issues with IP experts and legal practitioners so that it would provide essential inputs to the policy needs of the department</i> (sic). The Minutes report that Mr. Kant further stated that the objective of the department was to have <i>a world class IP system</i> and that this included a comprehensive National IPR Policy and <i>which takes care of various issues like IP creation, protection, administration and capacity building </i>(sic). He is also reported to have said that such a stakeholder interaction was important for the government to seek inputs.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Minister is reported to have said that the purpose of the meeting was to constitute an IP Think Tank that would <i>regularly provide inputs to all IP policy needs of this department as well as advice government in disparate legal aspects (sic). </i>The Minutes also report her to have said that the department would finalize an IP policy within ninety days of the Meeting, based on the inputs of the participants.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">According to the Minutes, various issues emerged from the discussion. <i>Inter alia, </i>these include <i>first,</i> that the proposal to constitute the Think Tank was a welcome measure, along the lines of similar initiatives taken by Australia, South Kora, the United Kingdom and the United States of America; <i>second, </i>that in order to remove misconceptions held by <i>foreign stakeholders</i> about IP enforcement in India, there was a need to highlight judgments of Indian courts that were favorable to <i>foreign stakeholders and MNCs</i>; <i>third, </i>that the national policies on telecom, manufacturing and IP ought to be integrated; <i>fourth</i>, that the focus of the Policy should be <b><i>increase in creation of IP including commercialization of IP and strengthening human capital and IP management</i></b> and <i>fifth</i>, that empirical studies should be conducted to examine the feasibility of Utility Models protection, that there was a need to revise the law on Geographical Indications and that the Policy should include protection for traditional knowledge and guidelines for publicly funded research.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Minister is then said to have identified six major areas during the discussion, including <i>IP institution, legislation, implementation, public awareness, international aspects and barriers in IP growth</i> as areas to be covered under the Policy.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>Who attended the Meeting?</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Attached with the Minutes was also a list of participants who attended the Meeting. Out of the thirty six attendees, <i>I have not been able to locate a single individual or organization representing civil society</i>. Participants include representatives from various government departments and ministries, including <i>inter alia,</i> the DIPP, the Department of Commerce, the Ministry of External Affairs, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, the Copyright Division from the Department of Higher Education of the Ministry of Human Resources Development, the Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks and the Ministry of Culture. The Meeting was also attended by representatives of corporations and industry associations, including FICCI, CII and Cadila Pharmaceuticals; in addition to representatives from law firms including Luthra and Luthra, K&S Partners and Inventure IP and academics including, <i>inter alia,</i> faculty from the Asian School of Business, Trivandrum, Indian Law Institute, Delhi, Tezpur University, Assam, National Law University, Delhi, NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad, the Indian Institute of Technology, Madras and the National Law School of India University, Bangalore.</p>
<ul>
<li style="text-align: justify; "><b>If there were multiple meetings held for the same please provide all necessary documents including the minutes of all such meetings, records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders etc. for all such meetings held (sic).</b></li>
</ul>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Department answered, “No”; which I’m taking to mean that there weren’t other meetings held for the formulation of the Think Tank or the Policy. This is interesting, because the Minutes (referred to earlier) speak of another inter-ministerial meeting <i>including IP experts and legal practitioners</i> slated to be held around the 10<sup>th</sup> of October, 2014, to discuss the framework of the Policy.</p>
<ul style="text-align: justify; ">
<li><b>If a directive or directives were received by the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion from any other government body to constitute such a think tank, please provide a copy of such a directive received by the DIPP from any Government authority, to constitute such a Think Tank (sic).</b></li>
</ul>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Department answered, “No”; which I’m taking to mean that there was no communication received by the Department to constitute this Think Tank.</p>
<ul style="text-align: justify; ">
<li><b>Please indicate in detail the process of shortlisting the members of the IPR Think Tank by the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion or any other body that was responsible for the same (sic).</b></li>
</ul>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Department replied that the answer to this was the same as that to the first question.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">The Second Response: The Drafting of the Policy</h3>
<p>The <a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/dipp-response-2.pdf/" class="external-link">second of the Department's responses</a> to our requests came in the form of separate responses to each of our four questions, as under:</p>
<ul>
<li><b>Please indicate in detail the process followed by the IPR Think Tank constituted by the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion via Public Notice No. 10 (22)/2013-IPR-III dated November 13, 2014 while framing the first draft of the National IPR Policy dated Dec. 19, 2014 (sic).</b></li>
</ul>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Department stated that the IPR Think Tank conducted its meetings independently without any interference from the Department. The Department then stated that the Think Tank had received comments from stakeholders via a dedicated email id and <i>conducted the interactive meeting with stakeholders while framing the draft on the National IPR Policy.</i></p>
<ul>
<li style="text-align: justify; "><b>If there was a meeting held to decide on the same, please include all necessary documents including the minutes of the meeting, records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinion, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, suggestions etc. related to drafting of such National IPR Policy Think Tank chaired by Justice Prabha Sridevan (sic). </b></li>
</ul>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Department replied that since the IPR Think Tank had decided <i>its process by themselves</i> (sic), the Department<i> do not have the minutes of the meeting etc. conducted by the IPR Think Tank </i>(sic). It attached with its reply a copy of the press releases announcing the composition of the Think Tank and asking stakeholders to submit comments to the first draft of the Policy.</p>
<ul>
<li style="text-align: justify; "><b>If there were multiple meetings held for the same, please provide all necessary documents including the minutes of all such meetings, records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, order suggestions etc. for all such meetings held (sic).</b></li>
</ul>
<p>The Department replied that the response to this was the same as that to the earlier question above.</p>
<ul>
<li style="text-align: justify; "><b>Please provide all the suggestions and comments received by the IPR Think Tank from stakeholders after the DIPP issued Public Notice No. 10/22/2013-IPR-III dated 13.11.2014 asking for suggestions and comments on or before November 30, 2014 (sic).</b></li>
</ul>
<p>The Department replied that the comments and suggestions were received by the Think Tank directly and that therefore, the Department was <i>not in a position to provide the same.</i></p>
<h3>The<i> </i>Third Response: Stakeholder Comments</h3>
<p>In its <a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/dipp-response-3.pdf" class="external-link">third and final response</a> to our requests, the DIPP replied to our query as under:</p>
<ul>
<li style="text-align: justify; "><b>Please indicate all the suggestions and comments received by the IPR Think Tank by different stakeholders on or before January 30, 2015 on its first draft of the National Intellectual Property Policy submitted by the IPR Think Tank on December 19, 2014.</b></li>
</ul>
<p>The Department said that <i>the suggestions and comments on the draft on National IPR Policy have been received by the IPR Think Tank directly. As such this Department is not in a position to provide the same (sic.).</i></p>
<h3>Observation on the DIPP's Responses</h3>
<p><i>Prima facie, </i>the responses by the Department are rather curious, leading to a range of oddities and unanswered questions.</p>
<h3>Who Will Watch the IPR Think Tank</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In its response to our first RTI request, the Department quite clearly stated that it decided the composition of the IPR Think Tank based on discussions in a meeting that it convened, which was also chaired by the Minister of State for Commerce and Industry, the parent ministry of the DIPP. In the same response, the Department also stated that it had not received any directive from any other ministry/government department directing the constitution of the IPR Think Tank, leading to the conclusion that this decision was taken by the DIPP/the Ministry of Commerce and Industry itself. Subsequently however, the Department justified its refusal to furnish us with documents leading to the development of the first draft of the National IPR Policy (contained in our second RTI request) by stating that the IPR Think Tank conducted its business without any interference from the Department, and that the Department did not have access to any of the submissions made to the IPR Think Tank or any of the internal minutes of the meetings etc. that were a part of the process of drafting the IPR Policy.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Various press releases by the DIPP have stated that it has constituted the IPR Think Tank, and that the purpose of the IPR Think Tank <a href="http://dipp.nic.in/English/acts_rules/Press_Release/ipr_PressRelease_24October2014.pdf">would be to advise the Department on IPR issues.</a> Visibly, the Department intends for the IPR Think Tank to play an active role in shaping India’s IP law and policy, including suggesting amendments to laws wherever necessary. It is concerning therefore that on the question of accountability of the IPR Think Tank, the DIPP remains silent. It may be argued perhaps, that the IPR Think Tank constitutes a ‘public authority’ under Section 2(h)(d) of the <a href="http://righttoinformation.gov.in/rti-act.pdf">Right to Information Act, 2005</a> (<b>“RTI Act”</b>). In that case, the IPR Think Tank would have to fulfill, <i>inter alia,</i> all of the obligations under Section 4 of the RTI Act as well as designate a Public Information Officer. Alternatively, given that the IPR Think Tank has been constituted by the DIPP and performs functions for the DIPP, the Public Information Officer of the DIPP would have to furnish <span>all</span> relevant information under the RTI Act (including the information that we sought in our requests, which was not provided to us).</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Who are the Stakeholders</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Even a preliminary look at the list of participants at the Meeting (based on which the Department constituted the IPR Think Tank) reveals that not all stakeholders have been adequately represented. I haven’t been able to spot any representation from civil society and other organizations that might be interested in a more balanced intellectual property framework that is not rights-heavy. The following chart (based on a total sample size of 36 participants, as stated in the list of participants provided to us by the DIPP) will help put things in perspective.</p>
<table class="listing">
<tbody>
<tr>
<th><img src="https://cis-india.org/home-images/Meeting.png" alt="Meeting" class="image-inline" title="Meeting" /></th>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">What Could've Been Done?</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Setting aside arguments on its necessity, let us for the moment assume that this drafting of the National IPR Policy is an exercise that needed to have been undertaken. We must now examine what might possibly be the best way to go about this.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In 2014, the World Intellectual Property Organization (<b>“WIPO”</b>) (based on whose approach the Policy seems to have been based- at least in part), produced a detailed <a href="http://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/intproperty/958/wipo_pub_958_1.pdf">Methodology for the Development of National Intellectual Property Strategies</a>, outlining a detailed eight step process before a National IP Policy was implemented in a Member State. While this approach is one to be followed by the WIPO and might not be entirely suited to India’s drafting exercise, specific sections on the national consultation process as well as the drafting and implementation of national intellectual property strategies might prove to be a decent starting point.</p>
<p>(More on this in an upcoming article).d</p>
<h3>Where Do We Go From Here?</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The DIPP’s responses have left me with more questions, probably the subject of more RTI requests. Is the IPR Think Tank a public authority for the purposes of the Right to Information Act, 2005? To whom should questions of informational accountability of the IPR Think Tank be addressed, if there is no information available on the IPR Think Tank, and the DIPP claims to have no access to it? Do we need to re-examine the draft National IPR Policy given that there has been inadequate representation of all stakeholders? What were the suggestions made by different stakeholders, and (how) have these been reflected in the first draft of the Policy? Was there an evaluation exercise conducted before the first draft of the Policy was released in order to better inform the formulation of the Policy?</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">We will be looking at these and other questions as they arise, and sending some of these to the DIPP in the form of RTI requests. (Watch the blog for more).</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/national-ipr-policy-series-rti-requests-by-cis-to-dipp-dipp-responses'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/national-ipr-policy-series-rti-requests-by-cis-to-dipp-dipp-responses</a>
</p>
No publishernehaaAccess to KnowledgePervasive TechnologiesDIPPRTINational IPR PolicyAccountabilityFeaturedIPR Think TankHomepage2015-04-26T08:47:00ZBlog EntryNetizen Report: Transparency Edition
https://cis-india.org/news/netizen-report
<b>Global Voices Online has carried a feature story, "Netizen Report: Transparency Edition". We at CIS had filed an RTI application about website blocking. This is reflected in this article by Rebecca MacKinnon which was posted online on 7 November 2011.</b>
<p>Here at Global Voices Advocacy we believe that transparency by governments and companies about how and when censorship and surveillance takes place is a base-line requirement if the Internet is ever to be governed in a manner that is compatible with free expression, dissent, and citizens' right to organize and assemble. Thus we applaud Google's latest <a class="external-link" href="http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/">Transparency Report </a>- the company's fourth such report detailing government requests for user data and content removal, as well as the traffic flows (or lack thereof) to Google webistes across the world since July 2009. The new data for <a class="external-link" href="http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/governmentrequests/#2011-06">January-June 2011 </a>contains more detail than in the past, including data on how Google responded to the requests and whether they were honored. The data comes with a list of caveats including that automated content removal is not logged and that some data cannot be released due to local law. Nonetheless, we hope that Google's data will provide an interesting snap shot of the state of Internet affairs and the data could be used to hold governments accountable to their censorship activities. We believe that if all Internet companies disclosed similar data, the world would be further on its way to being a better place. Many articles have been written analyzing the data. A few of them include:</p>
<ul><li>TechPresident: <a class="external-link" href="http://techpresident.com/blog-entry/google-data-shows-government-internet-surveillance-far-outstrips-wiretap-requests">Google Data Shows Government Internet Surveillance Far Outstrips Wiretap Requests</a></li><li>WIRED: <a class="external-link" href="http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/10/google-data-requests">U.S. Requests for Google User Data Spike 29 Percent in Six Months</a></li><li>Huffington Post:The 13 Countries That Request The Most User Data From Google</li><li>CNet: <a class="external-link" href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/01/google-user-data-countries-requests_n_1070313.html">Google: Governments seek more about you than ever</a></li></ul>
<p><br />Adding to the publicly available data about censorship around the world, the Open Net Initiative has <a class="external-link" href="http://opennet.net/blog/2011/11/oni-summarized-global-internet-filtering-data-now-available-download">released its research data on global Internet filtering</a>, covering seventy-four countries.</p>
<p><strong>Thuggery</strong>: Read the latest news on GVA about bloggers jailed in Egypt, Syria, and Kuwait and spread the word.</p>
<p><strong>Surveillance</strong>: As <a class="external-link" href="http://advocacy.globalvoicesonline.org/2011/10/10/bluecoat-us-technology-surveilling-syrian-citizens-online/">GVA</a> and others have recently reported, 13 Internet filtering devices produced by the California-based company Blue Coat have made their way to <strong>Syria</strong>. <a class="external-link" href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203687504577001911398596328.html"> According to the Wall Street Journal</a>, Blue Coat executives say that the company will not sell the devices to countries that are under embargo by the United States, and that the devices found in Syria had been sold to a dealer who claimed they were destined for Iraq.</p>
<p>The Wall Street Journal has had several other items related to the role of companies in global surveillance, including a report on how China's Huawei <a class="external-link" href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204644504576651503577823210.html">has been peddling </a>its mobile phone tracking and censoring equipment to <strong>Iran</strong>.</p>
<p>In <strong>India</strong>, Research in Motion <a class="external-link" href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204505304577001592335138870.html#ixzz1cxcl5IIg">has set up a facility </a>in Mumbai to help the Indian government carry out lawful surveillance of its BlackBerry services including the messenger chat service, but the WSJ reports that India still has no method to intercept and decode BlackBerry enterprise email.</p>
<p>In <strong>Russia</strong>, bloggers' influence <a class="external-link" href="http://www.rferl.org/content/russian_bloggers_gain_prominence_kremlin_takes_notice/24357352.html">has apparently made the Kremlin nervous</a>. Reporters Without Borders has condemned plans by the Russian government to deploy new software to track “extremist” content on the web, highlighting concerns about an over-broad definition of “extremist,” and the arbitrary and disproportionate approach to punishment and sanctions against websites. For more on the Russian Internet be sure to follow Global Voices' <a class="external-link" href="http://globalvoicesonline.org/-/special/runet-echo/">Runet Echo Project</a>.</p>
<p>Moving on the <strong>United States</strong>, The Guardian has a <a class="external-link" href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/nov/01/governments-hacking-techniques-surveillance">fascinating report </a>on the super-secret Intelligence Support Systems World Americas conference held recently in Washington DC, at which surveillance professionals shared the latest surveillance technologies and innovations that they don't want you to know about. Hacktivist and friend of GVA <a class="external-link" href="http://advocacy.globalvoicesonline.org/2009/12/14/interview-with-jacob-appelbaum-from-tor/">Jacob Appelbaum </a>managed to get in, but was thrown out.</p>
<p>On a more positive note in the <strong>United States</strong>, the Washington Post reports that since 2009 many Internet companies <a class="external-link" href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-going-to-court-more-often-to-get-personal-internet-usage-data/2011/10/25/gIQAM7s2GM_story.html?wpisrc=nl_headlines">have been more assertive </a>about challenging “national security letters” from the FBI requesting information about users.</p>
<p>The Guardian reports that Civil liberties and privacy groups in the <strong>United Kingdom</strong> <a class="external-link" href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/oct/30/metropolitan-police-mobile-phone-surveillance">have raised concerns </a>about the deployment by the London Metropolitan Police of a "covert <a class="external-link" href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/surveillance">surveillance</a> technology that can masquerade as a mobile phone network, transmitting a signal that allows authorities to shut off phones remotely, intercept communications and gather data about thousands of users in a targeted area."</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111021/11554216450/eu-politician-wants-internet-surveillance-built-into-every-operating-system.shtml">Techdirt reports </a>on the <strong>European Union</strong>'s desire to have a “black box' built in to operating systems that would store a record of all of the computer's internet usage. The EU argues that this ability would be useful in cracking down on child pornography. The system that the EU is looking at as a possible candidate for role of ‘black box' is called LogBox. <a class="external-link" href="http://www.fabioghioni.net/blog/2011/10/20/internet-e-l%E2%80%99arbitrio-assoluto-sui-dati-dei-service-provider-presentata-al-parlamento-l%E2%80%99iniziativa-per-un-sistema-di-controllo-sotto-garante/">The developer of LogBox </a>claims that the device is for preserving the freedoms and privacy of internet users, although Techdirt points out the fact that this device does little to ‘protect' the privacy of online users, it in fact, would make anonymous actions on the internet much more difficult and would provide governments and law enforcement a huge set of data on every internet user.</p>
<p><strong>Censorship</strong>: The chief executives of <strong>China</strong>'s 39 top Internet, telecom, and computer companies <a class="external-link" href="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/09d9a5ba-0886-11e1-9fe8-00144feabdc0,Authorised=false.html?_i_location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2Fcms%2Fs%2F0%2F09d9a5ba-0886-11e1-9fe8-00144feabdc0.html&_i_referer=http%3A%2F%2Fadvocacy.globalvoicesonline.org%2F2011%2F11%2F07%2Fnetizenreport-transparency%2F#axzz1cxn3nQD5">have agreed to </a>“strengthen self-control, self-restraint and strict self-discipline” in order to “contain the tendency of spreading online rumours, pornography, fraud and other illegal, harmful information on the internet.” The move comes amidst a <a class="external-link" href="http://www.voanews.com/english/news/asia/China-to-Tighten-Controls-on-Internet-Social-Media-133062308.html">broader crackdown </a>on <a class="external-link" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/27/world/asia/china-imposes-new-limits-on-entertainment-and-bloggers.html?_r=1">the Internet and social media</a>.</p>
<p>In <strong>India</strong>, the Bangalore-based Centre for Internet and Society <a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/analysis-dit-response-2nd-rti-blocking" class="external-link">submitted a right to information request </a>to the government's Department of Information Technology, asking for more information about website blocking. Based on <a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/dit-response-2nd-rti-blocking" class="external-link">DIT's response </a>the Centre observes that “The data provided by the government seemingly conflicts with the data released by the likes of Google." Their conclusion: "Either the DIT is not providing us all the relevant information on blocking, or is not following the law."</p>
<p>Courts in <a class="external-link" href="http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number9.19/belgium-isp-blocking-pirate-bay"><strong>Belgium</strong></a> and<a class="external-link" href="https://torrentfreak.com/finnish-isp-ordered-to-block-the-pirate-bay-111026/"> <strong>Finland</strong> </a>have ordered ISPs to block the Pirate Bay.</p>
<p>The <strong>U.S.</strong> House Judiciary Committee has recently proposed a<a class="external-link" href="http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/pdf/112%20HR%203261.pdf"> bill </a>aimed at protecting intellectual property online that some critics describe as the <a class="external-link" href="http://censorshipinamerica.com/2011/10/26/internet-censorship-protect-ip-renamed-e-parasites-act-would-create-the-great-firewall-of-america/">beginning of a "Great Firewall of America"</a>.<a class="external-link" href="https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/10/disastrous-ip-legislation-back-%E2%80%93-and-it%E2%80%99s-worse-ever"> The Electronic Frontier Foundation </a>and others have detailed the bill's problems, including lack of due process, near certainty of over-blocking and abuse, imposition of excessive liability on Internet intermediaries, global legitimization of DNS censorship and potential fragmentation of the Internet, among other things. It is considered even worse than its evil fraternal twin in the Senate, the <a class="external-link" href="https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Protect_IP_Act">PROTECT IP Act </a>which is also opposed by many tech companies and non-profit groups. Despite such opposition, the bill draws relatively <a class="external-link" href="http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/2011/10/technology-a-bipartisan-attempt-to-regulate-the-internet.html">broad support from lawmakers</a>.</p>
<p><strong>Net Neutrality: South Africa</strong>n technology journalist Jan Vermeulen ran the <a class="external-link" href="http://mybroadband.co.za/news/broadband/36728-how-much-does-your-isp-shape-your-downloads.html">M-Lab's Glasnost Test on South African ISP's</a> to see whether their stated bandwith shaping policies match up with reality.</p>
<p>The growth of bandwidth intensive internet applications in South Korea has made Net Neutrality <a class="external-link" href="http://koreajoongangdaily.joinsmsn.com/news/article/Article.aspx?aid=2943014">an important issue there</a>. <strong>South Korea</strong>n ISP's are reporting that it is becoming increasingly difficult to maintain neutral practices with content. The three largest telecommunications companies in Korea are worried by the rise of <a class="external-link" href="http://www.samsung.com/us/smarttv/index.html?cid=ppc_smt_goo_Smart+TV+-+Awareness_Smart+TV_smart+tv&K_CLICKID=5b86c4c9-6936-eac8-bbe5-00004db65f45">Smart TV's</a>, which use Internet connections as opposed to traditional cable or satellite links to provide content. The ISP's want to charge companies varying amounts depending on the type and amount of content sent.</p>
<p><strong>Internet Governance</strong>: ICANN held its <a class="external-link" href="http://dakar42.icann.org/">42nd public meeting in Dakar, Senegal </a>late last month. Wendy Seltzer <a class="external-link" href="http://advocacy.globalvoicesonline.org/2011/11/05/icann-why-the-registrar-accreditation-agreement-matters-for-free-speech/">reported here on GVA </a>why the seemingly arcane debates about domain name registrar accreditation is important. Konstantinos Komaitis, an active member of ICANN's <a class="external-link" href="https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Home">Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group </a>(Global Voices is also a member),<a class="external-link" href="http://www.komaitis.org/1/post/2011/10/icann-41-the-fight-over-multistakeholderism.html"> describes the struggle </a>that is taking place took place between governments and other ICANN stakeholders over whether some stakeholders are more equal than others within ICANN's multi-stakeholder governance model. Kieren McCarthy at dotNext also has an<a class="external-link" href="http://news.dot-nxt.com/2011/10/24/governments-registrars-fight"> in-depth report and analysis </a>on the clash between governments and registrars over law enforcement regarding domain names. Over at the Internet Governance Project Milton Mueller <a class="external-link" href="http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2011/11/6/4934244.html">takes an in-depth look </a>at the politics surrounding the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group and related constituencies, and the fight for civil society representation at ICANN.</p>
<p>India has <a class="external-link" href="http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/internet/article2604526.ece">published a formal proposal </a>to put the UN in charge of overseeing Internet governance. For different analyses by three Internet governance wonks see<a class="external-link" href="http://news.dot-nxt.com/2011/10/27/india-proposes-government-control-internet"> Kieren McCarthy</a>, <a class="external-link" href="http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2011/10/29/4929042.html">Milton Mueller</a>, and <a class="external-link" href="http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/indias-proposal-for-a-un-committee-for-internet-related-policies-cirp#mlYafW43YceAy1o6AicM_g">Jeremy Malcolm</a>.</p>
<p>The International Telecommunications Union has approved a new protocol for relaying biometric information. The protocol is intended to enable doctors to communicate data about patients safely and is geared towards developing countries where the access to medical care in rural areas is poor and communication between clinics and doctors would provide better patient care. You can read the full <a class="external-link" href="http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/newslog/Using+Telecommunication+To+Transfer+Biometric+Information.aspx">press release here</a>.</p>
<p><strong>Netizen Power</strong>: Lee Yoo Eun at Global Voices reports that the October 26th Seoul mayoral election was swayed by the use of twitter. Read the <a class="external-link" href="http://globalvoicesonline.org/2011/10/27/south-korea-tweeting-elections-against-all-odds/">full article here</a>.</p>
<p>African entrepreneur Herman Chinery-Hesse gave a speech at the Tech 4 Africa conference highlighting what the rise of Internet Communication Technologies has done for Africa. A synopsis of his talk can be found on the Tech4Africa.</p>
<p><strong>Sovereigns of Cyberspace</strong>: Facebook has introduced a <a class="external-link" href="https://threatpost.com/en_us/blogs/facebook-testing-guardian-angels-feature-getting-locked-accounts-102811">new “guardian angel” feature </a>to help users restore locked accounts.</p>
<p>The <a class="external-link" href="http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number9.21/austrian-big-brother-awards-2011">13th Austrian Big Brother Awards </a>were held on October 25th in Vienna. “Winners” included the CEO of Telekom Austria, the Ministers of Interior and Justice, and the head of the anti-terror police unit. Mark Zuckerberg received the “lifelong menace” award and a “Defender of Liberty” award went to the creators of the “<a class="external-link" href="http://europe-v-facebook.org/">Europe versus Facebook</a>” campaign.</p>
<p>The<a class="external-link" href="https://www.rightscon.org/"> Silicon Valley Human Rights Conference </a>was held in San Francisco in late October (see GVA's report, Jillian York's report, and The Economist's) and released the <a class="external-link" href="http://www.rightscon.org/2011/10/silicon-valley-human-rights-standards/">Silicon Valley Standard</a>, a set of 15 principles that technology companies should follow in order to protect human rights.</p>
<p>China's Weibo <a class="external-link" href="http://technode.com/2011/10/30/sina-weibo-launching-english-version-soon-with-the-partnership-of-flipboard-and-instagram/">plans to launch an English version </a>in partnership with Flipboard and Instagram. Will they agree to follow the Silicon Valley Standard?</p>
<p><strong>Security Alert</strong>: The security researcher Barnaby Jack has found it possible to conduct a <a class="external-link" href="http://www.infosecurity-magazine.com/view/21601/barnaby-jack-hacks-diabetes-insulin-pump-live-at-hacker-halted/">blind attack on insulin pumps</a>. While there have been no reports of anyone being harmed by such an attack, this highlights how far behind security technologies are when it comes to wireless devices that are embedded in critical infrastructure and medicine.</p>
<p><strong>Publications</strong>:<a class="external-link" href="http://themonkeycage.org/blog/2011/10/22/digital-cameras-reduce-electoral-corruption/"> Digital Cameras Reduce Electoral Corruption </a>by Michael Callen and James Long.</p>
<p>Events: Check out this <a class="external-link" href="https://www.google.com/calendar/embed?src=openinternetdigest%40gmail.com&ctz=America/New_York">handy calendar of Internet-related events</a> around the world, courtesy of Internews!</p>
<p><em>Access Contested: Security, Identity, and Resistance in Asian Cyberspace</em>, by the OpenNet Initiative, to be officially released in December. Part I of the book (including a chapter by yours truly) can be read online or downloaded <a class="external-link" href="http://citizenlab.org/2011/09/access-contested-is-now-available/">here</a>.</p>
<p><strong>Note: This report was compiled with considerable help from Ted Eby and Weiping Li.</strong></p>
<p>Read the original article <a class="external-link" href="http://advocacy.globalvoicesonline.org/2011/11/07/netizenreport-transparency/">here</a></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/news/netizen-report'>https://cis-india.org/news/netizen-report</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaRTIInternet Governance2011-11-09T04:31:48ZNews ItemText of DIT's Response to Second RTI on Website Blocking
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/dit-response-2nd-rti-blocking
<b>CIS had filed a request under the Right to Information Act with the government, asking a number of questions relating to blocking of content under the IT Act. We have reproduced below the response we got from the government.</b>
<p><strong><br /></strong></p>
<p><strong>Government of India<br /></strong><strong><span class="Apple-style-span"><strong>Ministry of Communications & Information Technology<br /></strong></span></strong><strong>Department of Information Technology<br /></strong><strong>Electronics Niketan, 6 CGO Complex,<br /></strong><strong>New Delhi-110003</strong></p>
<p>No: 14(12)/2011-ESD<br />10.6.2011</p>
<p><strong>Shri Pranesh Prakash,<br /></strong><strong>Centre for Internet and Society,<br /></strong><strong>194, 2C Cross, Domlur Stage II,<br /></strong><strong>Bangalore - 560071</strong></p>
<p>Subject: Request for information under RTI Act, 2005.</p>
<p>Sir,<br /> Reference your request dated 13 May 2011, which was received in this office on 18.5.2011 on the above subject.<br /> <br /> The information as received from the custodian of information is attached herewith (Annexure-I, II and III).<br /> <br /> Yours faithfully,<br /> (A.K.Kaushik)<br /> Additional Director & CPIO<br /> Cyber Laws & E-Security Division<br /> Tel: 011-24364803</p>
<p> </p>
<h2> Annexure I</h2>
<h3> <strong>Reply to Shri Pranesh Prakash</strong></h3>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<ol><li>How many orders have been issued for blocking of computer resources prior to the coming into force of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008 (i.e., before October 27, 2009) under the Information Technology Act, 2000, or any other law for the time being in force.<br /><br /><strong>Reply</strong> - Five orders were issued for blocking access to web content.<br /><br /></li><li>Please provide a list of all the websites for which the DIT has issued blocking orders and the dates on which each website was blocked.<br /><br /><strong>Reply</strong> - The following websites have been blocked pursuant to court orders<br /><br />
<table class="plain">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><strong>Sl</strong></td>
<td><strong>Website</strong></td>
<td><strong>Date of issuing direction by designated officer</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>1.</td>
<td><a class="external-link" href="http://www.zone.h.org/">www.zone-h.org</a></td>
<td> 08.03.2010</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>2.</td>
<td><a class="external-link" href="http://donotdiall00.webs.com">http://donotdiall00.webs.com </a> (IP 216.52.115.50)</td>
<td> 08.08.2010</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>3.</td>
<td><a class="external-link" href="http://www.bloggernews.net/124029">www.bloggernews.net/124029</a></td>
<td> 15.11.2010</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>4.</td>
<td><a class="external-link" href="http://www.google.co.in/#hl=en&source=hp&biw=-1276&bih=843&=dr+babasaheb+ambedkar+wallpaper&aq=4&aqi=gl0&aql=&oq=dr+babas& gs_ rfai=&fp=e791fe993fa412ba">http://www.google.co.in/#hl=en&source=hp&biw=-1276&bih=843&=dr+babasaheb+ambedkar+wallpaper&aq=4&aqi=gl0&aql=&oq=dr+babas& gs_ rfai=&fp=e791fe993fa412ba</a></td>
<td> 20.12.2010</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>5.</td>
<td><a class="external-link" href="http://www.cinemahd.net/desktopenhancements/wallpaper/23945-wallpapers-beautiful-girl-wallpaper.html">http://www.cinemahd.net/desktopenhancements/wallpaper/23945-wallpapers-beautiful-girl-wallpaper.html</a></td>
<td> 20.12.2010</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>6.</td>
<td><a class="external-link" href="http://www.chakpak.com/find/images/kamasutra-hindi-movie">http://www.chakpak.com/find/images/kamasutra-hindi-movie</a></td>
<td> 20.12.2010</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>7.</td>
<td><a class="external-link" href="http://www.submitlink.khatana.net/2010/09/jennifer-stano-is-engaged-to.html">http://www.submitlink.khatana.net/2010/09/jennifer-stano-is-engaged-to.html</a></td>
<td> 20.12.2010</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>8.</td>
<td><a class="external-link" href="http://www.result.khatana.net/2010/11/im-no-panty-girl-yana-gupta-wardrobe.html">http://www.result.khatana.net/2010/11/im-no-panty-girl-yana-gupta-wardrobe.html</a></td>
<td> 20.12.2010</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>9.</td>
<td><a class="external-link" href="http://www.facebook.com/pages/I-Hate-Ambedkar/172025102828076">http://www.facebook.com/pages/I-Hate-Ambedkar/172025102828076</a></td>
<td> 25.02.2011</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>10.</td>
<td><a class="external-link" href="http://www.indvbav.org/"> </a><a class="external-link" href="http://www.indybay.org/">www.indybay.org</a></td>
<td> 17.03.2011</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>11.</td>
<td> <a class="external-link" href="http://www.arizona.indymedia.org/">www.arizona.indymedia.org</a></td>
<td> 17.03.2011</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</li><li>Please provide a list of all the persons to whom such orders were issued.<br /><br /><strong>Reply</strong> - The directions were issued to Department of Telecommunications.<br /><br /></li><li>Please provide a list of all the requests for blocking of information that have been received by the Designated Officer under the Information Technology (Procedures and Safeguards for Blocking Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009 ("Rules").<br /><br /></li><li>Please provide a list of all persons/authorities from whom the Designated Officer under the Rules has received requests for blocking of information and the dates these requests were received.<br /><br /><strong>Reply 4 & 5</strong> - The details are given in Annexure-II.<br /><br /></li><li>Please provide the files on all the complaints and requests that have been rejected, including file noting.<br /><br /></li><li>Please provide the files on all the complaints and requests that have been accepted, including file noting.<br /><br /></li><li>Please provide the files on all the complaints and requests that are still being processed (e.g. more information has been sought on the request), including file notings.<br /><br /><strong>Reply 6,7 & 8</strong> - Files are available in section and can be viewed.<br /><br /></li><li>Please provide us copies of the minutes of all meetings held by the Committee for Examination of Requests under Rule 8(4) of the Rules.<br /><br /></li><li>Please provide copies of all the recommendations of the Committee for Examination of requests under Rule 8(4) of the Rules.<br /><br /><strong>Reply 9 & 10</strong> - Copy of the minutes/recommendation of the meeting of the Committee is at Annexure III.<br /><br /></li><li>Please provide us the dates and copies of the minutes of all meetings held by the Review Committee under Rule 14 of the Rules to periodically review the blocked resources.<br /><br /></li><li>Please provide us copies of all the findings of the Review Committee.<br /><br /></li><li>If the Review Committee has not met, please provide us the reason for the meetings not happenings as per the requirement of Rule 14 of the Rules.<br /><br /><strong>Reply 11, 12 & 13</strong> - This meeting is coordinated by Department of Telecommunications and DIT is not in possession of details.<br /><br /></li><li>Does "intermediary" in Rule 13 include intermediaries not located in India?<br /><br /><strong>Reply</strong> - Such type of information is not permitted under RTI Act as per DOPT OM No. 1/7/2009 - IR dated 1st June 2009.<br /><br /></li><li>Has any block ordered by the DIT ever been revoked by the DIT or any other governmental authority?<br /><br /><strong>Reply</strong> - Such questions are not permitted under RTI Act as per DOPT OM No. 1 /7/2009 IR dated 1st June 2009.<br /><br /></li><li>On what basis does the DIT decide whether the appropriate intermediary is the person who has put up content, the web host, or the different Internet service providers in India?<br /><br /><strong>Reply</strong> - Such type of information is not permitted under RTI Act as per DOPT OM No. 1/7/2009 - IR dated 1st June 2009.<br /><br /></li><li>Does Rule 16 of the Rules override the Right to Information Act?<br /><br /><strong>Reply</strong> - Such type of information is not admissible under RTI Act as per DOPT OM No. 1/7/2009 - IR dated 1st June 2009.<br /><br /></li><li>If the answer to the previous question is yes, please provide any correspondence with any legal officer who provided the DIT advice that it could override the Right to Information Act through delegated legislation.<br /><br /><strong>Reply</strong> - Such type of information is not admissible under RTI Act as per DOPT OM No. 1/7/2009 - IR dated 1st June 2009.</li></ol>
</div>
<h2><br /></h2>
<h2>Annexure II</h2>
<h3> <span class="Apple-style-span">Request received by Designated Officer </span></h3>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<div> </div>
<div>
<table class="plain">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><strong>Website</strong></td>
<td><strong>Date of receipt of request </strong> </td>
<td><strong>Request by</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/www.tamil.net.in" class="external-link">www.tamil.net.in</a></td>
<td>29.03.2010</td>
<td>Secretary Public (Law & Order) Deptt.<br />Secretariat, Chennai 600 009</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><a class="external-link" href="http://www.betfair.com/">www.betfair.com</a></td>
<td>28.06.2010</td>
<td>Sr. Inspector, Cyber Crime Cell, <br />Mumbai</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><a class="external-link" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHUNESaC0E4">http://www.youtube.com/ch?<span class="Apple-style-span"></span></a><a class="external-link" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHUNESaC0E4">wat</a><span class="Apple-style-span"><a class="external-link" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHUNESaC0E4">v=tHUNESaC0E4</a></span></td>
<td>05.07.2010</td>
<td>Jt. Commissioner of Police (Crime), <br />Mumbai</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><a class="external-link" href="http://ulaginazhagiyamuthalpenn.blogspot.com">http://ulaginazhagiyamuthalpenn.blogspot.com</a></td>
<td>21.07.2010</td>
<td>Principal Secretary, <br />IT Department, <br />Chennai–600 009</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/en.wikipedia.org/Wiki/Sukhbir Singh Badal" class="external-link">en.wikipedia.org/Wiki/Sukhbir Singh Badal</a></td>
<td>11.08.2010</td>
<td>Principal Secretary to Govt. of Punjab, <br />Dept. of IT, <br />Chandigarh</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><a class="external-link" href="http://www.exbii.com">http://www.exbii.com</a><br /><a class="external-link" href="http://www.topix.net/">http://www.topix.net</a></td>
<td>05.10.2010</td>
<td>Commissioner, <br />Maharashtra State, <br />Colaba, Mumbai–400 001</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><a class="external-link" href="http://ashsyumul.blogspot.com/2009/12/penginaan-terhadap-islam.html">http://ashsyumul.blogspot.com/2009/12/penginaan-terhadap-islam.html</a></td>
<td>20.08.2010</td>
<td>Shri Haneef Ali, <br />State President, <br />Bharatiya Janata Minority Morcha, <br />Andhra Pradesh</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span class="Apple-style-span"><a class="external-link" href="http://www.angelsofindia.com/">http://www.angelsofindia.com/</a></span><br /><span class="Apple-style-span"><a class="external-link" href="http://www.adult-gals.com/">http://www.adult-gals.com/</a></span><br /><span class="Apple-style-span"><a class="external-link" href="http://www.indianangels.net/">http://www.indianangels.net/</a></span><br /><span class="Apple-style-span"><a class="external-link" href="http://www.arabexposed.com/">http://www.arabexposed.com/</a></span><br /><span class="Apple-style-span"><a class="external-link" href="http://www.indiamafia.com/">http://indiamafia.com/</a></span><br /><span class="Apple-style-span"><a class="external-link" href="http://www.indianasfuckers.com/">http://www.indianasfuckers.com</a></span><br /><span class="Apple-style-span"><a class="external-link" href="http://www.indianpronvideos.in/">http://www.indianpronvideos.in/</a></span><br /><span class="Apple-style-span"><a class="external-link" href="http://www.peterporntube.com/">http://www.peterporntube.com</a></span><br /><span class="Apple-style-span"><a class="external-link" href="http://www.bollywood-sex.net/">http://www.bollywood-sex.net/</a></span><br /><span class="Apple-style-span"><a class="external-link" href="http://www.indianworldsex.com/">http://www.indianworldsex.com/</a></span><br /><span class="Apple-style-span"><a class="external-link" href="http://indianhomevideo.com/">http://indianhomevideo.com/</a></span><br /><span class="Apple-style-span"><a class="external-link" href="http://indian-pakistani-girls.com/">http://indian-pakistani-girls.com</a></span><br /><span class="Apple-style-span"><a class="external-link" href="http://indianvidz.com/">http://indianvidz.com</a></span><br /><span class="Apple-style-span"><a class="external-link" href="http://www.indianparadise.net/">http://indianparadise.net/</a></span><br /><span class="Apple-style-span"><a class="external-link" href="http://bollywoodscandals.net/">http://bollywoodscandals.net/</a></span><br /><span class="Apple-style-span"><a class="external-link" href="http://indiansexpics.net/">http://indiansexpics.net/</a></span><br /><span class="Apple-style-span"><a class="external-link" href="http://www.indian-hardcore-movies.com/">http://www.indian-hardcore-movies.com/</a></span><br /><span class="Apple-style-span"><a class="external-link" href="http://www.bollywoodnudesex.net/">http://www.bollywoodnudesex.net/</a></span><br /><span class="Apple-style-span"><a class="external-link" href="http://www.bangmyindianwife.com/">http://www.bangmyindianwife.com/</a></span><br /><span class="Apple-style-span"><a class="external-link" href="http://www.indian-angel-teens.com/">http://www.indian-angel-teens.com/</a></span><br /><span class="Apple-style-span"><a class="external-link" href="http://south-indian-sex.com/">http://south-indian-sex.com/</a></span><br /><span class="Apple-style-span"><a class="external-link" href="http://www.indianseduction.com/">http://www.indianseduction.com/</a></span><br /><span class="Apple-style-span"><a class="external-link" href="http://www.indiansexuniversity.com/">http://www.indiansexuniversity.com</a></span><br /><span class="Apple-style-span"><a class="external-link" href="http://www.indianpassion.com/">http://www.indianpassion.com/</a></span><br /><span class="Apple-style-span"><a class="external-link" href="http://fuckmyindianass.com/">http://fuckmyindianass.com</a></span><br /><span class="Apple-style-span"><a class="external-link" href="http://www.indiansexwebcams.com/">http://indiansexwebcams.com/</a></span><br /><span class="Apple-style-span"><a class="external-link" href="http://exoticpics4u.com/">http://exoticpics4u.com/</a></span><br /><span class="Apple-style-span"><a class="external-link" href="http://www.indianfreesexmovies.com/">http://www.indianfreesexmovies.com/</a></span><br /><span class="Apple-style-span"><a class="external-link" href="http://www.newsindiansexmovies.com/">http://www.newsindiansexmovies.com/</a></span><br /><span class="Apple-style-span"><a class="external-link" href="http://www.peterporn.net/">http://www.peterporn.net/</a></span><br /><span class="Apple-style-span"><a class="external-link" href="http://www.3xindianmovies.com/">http://www.3xindianmovies.com/</a></span><br /><span class="Apple-style-span"><a class="external-link" href="http://www.amateur-indian-girls.com/">http://www.amateur-indian-girls.com/</a></span><br /><span class="Apple-style-span"><a class="external-link" href="http://www.bollywoodhardcore.net/">http://www.bollywoodhardcore.net</a></span><br /><span class="Apple-style-span"><a class="external-link" href="http://indiansexpost.com/">http://www. indiansexpost.com/</a></span><br /><span class="Apple-style-span"><a class="external-link" href="http://www.desi-amateurs.com/">http://www.desi-amateurs.com/</a></span><br /><span class="Apple-style-span"><a class="external-link" href="http://www.3xasianmovies.com/">http://www.3xasianmovies.com/</a></span><br /><span class="Apple-style-span"><a class="external-link" href="http://allindiansex.com/">http://allindiansex.com/</a></span><br /><span class="Apple-style-span"><a class="external-link" href="http://www.indiapornmovies.com/">http://www.indiapornmovies.com</a></span><br /><span class="Apple-style-span"><a class="external-link" href="http://www.3xindiansex.com/">http://www.3xindiansex.com/</a></span><br /><span class="Apple-style-span"><a class="external-link" href="http://www.indianxclips.com/">http://www.indianxclips.com/</a></span><br /><span class="Apple-style-span"><a class="external-link" href="http://indiansexvideos.org/">http://indiansexvideos.org</a></span><br /><span class="Apple-style-span"><a class="external-link" href="http://www.pureindianporn.com/">http://www.pureindianporn.com/</a></span><br /><span class="Apple-style-span"><a class="external-link" href="http://indian-porn-sex.com/">http://indian-porn-sex.com</a></span><br /><span class="Apple-style-span"><a class="external-link" href="http://www.newsindianpornmovies.com/">http://www.newsindianpornmovies.com</a></span><br /><span class="Apple-style-span"><a class="external-link" href="http://juicyindiangirls.com/">http://juicyindiangirls.com</a></span><br /><span class="Apple-style-span"><a class="external-link" href="http://www/hardcoreindiansex.net/">http://www/hardcoreindiansex.net</a></span><br /><span class="Apple-style-span"><a class="external-link" href="http://bollywoodboobs.com/">http://bollywoodboobs.com</a></span><br /><span class="Apple-style-span"><a class="external-link" href="http://indianmovietgp.com/">http://indianmovietgp.com/</a></span><br /><span class="Apple-style-span"><a class="external-link" href="http://www.365indian.com/">http://www.365indian.com</a></span><br /><span class="Apple-style-span"><a class="external-link" href="http://www.indian-sex-hoes.com/">http://www.indian-sex-hoes.com/</a></span><br /><span class="Apple-style-span"><a class="external-link" href="http://www.indian-sex-photos.net/">http://www.indian-sex-photos.net/</a></span><br /><span class="Apple-style-span"><a class="external-link" href="http://www.indian-free-sex.com/">http://www.indian-free-sex.com/</a></span><br /><span class="Apple-style-span"><a class="external-link" href="http://www.indian-sex-movies.org/">http://www.indian-sex-movies.org</a></span><br /><span class="Apple-style-span"><a class="external-link" href="http://ww.tamil-sex-movies.net/">http://ww.tamil-sex-movies.net/</a></span><br /><span class="Apple-style-span"><a class="external-link" href="http://www.indianteens.org/">http://www.indianteens.org/</a></span><br /><span class="Apple-style-span"><a class="external-link" href="http://secredir.com/?sov=rook-sexyindianbooty.com">http://www.sexyindianbooty.com</a></span><br /><span class="Apple-style-span"><a class="external-link" href="http://www.indianposing.com/">http://www.indianposing.com</a></span><br /><span class="Apple-style-span"><a class="external-link" href="http://www.pornhub.com/">http://www.pornhub.com/</a></span><br /><span class="Apple-style-span"><a class="external-link" href="http://www.indianpornhub.com/">http://www.indianpornhub.com/</a></span><br /><a class="external-link" href="http://www.exvideos.com">http://www.exvideos.com </a></td>
<td>25.11.2010</td>
<td>Jt.Commissioner of Police (Crime), Mumbai</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
<h2>Annexure III</h2>
<h3><span class="Apple-style-span">Minutes of the meeting held on 24-08-2010 for the request for blocking of website <a class="external-link" href="http://www.betfair.com/">www.betfair.com</a></span></h3>
<div>A meeting of "Committee for examination of request" constituted under the provisions of Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009 under section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 was held on 24.08.2010 at Electronics Niketan. New Delhi to examine the Request sent by Government of Maharashtra to block the website <a class="external-link" href="http://www.betfair.com">www.betfair.com</a>. The meeting was participated by the following members:</div>
<ol><li>Dr. Gulshan Rai, Group Coordinator, Department of Information Technology</li><li>Shri Dharmendra Sharma, Joint Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs</li><li>Shri Arvind Kumar, Joint Secretary, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting</li><li>Shri Ashok C. Prakash, Additional L.A., Department of Legal Affairs</li><li>Shri B.J. Srinath, Sr. Director, CERT-In</li></ol>
<div> </div>
<p>The Committee discussed the case and observed that Govt. of Maharashtra has requested for blocking of website <a class="external-link" href="http://www.betfair.com">www.betfair.com</a> on the grounds of "public order". The Committee also noted the reply from Cyber Crime Cell, Mumbai that no case has been registered against <a class="external-link" href="http://www.betfair.com">www.betfair.com</a>. Further, no details suggesting the "impact" of the said site on public order has been made available by the State Government. </p>
<p>Keeping in view the directions of the Hon'ble High Court to dispose the application strictly as per law, the Committee assessed that based on the data/facts/details provided by Government of Maharashtra and Cyber Crime Cell, Mumbai, violation of section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 is not being established. </p>
<p class="callout"><strong>Download a scanned version of the letter received from the DIT office <a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/request-for-website-blocking.pdf" class="internal-link" title="Request for Blocking of Websites">here</a> </strong>[PDF, 1.74 MB]</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/dit-response-2nd-rti-blocking'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/dit-response-2nd-rti-blocking</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshRTIInternet GovernanceCensorship2011-10-28T14:37:34ZBlog EntryRTI Applications on Blocking of Websites
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/rtis-on-website-blocking
<b>In recent weeks, an increasing number of incidents have come to light on government-ordered blocking of websites. In one case involving Zone-H.org, it is clear who has ordered the block (a Delhi district court judge, as an interim order), even though the block itself is open to constitutional challenge. In all others cases, including the TypePad case, it is unclear who has ordered the block and why. We at CIS have sent in two right to information requests to find out.</b>
<p>While under the law (i.e., s.69A of the Information Technology Act), the Department of Information Technology (DIT) has the power to order blocks (via the 'Designated Officer'), in some cases it has been noted that the ISPs have noted that the order to block access to the websites have come from the Department of Telecom (DoT). Due to this, we have sent in RTI applications to both the DIT and the DoT.</p>
<h2>RTI Application to Department of Information Technology<br /></h2>
<p align="JUSTIFY">To</p>
<p align="JUSTIFY">Shri
B.B.Bahl,<br />Joint
Director and PIO (RTI)<br />Office
of PIO (RTI)<br />Room
No 1016, Electronics Niketan<br />Department
of Information Technology (DIT)<br />Ministry
of Communications and Information Technology<br />6,
CGO Complex, New Delhi</p>
<p align="JUSTIFY"> </p>
<p align="JUSTIFY">Dear
Sir, </p>
<p align="JUSTIFY"><strong>Subject:
Information on Website Blocking Requested under the Right to
Information Act, 2005 </strong></p>
<p align="JUSTIFY"><strong>1.
Full Name of the Applicant:</strong><br />Pranesh
Prakash </p>
<p align="JUSTIFY"><strong>2.
Address of the Applicant:</strong><br />E-mail
Address:<br />pranesh[at]cis-india.org
</p>
<p align="JUSTIFY">Mailing
Address:<br />Centre
for Internet and Society<br />194,
2-C Cross,<br />Domlur
Stage II,<br />Bangalore
– 560071 </p>
<p align="JUSTIFY"><strong>3.
Details of the information required</strong>:</p>
<p align="JUSTIFY">It
has come to our attention that Airtel Broadband Services (“Airtel”)
has recently blocked access to a blog host called TypePad
(http://www.typepad.com) (“TypePad”) for all its users across the
country. In this regard, we request information on the following
queries under Section 6(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005:</p>
<ol type="i"><li>
<p align="JUSTIFY">Did
the Department order Airtel to block TypePad under s.69A of the
Information Technology Act (“IT Act”), 2000 read with the
Information Technology (Procedures and Safeguards for Blocking
Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009 (“Rules”) or any
other law for the time being in force? If so, please provide a copy
of such order or orders. If not, what action, if at all, has been
taken by the Department against Airtel for blocking of websites in
contravention of s.69A of the IT Act?</p>
</li><li>
<p align="JUSTIFY">Has
the Department ever ordered a block under s.69A of the IT Act? If
so, what was the information that was ordered to be blocked?</p>
</li><li>
<p align="JUSTIFY">How
many requests for blocking of information has the Designated Officer
received, and how many of those requests have been accepted and how
many rejected? How many of those requests were for emergency
blocking under Rule 9 of the Rules?</p>
</li><li>
<p align="JUSTIFY">Please
provide use the present composition of the Committee for Examination
of Requests constituted under Rule 7 of the Rules.</p>
</li><li>
<p align="JUSTIFY">Please
provide us the dates and copies of the minutes of all meetings held
by the Committee for Examination of Requests under Rule 8(4) of the
Rules, and copies of their recommendations.</p>
</li><li>
<p align="JUSTIFY">Please
provide us the present composition of the Review Committee
constituted under rule 419A of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951.</p>
</li><li>
<p align="JUSTIFY">Please
provide us the dates and copies of the minutes of all meetings held
by the Review Committee under Rule 14 of the Rules, and copies of
all orders issued by the Review Committee.</p>
</li></ol>
<p align="JUSTIFY"><strong>4.
Years to which the above requests pertain:</strong><br />2008-2011</p>
<strong>5.
Designation and Address of the PIO from whom the information is
required: </strong>
<p align="JUSTIFY">Shri
B.B.Bahl,<br />Joint
Director and PIO (RTI)<br />Office
of PIO (RTI)<br />Room
No 1016, Electronics Niketan<br />Department
of Information Technology (DIT)<br />Ministry
of Communications and Information Technology<br />6,
CGO Complex, New Delhi</p>
<p>To
the best of my belief, the details sought for fall within your
authority. Further, as provided under section 6(3) of the Right to
Information Act (“RTI Act”), in case this application does not
fall within your authority, I request you to transfer the same in the
designated time (5 days) to the concerned authority and inform me of
the same immediately.</p>
<p>To
the best of my knowledge the information sought does not fall within
the restrictions contained in section 8 and 9 of the RTI Act, and any
provision protecting such information in any other law for the time
being in force is inapplicable due to section 22 of the RTI Act.<br /></p>
<p>Please
provide me this information in electronic form, via the e-mail
address provided above.</p>
<p>This
to certify that I, Pranesh Prakash, am a citizen of India.</p>
<p>A
fee of Rs. 10/- (Rupees Ten Only) has been made out in the form of a
demand draft drawn in favour of “Pay and Accounts Officer,
Department of Information Technology” payable at New Delhi.</p>
<p align="JUSTIFY"><br /></p>
<p align="JUSTIFY">Date:
Monday, February 28, 2011<br />Place:
Bengaluru, Karnataka</p>
<br />(Pranesh
Prakash)
<p align="JUSTIFY"> </p>
<h2>RTI Application to Department of Telecom</h2>
<p align="JUSTIFY">To</p>
<p align="JUSTIFY">Shri
Subodh Saxena<br />Central
Public Information Officer (RTI)<br />Director
(DS-II)<br />Room
No 1006, Sanchar Bhawan<br />Department
of Telecommunications (DoT)<br />Ministry
of Communications and Information Technology<br />20,
Ashoka Road, New Delhi — 110001</p>
<p align="JUSTIFY"> </p>
<p align="JUSTIFY">Dear
Sir, </p>
<p align="JUSTIFY"><strong>Subject:
Information on Website Blocking Requested under the Right to
Information Act, 2005 </strong></p>
<p align="JUSTIFY"><strong>1.
Full Name of the Applicant:</strong><br />Pranesh
Prakash </p>
<p align="JUSTIFY"><strong>2.
Address of the Applicant:</strong><br />E-mail
Address:<br />pranesh[at]cis-india.org
</p>
<p align="JUSTIFY">Mailing
Address:<br />Centre
for Internet and Society<br />194,
2-C Cross,<br />Domlur
Stage II,<br />Bangalore
– 560071 </p>
<p align="JUSTIFY"><strong>3.
Details of the information required</strong>:</p>
<p align="JUSTIFY">It
has come to our attention that Airtel Broadband Services (“Airtel”)
has recently blocked access to a blog host called TypePad
(http://www.typepad.com) (“TypePad”) for all its users across the
country. Airtel subscribers trying to access this website receive a
message noting “This site has been blocked as per request by
Department of Telecom”. In this regard, we request information on
the following queries under Section 6(1) of the Right to Information
Act, 2005:</p>
<ol type="i"><li>
<p align="JUSTIFY">Does
the Department have powers to require an Internet Service Provider
to block a website? If so, please provide a citation of the statute
under which power is granted to the Department, as well as the the
safeguards prescribed to be in accordance with Article 19(1)(a) of
the Constitution of India.</p>
</li><li>
<p align="JUSTIFY">Did
the Department order Airtel to block TypePad or any blog hosted by
TypePad? If so, please provide a copy of such order or orders. If
not, what action, if at all, has been taken by the Department
against Airtel for blocking of websites?</p>
</li><li>
<p align="JUSTIFY">Has
the Department ever ordered the blocking of any website? If so,
please provide a list of addresses of all the websites that have
been ordered to be blocked.</p>
</li><li>
<p align="JUSTIFY">Please
provide use the present composition of the Committee constituted
under rule 419A of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951. </p>
</li><li>
<p align="JUSTIFY">Please
provide us the dates and copies of the minutes of all meetings held
by the Committee constituted under rule 419A of the Indian Telegraph
Rules, 1951, and copies of all their recommendations.</p>
</li></ol>
<p align="JUSTIFY"><strong>4.
Years to which the above requests pertain:</strong><br />2005-2011</p>
<p><strong>5.
Designation and Address of the PIO from whom the information is
required:</strong><br />Shri
Subodh Saxena<br />Central
Public Information Officer (RTI)<br />Director
(DS-II)<br />Room
No 1006, Sanchar Bhawan<br />Department
of Telecommunications (DoT)<br />Ministry
of Communications and Information Technology<br />20,
Ashoka Road, New Delhi — 110001</p>
<div style="text-align: justify;" class="visualClear"> </div>
<p>To
the best of my belief, the details sought for fall within your
authority. Further, as provided under section 6(3) of the Right to
Information Act (“RTI Act”), in case this application does not
fall within your authority, I request you to transfer the same in the
designated time (5 days) to the concerned authority and inform me of
the same immediately. </p>
<p>To
the best of my knowledge the information sought does not fall within
the restrictions contained in section 8 and 9 of the RTI Act, and any
provision protecting such information in any other law for the time
being in force is inapplicable due to section 22 of the RTI Act.</p>
<p>Please
provide me this information in electronic form, via the e-mail
address provided above.</p>
<p>This
to certify that I, Pranesh Prakash, am a citizen of India. </p>
<p>A
fee of Rs. 10/- (Rupees Ten Only) has been made out in the form of a
demand draft drawn in favour of “Pay and Accounts Officer (HQ),
Department of Telecom” payable at New Delhi.</p>
<p align="JUSTIFY"> </p>
<p align="JUSTIFY">Date:
Monday, February 28, 2011<br />Place:
Bengaluru, Karnataka</p>
<p align="JUSTIFY"> <br />(Pranesh
Prakash)</p>
<p align="JUSTIFY"> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/rtis-on-website-blocking'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/rtis-on-website-blocking</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshFreedom of Speech and ExpressionIT ActRTIPublic Accountability2012-12-21T06:34:27ZBlog EntryAnalysis of the Copyright (Amendment) Bill, 2010
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/copyright-bill-analysis
<b>CIS analyses the Copyright (Amendment) Bill, 2010, from a public interest perspective to sift the good from the bad, and importantly to point out what crucial amendments should be considered but have not been so far.</b>
<p>
The full submission that CIS and 21 other civil society organizations made to the Rajya Sabha Standing Committee on HRD (which is studying the Bill) is <a title="Copyright Bill Analysis" class="internal-link" href="http://www.cis-india.org/advocacy/ipr/upload/copyright-bill-submission">available here</a>. Given below is the summary of our submissions:</p>
<h2 class="western">Existing Copyright Act</h2>
<p align="JUSTIFY">The Indian Copyright
Act, 1957 has been designed from the perspective of a developing
country. It has always attempted a balance between various kinds of
interests. It has always sought to ensure that rights of authors of
creative works is carefully promoted alongside the public interest
served by wide availability and usability of that material. For
instance, our Copyright Act has provisions for: </p>
<ul><li>
<p align="JUSTIFY">compulsory and
statutory licensing: recognizing its importance in making works
available, especially making them available at an affordable rate.</p>
</li><li>
<p align="JUSTIFY">cover versions:
recognizing that more players lead to a more vibrant music industry.</p>
</li><li>
<p align="JUSTIFY">widely-worded
right of fair dealing for private use: recognizing that individual
use and large-scale commercial misuse are different.</p>
</li></ul>
<p align="JUSTIFY">These provisions of
our Act <a class="external-link" href="http://a2knetwork.org/watchlist/report/india">have been lauded</a>,<sup><a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote1anc" href="#sdfootnote1sym"></a></sup>
and India has been rated as <a class="external-link" href="http://a2knetwork.org/summary-report-2010">the most balanced copyright system in a
global survey</a><sup><a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote2anc" href="#sdfootnote2sym"></a></sup>
conducted of over 34 countries by <a class="external-link" href="http://www.consumersinternational.org/">Consumers International</a><sup><a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote3anc" href="#sdfootnote3sym"></a></sup>.</p>
<p align="JUSTIFY">The Indian Parliament
has always sought to be responsive to changing technologies by paying
heed to both the democratisation of access as well as the securing of
the interests of copyright holders. This approach needs to be lauded,
and importantly, needs to be maintained.</p>
<p align="JUSTIFY"><br /></p>
<h2 class="western">Proposed Amendments</h2>
<h3 class="western">Some positive amendments</h3>
<ul><li>
<p align="JUSTIFY"><strong>Fair
Dealings, Parallel Importation, Non-commercial Rental</strong>: All works
(including sound recordings and cinematograph films) are now covered
the fair dealings clause (except computer programmes), and a few
other exceptions; parallel importation is now clearly allowed; and
non-commercial rental has become a limitation in some cases.</p>
</li><li>
<p align="JUSTIFY"><strong>Persons with
disabilities</strong>: There is finally an attempt at addressing the
concerns of persons with disabilities. But the provisions are
completely useless the way they are currently worded.</p>
</li><li>
<p align="JUSTIFY"><strong>Public
Libraries</strong>: They can now make electronic copies of works they
own, and some other beneficial changes relating to public libraries.</p>
</li><li>
<p align="JUSTIFY"><strong>Education</strong>:
Some exceptions related to education have been broadened (scope of
works, & scope of use).</p>
</li><li>
<p align="JUSTIFY"><strong>Statutory and
compulsory licensing</strong>: Some new statutory licensing provisions
(including for radio broadcasting) and some streamlining of existing
compulsory licensing provisions.</p>
</li><li>
<p align="JUSTIFY"><strong>Copyright
societies</strong>: These are now responsible to authors and not owners
of works.</p>
</li><li>
<p align="JUSTIFY"><strong>Open
licences</strong>: Free and Open Source Software and Open Content
licensing is now simpler.</p>
</li><li>
<p align="JUSTIFY"><strong>Partial
exemption of online intermediaries</strong>:
Transient and incidental storage of copyrighted works has
been excepted, mostly for the benefit of online intermediaries.</p>
</li><li>
<p align="JUSTIFY"><strong>Performer’s
rights</strong>: The general, and confusing, exclusive right that
performers had to communicate their performance to the public has
been removed, and instead only the exclusive right to communicate
sound/video recordings remains.</p>
</li><li>
<p align="JUSTIFY"><strong>Enforcement</strong>:
Provisions on border measures have been made better, and less prone
to abuse and prevention of legitimate trade.</p>
</li></ul>
<h3 class="western"><br /></h3>
<h3 class="western">Some negative amendments</h3>
<ul><li>
<p align="JUSTIFY"><strong>WCT and WPPT
compliance</strong>: India has not signed either of these two treaties,
which impose TRIPS-plus copyright protection, but without any
corresponding increase in fair dealing / fair use rights.</p>
</li><li>
<p align="JUSTIFY"><strong>Increase in
duration of copyright</strong>: This will significantly reduce the public
domain, which India has been arguing for internationally.</p>
</li><li>
<p align="JUSTIFY"><strong>Technological
Protection Measures</strong>: TPMs, which have been shown to be
anti-consumer in all countries in which they have been introduced,
are sought to be brought into Indian law.</p>
</li><li>
<p align="JUSTIFY"><strong>Version
recordings</strong>: The amendments make cover version much more
difficult to produce.</p>
</li><li>
<p align="JUSTIFY"><strong>Moral rights</strong>:
Changes have been made to author’s moral rights (and performer’s
moral rights have been introduced) but these have been made without
requisite safeguards.</p>
</li></ul>
<h3 class="western"><br /></h3>
<h3 class="western">Missed opportunities</h3>
<ul><li>
<p align="JUSTIFY"><strong>Government-funded
works</strong>: Taxpayers are still not free to use works that were paid
for by them. This goes against the direction that India has elected
to march towards with the Right to Information Act.</p>
</li><li>
<p align="JUSTIFY"><strong>Copyright
terms</strong>: The duration of all copyrights are above the minimum
required by our international obligations, thus decreasing the
public domain which is crucial for all scientific and cultural
progress.</p>
</li><li>
<p align="JUSTIFY"><strong>Criminal
provisions</strong>: Our law still criminalises individual,
non-commercial copyright infringement.</p>
</li><li>
<p align="JUSTIFY"><strong>Libraries and
archives</strong>: The exceptions for ‘public libraries’ are still
too narrow in what they perceive as ‘public libraries’.</p>
</li><li>
<p align="JUSTIFY"><strong>Educational
exceptions</strong>: The exceptions for education still do not fully
embrace distance and digital education.</p>
</li><li>
<p align="JUSTIFY"><strong>Communication
to the public</strong>: No clear definition is given of what constitute a
‘public’, and no distinction is drawn between commercial and
non-commercial ‘public’ communication.</p>
</li><li>
<p align="JUSTIFY"><strong>Internet
intermediaries</strong>: More protections are required to be granted to
Internet intermediaries to ensure that non-market based
peer-production projects such as Wikipedia, and other forms of
social media and grassroots innovation are not stifled.</p>
</li><li>
<p align="JUSTIFY"><strong>Fair dealing
and fair use</strong>: We would benefit greatly if, apart from the
specific exceptions provided for in the Act, more general guidelines
were also provided as to what do not constitute infringement. This
would not take away from the existing exceptions.</p>
</li></ul>
<p align="JUSTIFY"> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/copyright-bill-analysis'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/copyright-bill-analysis</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshAccess to KnowledgeConsumer RightsCopyrightFair DealingsPublic AccountabilityIntellectual Property RightsRTIFeaturedBroadcastingPublicationsSubmissionsTechnological Protection Measures2011-09-21T06:01:54ZBlog EntryRTI Application to Visvesvaraya Technological University
https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/rti-application-on-microsoft-vtu-deal
<b>The Centre for Internet and Society filed an RTI application to Visvesvaraya Technological University asking it to provide details about its curriculum design, and its tie-ups with various software vendors. </b>
<p>The grip software vendors have over courses in technology (at both the school and the university levels) is a matter for concern. Due to what can be termed institutional inertia, educational institutions often don't realise that alternatives exist in the form of FLOSS (Free/Libre/Open Source software), as proprietary software is entrenched in the system (and is sometimes the market leader in that tech sector). To further tighten their grip, software vendors enter into commercial deals with governments and universities in attempts to penetrate the crucial education sector. This often results in students being taught courses on how to use particular (usually proprietary) software instead of being taught standard technologies. In turn, this denies them the opportunity to learn the concepts behind the software effectively, and ties them to the particular software that they were taught. For software vendors, getting their products into the curricula is very important because the supply of students trained in particular software also affects the demand for that software.</p>
<p>Students should be taught technologies first and foremost, and these technologies should be taught via the vehicle of both free and proprietary software (this is much easier if the technology itself is an open technology). That would allow students the opportunity to understand different implementations of the same technology and make an informed decision as to what they wish to use. It would also offer them more opportunities and choices in their future careers. The importance of FLOSS in the education sector is highlighted in <a class="external-link" href="http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/FOSS_Education">a guide</a> brought out by the United Nations Development Programme's International Open Source Network.</p>
<p>Against this backdrop, when news reports appeared in the Hindu (<a class="external-link" href="http://www.hindu.com/2008/11/19/stories/2008111956231000.htm">19 November 2008</a>) and the Deccan Herald (<a class="external-link" href="http://www.deccanherald.com/Content/Nov202008/state20081119101706.asp">20 November 2008</a>) about a curriculum tie-up between Microsoft and Visvesvaraya Technological University, we filed a Right to Information application to get more details about it. The response stated that this matter was still under discussion and no agreement had been signed.</p>
<p>To read the application, click <a href="https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/uploads/rti-application-to-vtu" class="external-link">here</a>; to read the response, click <a href="https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/uploads/rti-response-from-vtu" class="external-link">here</a>. You can download a scanned copy of the response <a href="https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/uploads/RTIresponse-VTU/image_view_fullscreen" class="external-link">here</a>.</p>
<p>-----</p>
<p>This entry was originally posted on 30 March 2009 and was updated on 3 April 2009.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/rti-application-on-microsoft-vtu-deal'>https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/rti-application-on-microsoft-vtu-deal</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshFLOSSRTI2011-08-18T05:01:46ZBlog Entry