Access To Knowledge (A2K)

Forensic DNA Databases

praskrishna — 2012-10-10T10:57:33Z

A presentation by Jeremy Gruber

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/forensic-dna-databases.ppt

The UK DNA Database and the European Court of Human Rights

praskrishna — 2012-10-10T10:19:35Z

A presentation by Dr. Helen Wallace, Director, GeneWatch, UK

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/uk-dna-database-and-european-court-of-human-rights.ppt

DML Conference 2013

praskrishna — 2013-03-04T03:54:58Z

The Centre for Internet & Society and Digital Media & Learning Research Hub Central are jointly organizing the DML Conference 2013 in Chicago from March 14 to 16, 2013.

Conference Theme: "Democratic Futures: Mobilizing Voices and Remixing Youth Participation"

The fourth annual conference - DML2013 - will explore the shifting contours of participatory democracy with a focus, for example, on the role of networked publics in mobilizing social movements; the remixing of civic engagement; and youth-driven forms of social innovation and community transformation. This conference is meant to be an inclusive, international and annual gathering of scholars and practitioners in the field, focused on fostering interdisciplinary and participatory dialog and linking theory, empirical study, policy, activism, and practice.

The Digital Media and Learning Conference is an annual event supported by the MacArthur Foundation and organized by the Digital Media and Learning Research Hub located at the UC Humanities Research Institute, University of California, Irvine.

Nishant Shah has a featured session at the DML Conference. See http://bit.ly/13zhpmz

Feature Session: Whose Change Is It Anyway? Futures, Youth, Technology And Citizen Action In The Global South (And The Rest Of The World)

Whose Change Is It Anyway? seeks to explore new entry points into the discourse on youth, technology and change, with a specific focus on (but not restricted to) the Global South and the last decade of citizen action. This conference track seeks to fashion frameworks and structures that provide new ways of interpreting and understanding outcomes that technology mediated citizen action has to offer, as well as the future of citizen led interventions: What enables, catalyzes and moves young people to reinvent themselves as citizen actors? What are the interventions and narratives of change that fail to fit into a ‘success’ rubric, but are still significant in the processes of change they initiate? How do we understand these ‘new’ events as hybrids, connecting with existing histories, contexts, media and technologies in their regions? Is there an alternative discourse that does not necessarily adopt frameworks arising from the knowledge centers of the West? Do these discourses help challenge and rework global vocabularies by offering new ways of looking at citizen action and change? The track will invite provocative hypotheses, in-depth analyses, dialogues and contestations around these ideas, through innovative interactive presentation formats. The dialogue will be informed by experimental and new methods of information and knowledge production, focusing on the Global South and its larger transnational contexts at the junctures of youth, technology and change.

Organizer(s):

Nishant Shah

Participants:

Radhika Gajalla

Kavita Philip

Ramesh Srinivasan

Nighat Dad

Contact:
Email us at dmlhub@hri.uci.edu or subscribe to our mailing list at http://bit.ly/dmlhub-l to receive up-to-date information regarding the 2013 conference.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/events/dml-conference-2013

Transparency and Privacy

praskrishna — 2014-02-28T04:54:08Z

The two concepts, transparency and privacy, can be both opposing and inter related. On one level the protection of individual privacy is achieved through institutional and governmental transparency, as transparency of actions taken by the government or private sector, concerning the individuals works to inspire trust. On another level situations of privacy and transparency bring out the question of how the public good should be balanced against public and private interests.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/transparency-and-privacy.pdf

New Trends in Industry Self-Governance

praskrishna — 2012-10-04T11:37:54Z

Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford, UK and Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ, University of Zurich, Switzerland and Nominet, UK is organising this workshop on November 7, 2012 at the seventh annual IGF meeting to be held in Baku, Azerbaijan. This workshop will be held in Conference Room 2, from 4.30 p.m. to 6.00 p.m. Sunil Abraham is one of the panelists at this workshop.

Concise description of the proposed workshop:
Informal rule setting still plays a significant role in Internet governance. Non-governmental governance can occur at two levels: by shared rules negotiated through bodies like ICANN, and via private ordering by individual firms with significant market power. This panel will explore these two levels drawing on research into ICANN and two recent cases: the Google Books [non-] settlement, and several governments’ demands that service providers such as Research In Motion and Facebook give local law enforcement agencies access to user communications.

Google’s project to digitize, index, and later to sell access to large numbers of out-of-print books is a leading example of an Internet-triggered shift from public to private regulation and the declining authority of copyright law. It triggered a major international controversy encompassing three class action lawsuits, a proposed and subsequently amended settlement by the litigating parties, more than 400 filings by class-members and "friends of the court" (including the French and German governments), two court hearings, various conferences, innumerous blog entries and articles. A New York federal district court ultimately rejected a proposed settlement between Google and representatives of book authors and publishers, stating that the issues would be “more appropriately decided by Congress than through an agreement among private, self-interested parties."

While almost all states allow law enforcement agencies to intercept Internet communications, the growing use of encryption has restricted access to in-transit communications and social networking data. The governments of India and several Middle Eastern nations have all pressed Research In Motion to allow police access to BlackBerry encrypted messages, threatening otherwise to shut down services. RIM has installed local servers in several countries to meet these demands. The Indian government is reportedly now looking at encrypted services provided by Google and Skype. These and other online services, often hosted in the US, receive frequent requests from foreign law enforcement agencies for user data. Such requests have no statutory force, but may be voluntarily granted under US law – raising questions about user privacy and the oversight of this access.

These cases have much wider implications for other Internet services and users around the world. The proposed workshop will facilitate a multi-stakeholder exploration of these implications.

Four researchers will give precise, provocative five-minute opening statements on the key lessons for Internet rule setting from these cases. Each speaker will pose three specific questions on the accountability, viability and efficiency of these governance structures. These questions will kick-off roundtable discussion between the panelists from government, civil society, business and the technical community. The objective will be to draw out further lessons in how the public interest can best be protected in informal Internet governance processes, with contributions and questions from workshop and remote participants.representing official positions.

Background Paper:

Name of the organiser(s) of the workshop and their affiliation to various stakeholder groups:
Ian Brown, Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford
William Drake, University of Zurich Business, technical community, Civil Society, government co-sponsors in process (TBD)

Have you, or any of your co-organisers, organised an IGF workshop before?: Yes
Please provide link(s) to workshop(s) or report(s):
http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/component/chronocontact/?chronoformname=Workshopsreports2009View&curr=1&wr=84

Provide the names and affiliations of the panellists you are planning to invite:
Sunil Abraham, Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore
Ian Brown, Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford (Moderator)
William Drake, University of Zurich
Jeanette Hoffman, Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin
Emily Taylor, Independent Consultant, UK
Rolf Weber, University of Zurich
Google representative TBC
Government representative TBC

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/new-trends-in-industry-self-governance

Governing Identity on the Internet

praskrishna — 2012-10-04T09:06:59Z

Security, openness and privacy will be discussed at this workshop to be held at the IGF 2012 on November 8, 2012 from 11.00 a.m. to 12.30 p.m. Malavika Jayaram, a fellow at CIS is one of the panelists confirmed for participation.

Concise Description of Workshop:
From single-sign-on identifiers for federated websites to Whois data associated with Internet resources, countless individuals, business and government organizations have a stake in Internet identity information and its governance. While territorially-based governments have historically played a central role in their citizens' identity, it is private service providers and individual users that might be considered the de facto managers of Internet identity information. Private, rule-based arrangements (e.g., “trust frameworks”) have emerged in many industry sectors to help manage Internet identity transactions. Nonetheless, many states are actively pursuing digital identity efforts (OECD 2011), including the United States government's National Strategy for Trusted Identity in Cyberspace (NSTIC) which is standing up a governance body and the European Commission's proposed regulation on electronic identification and trusted services for electronic transactions. These efforts seek to promote greater adoption and interoperability of Internet identity solutions.

What are the appropriate roles of governments, the private sector and individuals in Internet identity? Are there benefits or risks of various Internet identity governance solutions being proposed? How compatible are they with the transnational nature of the Internet? Which stakeholders will determine the standards and policies for how Internet identity information is created, transmitted, utilized, or protected? This workshop, drawing on expertise from business, technical community, civil society and government actors, explores this active yet under examined area of Internet governance. The format of the workshop will include short position statements from the panelists followed by a question and answer session facilitated by a moderator involving the audience.

Organiser(s) Name:

Brenden Kuerbis, Citizen Lab, Munk School of Global Affairs, University of Toronto and Internet Governance Project, Syracuse University
Christine Runnegar, Internet Society

Previous Workshop(s):
http://www.intgovforum.org/workshops_08/showmelist.php?mem=9 http://intgovforum.org/Rio_event_report.php?mem=23 http://www.intgovforum.org/workshops_08/showmelist.php?mem=10 http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/component/chronocontact/?chrono... http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/chronocontact/?chronoformname=W...

Submitted Workshop Panelists:
The following panelists have been confirmed for participation:

Naomi Lefkovitz, Senior Privacy Advisor, National Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace National Program Office, NIST, United States Dept of Commerce (government) (bio [1])
Andrea Servida, Head of Task Force "Legislation Team (eIDAS)", European Commission (government) (bio [2])
Robin Wilton, Technical Outreach for Identity and Privacy, Internet Society (technical) (bio [3])
Malavika Jayaram, Fellow, Centre for Internet & Society
Mawaki Chango, Africa Internet Policy Coordinator, Association for Progressive Communications (academic/civil society) (bio [4])
Marc Crandall, Google (business)
Bill Smith, Technology Evangelist, Paypal (business) (bio [5])
Brenden Kuerbis, Postdoctoral Fellow, Citizen Lab, University of Toronto and Internet Governance Project (academic/civil society) (bio [6])

[1] http://www.linkedin.com/pub/naomi-lefkovitz/47/788/a88 [2] http://www.linkedin.com/pub/andrea-servida/0/47a/a70 [3] http://www.internetsociety.org/who-we-are/staff/mr-robin-wilton [4] http://www.linkedin.com/in/touchwithmawaki [5] http://www.linkedin.com/pub/bill-smith/1/a0b/3a6 [6] http://www.linkedin.com/in/brendenkuerbis

Name of Remote Moderator(s):

Frédéric Donck, European Regional Bureau Director, Internet Society

Assigned Panellists:
Smith - Bill
Servida - Andrea
Jayaram - Malavika
Lefkovitz - Naomi
Wilton - Robin
Kuerbis - Brenden
Chango - Mawaki
Crandall - Marc

Read the original published on the IGF website

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/intgovforum-cms-w2012-proposals-governing-identity-on-the-internet

Civil rights in the digital age, about the impact the Internet has on civil rights

praskrishna — 2012-10-04T08:50:16Z

Malavika Jayaram, fellow of CIS is a panelist at this workshop to be held at the IGF 2012 in Azerbaijan.

The freedom of internet is increasingly causing heated debate . On the one hand the internet is the embodiment of freedom literally crossing all borders, on the other hand governments more and more think of curtailing e.g. social media when these are used to organize criminal activities. Governments in some countries restrict access to the internet or censor information even before their citizens go online. As a matter of fact the internet in Iran and China has already become an ‘intranet’. But also in the UK there is a growing body of public opinion that is in favor of more supervision of social media. When will the influence of this medium have become so strong that it, in certain situations, could be considered a danger to society? Will supervision then be a solution? Unique is the research carried out by D66-member of the European Parliament Marietje Schaake into internet freedom all over the world. The research should lead to a resolution on civil rights in our digital era. The report is expected to be finished sometime around the IGF in November. Subjects treated are trade, human rights, development, safety and the like. The report will contain a number of concrete suggestions both for businesses and for governments, so as on the one hand to expand opportunities with the help of technology, but also to limit possible risks.

Short program:

Introduction:

Each panelist has 2 minutes to introduce him/herself and make one statement on the topic.

Open discussion:

This is followed by an open discussion between panelist and the audience, fed and led by moderator Robert Guerra.

Recommendations:

15 minutes before the end of the workshop, recommendations, emerged from the open discussion, will be put to word.

Organiser(s) Name:

ECP on behalf of the IGF-NL (ECP | Platform for the Information Society wants to take barriers for the implementation and acceptance of ICT away to the benefit of our economy and society, and in order to strengthen our international competitive position. In addition, ECP (also at a political-governmental level) draws attention to a number of specific themes such as growth of productivity, strengthening of competitiveness and the European Digital Agenda. One of it programs is the public-private partnership NL IGF. NL IGF prepairs for the IGF and provides good embedding of the results of the IGF in national policy) Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs, Agriculture & innovation Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs Hivos, the Humanist Institute for Development Cooperation

Previous Workshop(s):

NL IGF organized : 2010: Public-private cooperation on Internet safety/cybercrime http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/chronocontact/?chronoformname=W... 2011: Parliamentarian Challenge: a Round Table between Parliamentarians and other Stakeholders http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/chronocontact/?chronoformname=W...

Submitted Workshop Panelists:

Marietje Schaake (Euro parliamentarian D66)
Lionel Veer (Dutch Human Rights Ambassador)
Hanane Boujemi (Diplo Foundation and upward of this autumn she will work for Hivos on it’s program 'Internet Govenance for the Mena region'.)
Malavika Jayaram (Fellow of the Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore (India), assisting on projects and matters relating to IT law, data protection and privacy. She is also working on a Ph.D. on data protection and privacy laws, with a special focus on the new identity project launched in India. Malavika has over 15 years experience as a lawyer with a focus on technology and intellectual property.)
Emin Milli (an Azerbaijani writer)
Moderator: Robert Guerra (a Canadian independent consultant specializing in issues of Internet Freedom, Internet Governance and Human Rights)
Front row: two Dutch students (both male and female)

All speakers mentioned above have confirmed their participation.

Name of Remote Moderator(s):

Sophie Veraart, NL IGF – ECP

Assigned Panellists:

Schaake - Marietje
Veer - Lionel
Boujemi - Hanane
Jayaram - Malavika
Milli - Emin
Guerra - Robert

Read the original published on the IGF website

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/intgovforum-cms-w2012-proposals

National IG Mechanisms – Looking at Some Key Design Issues

praskrishna — 2012-12-09T00:50:46Z

The Centre for Internet & Society is coorganizing this workshop along with Brazilian Internet Steering Committee, Institute for System Analysis, Russian Academy of Sciences, et.al., at the seventh Internet Governance Forum 2012 in Azerbaijan. The workshop will be held in Conference Room 4, from 2.30 p.m. to 4.00 p.m. Pranesh Prakash is a panelist for this workshop.

Workshop Theme:
Other
Theme Question:
It is a workshop on national level IG mechanisms, and does not directly address any main theme questions

Concise Description of Workshop:

Such is the unique nature of the Internet that its governance often calls for institutional innovations. The proposed workshop will look at a range of national level IG mechanisms across the world. While the discussion will refer to good models and practices in different countries, it will not be organized around simple show-casing of different national IG mechanisms. The discussion will centre around key contexts, requirements, challenges and possibilities. It will be directed towards examining key institutional design issues, functions and outcomes with regard to national level IG mechanisms with the purpose to help countries make appropriate decisions in their specific contexts. Some of these are; - How should the national commons of Internet resources be managed?- What kinds of mechanisms are appropriate for technical matters, what for those that are partly technical and partly social, and what for larger public policy matters, requiring more political responses? - Should there be a common single mechanism to address all the above kinds of issues, or different ones? How to coordinate different mechanisms, and different parts of the national governance machinery dealing with different aspects or kinds of IG issues? - How to ensure meaningful participation of all stakeholders in a manner that focuses on public interest?- How can the surplus from domain name registration fees etc collected by national IG agencies be employed for public interest purposes, especially, for taking up Internet related research.

Organiser(s) Name:

Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore - Civil SocietyBrazilian Internet Steering Committee - National level governance bodyInstitute for System Analysis, Russian Academy of Sciences - Academic InsitutionCentre for Community Informatics Research, Development and Training (CCIRDT), Vancouver, BC CANADA - Civil Society Instituto NUPEF , Rio de Janeiro - Civil SocietyIT for Change, Bangalore - Civil Society.

Previous Workshop(s):

See in the workshops section in IGF 2011IG4D Workshop 183: A Possible Framework for Global Net Neutrality.

Submitted Workshop Panelists:

Carlos Afonso, Insituto NUPEF, Board Member, Brazilian Steering CommiteeEmily Taylor, Independent Consultant, Formerly with NOMINETAlice Munya, Chairperson, Kenya Internet Steering CommiteeVictor Tishchenko, Institute of Advanced Systems, Russian Academy of Sciences,Sunil Abraham, Centre for Internet and Society,Moderator, Micheal Gurstein, Centre for Community Informatics Research, Development and Training, Canada.

Name of Remote Moderator(s):

Ginger Paque

Read the original published on the IGF website here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/national-ig-mechanisms

September 2012 Bulletin

praskrishna — 2012-10-09T06:48:33Z

Welcome to the newsletter of September 2012 from the Centre for Internet & Society (CIS). The present issue features a second analysis by Snehashish Ghosh on the latest list of sites blocked by the Indian government from August 18, 2012 to August 21, 2012, a research on the issues of internet governance by Smarika Kumar, publication of a report on Accessibility of Government websites in India by Nirmita Narasimhan, Mukesh Sharma and Dinesh Kaushal, the Access to Knowledge programme plan and updates from the Wikipedia community in India on Indic languages, updates from the Habits of Living workshop organised in Bengaluru, the events connected to the visits of international DNA experts, Helen Wallace and Jeremy Gruber in India, and introduce you to our Access to Knowledge team members.

Announcements

Office in Delhi
CIS now has an office with a five-member team for the Access to Knowledge programme in Delhi at G 15, top floor, behind Hauz Khas G Block Market, Hauz Khas, New Delhi 110016, Ph: + 91 11 26536425.

New Team Members

Nitika Tandon: Nitika Tandon is a Program Officer with CIS. She has an MBA from Rotterdam School of Management, Netherlands and is a recipient of Dean's Fund Scholarship Program, Erasmus University.
Shiju Alex: Shiju Alex is a Consultant. His background is technical writing and he is interested in Indic language computing and community building for Indic language Wiki projects. Presently he works out of CIS office in Bengaluru.
Subhashish Panigrahi: Subhashish Panigrahi is a Programme Officer to CIS's Access to Knowledge programme and works out of CIS's Delhi office. His background is Business Development in Corporate Communications. He works on designing and implementing programs to provide on-wiki and off-wiki support for new editors.
Noopur Raval: Noopur Raval is working as Consultant - Communications for the Access to Knowledge team at CIS. Having previously worked in the media, she is currently pursuing her M.Phil in Cinema Studies from JNU, New Delhi.

Jobs
CIS is seeking applications from interested candidates for the posts of Research Manager, Researcher/Editor, and Programme Officer – Internet Governance. To apply for these posts send your resume to Sunil Abraham (sunil@cis-india.org) with three references. Archives of our bulletins can be found here. Click to read the newsletter on our website.

Accessibility

India has an estimated 70 million disabled persons who are unable to read printed materials due to some form of physical, sensory, cognitive or other disability. The disabled need accessible content, devices and interfaces facilitated via copyright law and electronic accessibility policies:
Featured Research

Accessibility of Government Websites in India: A Report (by Nirmita Narasimhan, Mukesh Sharma and Dinesh Kaushal, September 26, 2012): This is a report on the accessibility of government websites in India. It was published in cooperation with the Hans Foundation. The report consists of an executive summary, introduction, methodology, findings and recommendations and interpretation and recommendations. Examples of errors are given as appendices.

Project

Creating a National Resource Kit for Persons with Disabilities: An Introduction (by Anandhi Viswanathan, September 28, 2012): CIS is engaged in a two-and-a-half year project starting from August 2012 to create a national resource kit of state-wise laws, policies and programmes on issues relating to persons with disabilities in India. This project is supported by the Hans Foundation. The Resource Kit will be brought out in both English and Hindi and disseminated to policy makers from panchayat to ministry levels throughout India. Anandhi gives an introduction to the project in this blog entry.

Blog Entries

WIPO Treaty for the Visually Impaired — Moving from a Treaty on Paper to a Treaty that is Workable on the Ground (by Rahul Cherian, September 28, 2012): After many years of hard lobbying by the World Blind Union, it appears that the WIPO Treaty on limitations and exceptions for visually impaired persons/persons with print disabilities (TVI) could become a reality next year.
Breaking News on Electronic Accessibility (by Rahul Cherian, September 28, 2012): The Parliamentary Standing Committee constituted to study the Electronic Delivery of Services Bill has in its report explicitly recognized the concept of electronic accessibility and reasonable accommodation. This is the first time in the country that these two concepts have been reflected at the level of a Parliamentary Standing Committee in relation to a non-disability specific law.

Access to Knowledge

The Access to Knowledge programme addresses the harms caused to consumers, developing countries, human rights, and creativity/innovation from excessive regimes of copyright, patents, and other such monopolistic rights over knowledge:

Submission

Feedback to Draft Copyright Rules, 2012 (by Pranesh Prakash, September 29, 2012): submitted its written comments on the Draft Copyright Rules, 2012 to Mr. G.R. Raghavender, Registrar of Copyrights & Director (BP&CR), Ministry of Human Resource Development. Pranesh does a detailed analysis and provides recommendations on Rules 8,9,10, 29(6), 34(2), 37, 71(3), 72, 74(1), 74(6), 75, and 79 (3) and (4).

Projects

Access To Knowledge/Programme Plan: Pursuant to the announcement made on July 30, 2012 of a 22 months ‘grant’ (beginning from September 1, 2012 to July 31, 2014) of upto INR 26,000,000 and as reflected in the FAQ accompanying the announcement, the Wikimedia Foundation’s India Program will become a project of the Access to Knowledge (A2K) program of CIS. The prime objective is to support the growth of Indic language communities and projects by designing community collaborations and partnerships that recruit and cultivate new editors and explore innovative approaches to building projects and supporting India-focused efforts to improve the quality of India-relevant content on Indic languages and English Wikimedia projects.
Pervasive Technologies: Access to Knowledge in the Marketplace (by Jadine Lannon, September 25, 2012): Jadine Lannon gives an introduction to the new A2K research initiative. Pervasive technologies have flooded the Indian market and are changing the ways in which the average Indian accesses knowledge but very little is understood about these technologies, particularly when it comes to their legality. CIS hopes to do a research that aims to understand how pervasive technologies interact with Intellectual Property laws and what can be done to protect these technologies from being labelled “illegal” and eradicated from the Asian market.

Event Participated

Meeting of the Global Network on Flexible Limitations and Exceptions (organised by American University Washington College of Law, Washington D.C., September 12 to 15, 2012).

Internet Governance

The Internet Governance programme conducts research around the various social, technical, and political underpinnings of global and national Internet governance, and includes online privacy, freedom of speech, and Internet governance mechanisms and processes:

Featured Research

An Introduction to the Issues in Internet Governance (by Smarika Kumar, September 23, 2012): Smarika provides a detailed analysis to the issues that we face in Internet Governance today. She tries to canvass the controversies in the areas of internet governance that broadly focus around the institutional structures to govern the internet, discusses the evolution of these models against the historical background of internet governance and then proceeds to present the criticisms of each of these models with an emphasis on the interests of the regular internet user.
Analyzing the Latest List of Blocked Sites (Communalism and Rioting Edition) Part II (by Snehashish Ghosh, September 25, 2012): Snehashish Ghosh does a further analysis of the leaked list of the websites blocked by the Indian Government from August 18, 2012 till August 21, 2012 (“leaked list”). This analysis was re-posted by Medianama on September 26, 2012.

Columns

The Five Monkeys & Ice-cold Water (by Sunil Abraham, Deccan Chronicle, September 16, 2012): “The Indian government provides leadership, both domestically and internationally, when it comes to access to knowledge.”
SMS Block as Threat to Free Speech (by Chinmayi Arun, Hindu Business Line, September 1, 2012): If you could text just one or two people in a day, who would you choose? Many of us have had to make this choice thanks to the order limiting us to five texts a day. Short Message Service (SMS) is not used primarily to send staccato messages like the telegraph was.

Media Coverage

Censorship makes India fall two places on global internet freedom chart (by Dilnaz Boga, Daily News & Analysis, September 27, 2012). Pranesh Prakash’s analysis on blocked websites is quoted.

Pitroda seeks to put govt information in public domain (by Surabhi Agarwal, LiveMint, September 25, 2012): “One government bureaucrat available on Twitter for a fixed period doesn’t make up for the non-existence of the government on social media…they (government) should be available all the time.” — Sunil Abraham.

Govt plans inter-ministerial panel on Internet policy (by Surabhi Agarwal, LiveMint, September 19, 2012): ““The thumb rule with governance, be it international or national, is that coordination policy formulation bodies is a good idea, but we can’t damn or praise them over the process...We have to see what coordination results out of the body.” — Sunil Abraham.

Mind of the millennium teen (by Atul Sethi, The Times of India, September 16, 2012): “We live in accelerated times...The breathlessness of our times is evident in everything — from the kind of movies we make to the ways in which our news and information travel. At the end of the day, our younger generations are also products of our times.”— Nishant Shah.

China outranks India in world’s first ever web index (First Post, September 6, 2012): ““The Internet today doesn’t work according to the idealistic principles of openness, and democracy of information that Berners-Lee envisioned for it, and in India in particular, although the Internet has helped us rethink what the government can do, the attitude is that that Internet can only be used in ways that the government sees fit.” — Nishant Shah.

Need a standard strategy to deal with Web issues: Chandrasekhar (by Surabhi Agarwal, LiveMint, September 4, 2012). Pranesh Prakash’s analysis on blocked websites is quoted.

Political war on the web (by Kunal Majumder, Tehelka Magazine, Vol 9, Issue 36, September 8, 2012): “The fact remains none of the blockings were politically motivated.” — Pranesh Prakash.

Government to hold talks with stakeholders on Internet censorship (by Shalini Singh, The Hindu, September 4, 2012). Pranesh Prakash’s analysis on blocked websites is quoted.

The state. And the rage of the cyber demon (by Shougat Dasgupta, Tehelka, Vol 9, Issue 36, September 8, 2012): “While some people may see Twitter as akin to friends talking in the pub, others use the service as a bulletin board.” — Pranesh Prakash.

Watch out for fettered speech (by Rohit Pradhan, Business Standard, September 1, 2012). Pranesh Prakash is quoted.

Events Organised

DNA Profiling Bill
International DNA experts Helen Wallace from GeneWatch UK, and Jeremy Gruber from the Council for Responsible Genetics from the United States visited Bengaluru and Delhi and shared their experience in DNA sampling and gave feedback to the DNA Profiling Bill. Meetings were conducted with lawyers and the plaintiff in the Pascal Mazurier's rape case and with VR Sudarshan and Hormis Tharakan. There was a coverage of the event in Kannada media. Public lectures were organised in Bengaluru and Delhi:

UK DNA Database and the European Court of Human Rights: Lessons that India can Learn from Its Mistakes (organised by CIS and Alternative Law Forum, September 24, 2012): Helen Wallace from GeneWatch, UK and Jeremy Gruber from the Council for Responsible Genetics in the United States gave a public lecture.
The DNA Profiling Bill: Developing Best Practices (India International Centre, New Delhi, September 27, 2012): International experts Helen Wallace from GeneWatch UK, and Jeremy Gruber from the Council for Responsible Genetics from the United States gave a public lecture. Elonnai Hickok participated in the event.

Blog Entry

A Public Meeting on DNA Profiling Bill in Delhi (by Elonnai Hickok, September 29, 2012): Elonnai has blogged about the public lecture delivered by Dr. Helen Wallace, Jeremy Gruber and Dr. Anupuma Raina.

Upcoming IGF Events
At the seventh annual IGF meeting to be held in Baku, Azerbaijan in November 2012, CIS is organising one workshop:

National IG Mechanisms – Looking at Some Key Design Issues (co-organising with Brazilian Internet Steering Committee, Institute for System Analysis, Russian Academy of Sciences, et.al., November 8, 2012 from 2.30 p.m. to 4.00 p.m.

Sunil Abraham will be a panelist in the following workshop:

New Trends in Industry Self-Governance (organised by Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford, UK and Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ, University of Zurich, Switzerland and Nominet, UK, November 7, 2012 from 4.30 p.m. to 6.00 p.m).

CIS fellow Malavika Jayaram is a panelist for these workshops:

Civil rights in the digital age, about the impact the Internet has on civil rights (organised by ECP on behalf of the IGF-NL, November 7, 2012, 4.30 p.m. to 6.00 p.m.).
Governing Identity on the Internet (organised by Brenden Kuerbis, Citizen Lab and Christine Runnegar, Internet Society, November 8, 2012, 11.00 a.m. to 12.30 p.m.).

Events Participated

Second Freedom Online Conference (organised by the Ministry of Information and Communications, Republic of Kenya in partnership with the government of Netherlands at UN complex in Gigiri, Nairobi, September 6 and 7, 2012). Pranesh Prakash was a panelist in the session on Access to Internet: Challenges and Opportunities.
Multi-stakeholder Discussion on India’s Position in UN for Internet Governance UN Committee for Internet Related Policies (Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce & Industry, New Delhi, September 19, 2012): Sunil Abraham was a panelist.
Seventh Meeting of the Group of Experts on Privacy Issues under the Chairmanship of Justice AP Shah (Committee Room No. 228, Yojana Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi): Sunil Abraham participated in this meeting. This was the final meeting of the series.

Talk

Talk at Yale University (New Haven, September 19, 2012): Pranesh Prakash gave a talk on censorship, intermediary liability, and the way forward.

Video

Internet Governance Plenary (August 28, Tokyo, Japan): Sunil Abraham was a panelist along with Ang Peng Hwa, Paul Wilson, Duangthip Chomprang and Raul Echeberria at this event organised by APNIC on August 28, 2012. Kuo Wei Wu, CEO, National Information Infrastructure Enterprise Promotion Association (NIIEPA) was the moderator.

Openness

The 'Openness' programme critically examines alternatives to existing regimes of intellectual property rights, and transparency and accountability. Under this programme, we study Open Government Data, Open Access to Scholarly Literature, Open Access to Law, Open Content, Open Standards, and Free/Libre/Open Source Software:
Featured Research

Indic Language Wikipedias – Statistical Report (January – June 2012) (by Shiju Alex, September 25, 2012): Shiju Alex provides a compilation of the statistical update of the Indic language Wikipedias from January to June 2012. He provides perspectives on the health of various Indic language communities as well as the state of various Indic language Wikipedias during the period.

Workshop Reports
Although most of the following workshops were conducted prior to the grant period, the report for all of these was written in the month of September, and hence, we are featuring these.

The First Punjabi Wikipedia Workshop (by Shiju Alex and Subhashish Panigrahi, September 27, 2012): This post is about the first Punjabi Wikipedia workshop held in Ludhiana, Punjab on July 28, 2012. Surinder Wadhawan, a Mumbai based Wikipedian played an important role in designing this workshop and introducing Punjabi Wikipedia to the Punjabi speakers. Long-term Punjabi wikipedian G.S.Guglani also joined this workshop. The event was covered in the Tribune, Hindustan Times, Punjab Infoline, and YesPunjab.com.
Punjabi Wikipedia Workshop at Punjabi University, Patiala (by Shiju Alex and Subhashish Panigrahi, September 28, 2012): A Wikipedia workshop was organized at the Punjabi University's Punjabi Department on August 16, 2012. Veteran Punjabi wikipedian G.S. Guglani came forward to spread the message of Punjabi Wikipedia among Punjabi speakers.
Punjabi Wikipedia Workshop at Amritsar (by Shiju Alex and Subhashish Panigrahi, September 30, 2012): The workshop was held at the Spring Dale Senior School, Amritsar on August 17, 2012. Nearly 50 participants including students and teachers from eight different schools apart from the students and teachers of Spring Dale School attended the workshop. One of the active and long-time Punjabi Wikipedian Guglani Gurdip Singh led the workshop with the active support from Shiju and Subhasish.
Wikipedia Workshop in British Library, Chandigarh (by Subhashish Panigrahi, September 27, 2012): A Wikipedia workshop was organized in Chandigarh by the British Library over two days on August 24 and 25, 2012. Bipin Kumar, Head of British Library and Christina, Deputy Manager had pivotal roles in designing this workshop with support from Piyush, a wikipedian. The session on Day 1 was conducted by Subhashish Panigrahi and the session on Day 2 was conducted by Subhashish and Piyush.
Kannada Wiki Workshop at Tumkur University (Tumkur, Karnataka, September 15, 2012): This was the first Kannada Wikipedia workshop at Tumkur. Prof. Ashwin Kumar from the Department of English, Tumkur University and Kannada wikipedians, Om Shiva Prakash, Hareesh, Tejus and Pavithra played vital roles in organising this workshop. Shiju Alex participated in this workshop. About 30 participants including students and teachers participated in this workshop.

Blog Entries

Editor Growth & Contribution Program on Telugu Wikipedia (by Nitika Tandon, September 29, 2012): Nitika Tandon tells us about the Editor Growth & Contribution Program on Telegu Wikipedia, how it will run, its necessity and the future steps.
Wikipedia comes to Hyderabad! (by Noopur Raval, September 30, 2012): A series of Wikipedia meetings were organized in Hyderabad on September 29 and 30, 2012. These workshops were a part of the larger effort to help Wikipedia contributors in the same city to meet each other and strengthen the local community. There was coverage about this event in the Hindu on September 28, 2012.

Event Organised

Thinking with Data@CIS (CIS, Bengaluru, September 16 – 18, 2012): The course offered at the National Institute of Advanced Studies was screened in CIS office.

HasGeek HasGeek creates discussion spaces for geeks and has organised conferences like the Fifth Elephant, Droidcon India 2011, Android Camp, etc. HasGeek is supported by CIS and works out from CIS office in Bengaluru. The following event was organised by HasGeek in the month of September: Cartonama Conference (TERI Complex, Bengaluru, September 22, 2012). The event was organised by HasGeek with support from CIS.

Digital Natives

Digital Natives with a Cause? examines the changing landscape of social change and political participation in light of the role that young people play through digital and Internet technologies, in emerging information societies. Consolidating knowledge from Asia, Africa and Latin America, it builds a global network of knowledge partners who critically engage with discourse on youth, technology and social change, and look at alternative practices and ideas in the Global South:

Newspaper Column

One. Zero. (Nishant Shah, Indian Express, September 16, 2012): “The digital world is the world of twos. All our complex interactions, emotional negotiations, business transactions, social communication and political subscriptions online can be reduced to a string of 1s and 0s, as machines create the networks for the human beings to speak.”

Pathways to Higher Education

The Pathways Project to Higher Education is a collaboration between the Higher Education Innovation and Research Applications at the Centre for the Study of Culture and Society and CIS. The project is supported by the Ford Foundation and works with disadvantaged students in nine undergraduate colleges in Maharashtra, Karnataka and Kerala, to explore relationships between Technologies, Higher Education and the new forms of social justice in India. Training workshops were organised in the month of September at Xaviers in Mumbai on September 6, 2012 and in Newman College, Thodupuzha from September 17 to 20, 2012. Each workshop had 25-30 undergraduate students from socio-economically disadvantaged backgrounds. They were trained to use digital technologies in order to think through problems of social justice.

Researchers at Work

From 2012 to 2015, the RAW series will build research clusters in the field of Digital Humanities. The Habits of Living: Global Networks, Local Affects is a global collaborative project to renew the conceptual power of networks. It concentrates on changing the habits of living. The Department of Modern Culture and Media at Brown University is an important locus.

CIS organised the Habits of Living Workshop in Bangalore from September 26 to 29, 2012. Jadine Lannon and Alok Vaid-Menon live blogged about the event:

Habits of Living Thinkathon - Day 1 Live Blog: Introduction (by Jadine Lannon, September 26, 2012).
Habits of Living Thinkathon - Day 1 Live Blog: PechaKucha (by Jadine Lannon, September 27, 2012).
Habits of Living Thinkathon - Day 1 Live Blog: Globalising Lady GaGa (by Alok Vaid-Menon, September 27, 2012).
Habits of Living Thinkathon - Day 2 Live Blog: Deepak Menon on Water in India (by Jadine Lannon, September 27, 2012).
Habits of Living Thinkathon - Day 2 Live Blog: On Technology and Affective Indian Feminism(s) (by Alok Vaid-Menon, September 27, 2012).
Habits of Living Thinkathon - Day 2 Live Blog: Radhika Gajjala Lectures on e-Philanthropy (by Jadine Lannon, September 27, 2012).
Habits of Living Thinkathon - Day 3 Live Blog: Joshua Neves on Media Archipelagos (by Jadine Lannon, September 26, 2012).
Habits of Living Thinkathon - Day 4 Live Blog: Finding and Funding the Masses (by Alok Vaid-Menon, September 26, 2012).
Habits of Living Thinkathon - Day 3 Live Blog: Akansha Rastogi's Performance on Exhibition Space
(by Jadine Lannon, September 30, 2012).
Habits of Living Thinkathon - Day 4 Live Blog: Wendy Chun on Friends (by Jadine Lannon, September 30, 2012).
Habits of Living Thinkathon - Day 4 Live Blog: Namita Malhotra on Amateur Pornography (by Jadine Lannon, September 30, 2012).

Telecom

While the potential for growth and returns exist for telecommunications in India, a range of issues need to be addressed. One aspect is more extensive rural coverage and the other is a countrywide access to broadband which is low. Both require effective and efficient use of networks and resources, including spectrum:

Building Knowledge and Capacity around Telecommunication Policy in India

Ford Foundation has given a grant of USD 2,00,000 to CIS to build expertise in the area of telecommunications in India. The knowledge repository deals with these modules: Introduction to Telecommunications, Telecommunications Infrastructure and Technologies, Government of India Regulatory Framework for Telecom, Telecommunication and the Market, Universal Access and Accessibility, The International Telecommunications Union and other international bodies, Broadcasting, Emerging Topics and Way Forward. Dr. Surendra Pal, Satya N Gupta, Paranjoy Guha Thakurta, Payal Malik, Dr. Rakesh Mehrotra and Dr. Nadeem Akhtar are the expert reviewers.

The following are the new outputs:

Associations Regulating Broadcasting in India (by Srividya Vaidyanathan, September 11, 2012): Broadcast regulation in India is currently an intricate web, with multiple agencies involved in formulating and implementing policy, drafting and enforcing legislation.
Optical Fibre (by Srividya Vaidyanathan, September 11, 2012): This unit tells us what is optical fibre, the types of optical fibres, how does an optical fibre work, fibre-optic relay system, and why are optical fibres uses in telecommunication systems.
Direct to Home (by Srividya Vaidyanathan, September 18, 2012): This unit tells us about Direct to home television, its history, how it works, the programming, its advantages and disadvantages are discussed in this module.
Cable Television (by Srividya Vaidyanathan, September 18, 2012): This unit brings you the history and evolution of cable television in India, talks about other cable based services, cable television digitization rule and the end consumer in India.
Private FMs (Commercial, Campus and Community Radios) (by Srividya Vaidyanathan, September 24, 2012): This unit introduces us to AM and FM, tells us the role of private FMs including what is a community radio and what is a campus radio.
Types of Radio Broadcasting in India (by Srividya Vaidyanathan, September 28, 2012): This unit tells us what is radio broadcasting, takes us through the history of radio broadcasting in India, explains what is AM and FM in the Indian context.
A History of All India Radio and Its Operations (by Srividya Vaidyanathan, September 29, 2012): This module gives us a picture of the history of All India Radio and its operations.

Newspaper Column

Changing Our Game (by Shyam Ponappa, Business Standard, September 5, 2012): “Adopting 'co-ordination models' like the Stag Hunt could reduce contention and improve outcomes.” This was re-posted in Organizing India blogspot.

Event Participated

Insights India 2012 (organised by MACH, Bangalore, September 26 – 28, 2012): Snehashish Ghosh and Srividya Vaidyanathan participated in this event.

About CIS

CIS was registered as a society in Bangalore in 2008. As an independent, non-profit research organisation, it runs different policy research programmes such as Accessibility, Access to Knowledge, Openness, Internet Governance, and Telecom. Over the last four years our policy research programmes have resulted in outputs such as the e-Accessibility Policy Handbook for Persons with Disabilities with ITU and G3ict, and Digital Alternatives with a Cause?, Thinkathon Position Papers and the Digital Natives with a Cause? Report with Hivos. With the Government of India we have done policy research for Ministry of Communications & Information Technology, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, etc., on WIPO Treaties, Copyright Bill, NIA Bill, etc.

CIS is an accredited NGO at WIPO and has given policy briefs to delegations from various countries, our Programme Manager, Nirmita Narasimhan won the National Award for Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities from the Government of India and also received the NIVH Excellence Award.

*Follow us elsewhere*

Get short, timely messages from us on Twitter
Join the CIS group on Facebook
Visit us at http://cis-india.org

CIS is grateful to its donors, Wikimedia Foundation, Ford Foundation, Privacy International, UK, Hans Foundation and the Kusuma Trust which was founded by Anurag Dikshit and Soma Pujari, philanthropists of Indian origin, for its core funding and support for most of its projects.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/about/newsletters/september-2012-bulletin

A Public Meeting on DNA Profiling Bill in Delhi

elonnai — 2012-10-10T10:58:32Z

On September 27, 2012, the Centre for Internet and Society hosted a public talk at the Indian International Centre focused on the draft DNA Profiling Bill. Presenting at the meeting were international experts Dr. Helen Wallace, director of GeneWatch UK and Jeremy Gruber, president and executive director of the Council for Responsible Genetics US, and Dr. Anupuma Raina, senior scientist at AIIMs.

The use of DNA samples for forensics purposes has been increasing as law enforcement in India are relying on DNA samples as a source of evidence to solve crimes. India currently does not have a legislation specifically regulating the collection, use, and storage of DNA samples for forensics purposes. To address this gap, in 2007 a draft DNA Profiling Bill was created by the Centre for DNA Fingerprinting and Diagnostics. In February 2012 a new draft of the bill from the department of biotechnology was been leaked. The draft Bill envisions creating state level DNA databases that will feed into a national level DNA database for the purposes of solving crime.

Opening the meeting was a presentation by Dr. Anupama that focused on how DNA analysis has been used in various cases in India. Dr. Anupama emphasized the important role that DNA plays and the usefulness of the technology, but also cautioned that the police are still perfecting the use of DNA samples for forensic purposes. She promoted the passing of the DNA profiling bill with the correct safeguards. Dr. Anupama also provided insight into the current procedure for DNA analysis in India noting that consent is taken from individuals before taking DNA samples, and that ethical clearance is taken before DNA samples are taken and used for research purposes. She also noted that labs are working on improving quality insurance and emphasized the importance of chain of custody in ensuring that DNA samples are not contaminated.

Following Dr. Anupama, Jeremy Gruber spoke about the US experience with DNA databases and explained how DNA testing was initially introduced as a tool for establishing additional evidence for convicting violent felony offenders or freeing innocent individuals on a case to case basis. He explained how the technology of DNA sampling and its use in forensic cases can be both a useful tool when used justly and democratically, or can be harmful when used unjustly and undemocratically. He noted that there has been an increase in the routine use and retention of DNA by law enforcement today for purposes such as using DNA databases for familial searching purposes, and using DNA analysis to create profiles of individuals. Concerns that Jeremy Gruber raised with respect to the draft DNA Profiling Bill included the assumption in the preamble of the bill that DNA is an infallible piece of evidence, pointing out that when DNA is used for forensic purposes it is vulnerable to inaccuracies such as false matches, sample contamination, and analysis error. He also made the point that the definitions found in the bill are overly broad and work to expand the scope by defining a wide range of crimes for which individuals will be added to the DNA database for. These broad definitions essentially turn the database into an all crimes database. Other concerns with the bill included that DNA laboratories are not clearly independent of the police, and that the bill allows for the additional collection of DNA from missing persons and victims.

In her presentation, Dr. Helen Wallace described the UK experience, where the first DNA database was established in 1995. In 2000 a major expansion of the UK DNA database took place, but was controversial for a number of reasons. In 2008 the European Court of Justice ruled that the regime of retaining DNA samples in the UK was unlawful and a breach of privacy. Now the UK law requires that only a barcode with identifying information be stored. Dr. Wallace also emphasized the fact that the number of convictions resulting from DNA detections has not increased as the UK DNA database has expanded, because the number of solved crimes is driven by the number of crime scene samples. Thus, samples on a database are only useful if they relate directly to the crime scene and a possible criminal. Therefore the more profiles that are added to the database that are related to petty crimes, civil cases, victims, volunteers etc. the less efficient and accurate the database becomes. Dr. Wallace recommended that a DNA database contain only careful crime scene evidence in order to ensure samples are matched accurately. Concerns with the DNA profiling Bill emphasized by Dr. Wallace included that consent is not provided for in the bill, and court orders are not required. Furthermore, the bill does contain a removal process, and it is unclear what DNA profiling system will be used.

Responding to the presentations made by the speakers, members of the audience raised concerns over the use of DNA sampling in India for reasons beyond forensic purposes, such as requiring surrogate mothers and the children to undergo DNA tests. Other members of the audience pointed out that the bill does not address the rights of suspects and prisoners. Additionally the question of the evidentiary weight of DNA samples in court was raised, along with the concern that the broad collection of DNA samples from individuals is just another example of the growing trend by the Indian government to collect and store information about its citizens.

Download Dr. Helen Wallace's presentation

Download Jeremy Gruber's presentation

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/public-meeting-on-dna-profiling-bill

Censorship makes India fall two places on global internet freedom chart

praskrishna — 2012-09-27T10:37:47Z

A recently released global report on the internet freedom rated India 39th in 2012, a slip from two places last year.

The article by Dilnaz Boga was published in DNA on September 27, 2012.

The report titled, Freedom on the net 2012 (FOTN): A global assessment of internet and digital media by Freedom House, a Washington-based monitoring group conducted a comprehensive study of internet freedom in 47 countries.

Quoting Bangalore-based Centre for Internet and Society, the report said 309 specific items (URLs, Twitter accounts, img tags, blog posts, blogs, and a handful of websites) have been blocked by the government. But officially, the government has admitted to blocking 245 web pages for inflammatory content hosting of provocative content.

Ketan Tanna, India analyst for Freedom House told DNA, “A reflection of the downward spiral in the freedom on the net that Indians enjoy is evident in the upward revision of scores for India in the FOTN 2012 report. India was one of the only 4 of the 20 countries that “recently experienced declines” and are democracies. The other three are Mexico, Turkey and South Korea.”

Internet usage in India continues to increase, with tens of millions of new users getting online each year. According to the International Telecommunications Union, internet penetration was 10% — or about 120 million people at the end of 2011. Among internet users, 90 million were ‘active,’ accessing it at least once a month (70 million urban and 20 million rural).

The report has mentioned that in India, “amid several court cases regarding intermediaries’ responsibility for hosting illegal content, much evidence has surfaced that intermediaries are taking down content without fully evaluating or challenging the legality of the request”.

Citing an example, Tanna said in December 2011, the website Cartoons against Corruption was suspended by its hosting company after a complaint filed with the Mumbai police alleged that the site’s cartoons ridiculed parliament and national emblems. “As a result of such dynamics, large swaths of online content are disappearing, and the losses are far more difficult to reverse than the mere blocking of a website,” he added.

More common than website blocking is the removal of content based on judicial orders, government directives, and citizen complaints. This phenomenon that has increased in recent years and in some cases, targeted content on political, social, and religious topics, the report said.

The Indian authorities had submitted 68 removal requests covering 358 items between January and June 2011. According to Google, 255 items related to what it categorised as “government criticism,” while 39 involved defamation and 8 pertained to hate speech.

In January, responding to a freedom of information request, the home ministry reported that the government orders 7,500 to 9,000 phone interceptions per month, the report disclosed. Criticising this practice and the government’s disregard for the Constitution, the data revealed, “Established guidelines regulate the ability of state officials to intercept communications, but India lacks an appropriate legal framework and procedures to ensure proper oversight of Intelligence agencies’ growing surveillance and interception capabilities, opening the possibility of misuse and unconstitutional invasion of citizens’ privacy.”

As another method of controlling speech and activism online, governments have imposed temporary shutdowns of the internet or mobile phone networks during protests or other sensitive times. Localised internet shutdowns and mobile phone shutdowns occurred in India due to security concerns, the report said.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/dna-india-sep-27-2012-dilnaz-boga-censorship-makes-india-fall-two-places-on-global-internet-freedom-chart

Pitroda seeks to put govt information in public domain

praskrishna — 2012-09-27T05:13:05Z

In the first-ever Indian government press conference on Twitter, Sam Pitroda, adviser to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on public information infrastructure and innovations, championed the cause of putting government information in the public domain to usher in openness and empowerment.

Surabhi Agarwal's article was published in LiveMint on September 25, 2012. Sunil Abraham is quoted.

“In India, we have the Right to Information (Act) but the information is locked up in files,” he said in a video that was uploaded on YouTube before the conference started. Pitroda said the government has various plans to build robust information infrastructure on a scale that has never been done before.

“I firmly believe that information is the fourth pillar of democracy along with (the) legislature, executive and judiciary,” he tweeted as opening remarks during the press conference titled “Democratization of information”.

	Even though Pitroda largely reiterated the government’s already announced plans in the space of digitization, the move to hold a press conference over Twitter has been largely construed as as a sign that the administration, criticised for attempting to rein in social media, is trying to come to terms with it. Sunil Abraham, executive director of Bangalore-based research organization Centre for Internet and Society, said too much shouldn’t be read into Pitroda holding a press conference on Twitter. One government bureaucrat available on Twitter for a fixed period doesn’t make up for the non-existence of the government on social media, he said. “They (government) should be available all the time.”

Even though Pitroda largely reiterated the government’s already announced plans in the space of digitization, the move to hold a press conference over Twitter has been largely construed as as a sign that the administration, criticised for attempting to rein in social media, is trying to come to terms with it.

Sunil Abraham, executive director of Bangalore-based research organization Centre for Internet and Society, said too much shouldn’t be read into Pitroda holding a press conference on Twitter. One government bureaucrat available on Twitter for a fixed period doesn’t make up for the non-existence of the government on social media, he said. “They (government) should be available all the time.”

The department of electronics and information technology recently issued guidelines for government agencies on improved engagement with citizens through social media. Tuesday’s press conference may spark a trend of more such engagements on social media platforms by government agencies.

Pitroda said that the public information infrastructure (PII) will include a national knowledge network that will connect 1,500 nodes for universities, colleges, research labs and libraries along with connecting 250,000 panchayats in the country through fibre optics. The information network will be operational in the next two year, Pitroda said in the YouTube video.

The government’s open data platform (http://www.data.gov.in), the beta site for which was launched some time ago, will provide access to government data and documents, he said.

Even though the government’s battles with the Internet continue over issues of regulation, which have often been construed as censorship, an increasing number of political leaders and agencies have been using the route to get their message across.

Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi has sought to engage with people through video chat on Google+ Hangout. West Bengal chief minister and Trinamool Congress (TMC) chief Mamata Banerjee has been using Facebook to make public her views on recent economic and political developments.

The Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) has also been communicating over Twitter in the recent past. The authorities have sought to block accounts that style themselves as belonging to the Prime Minister. Account holders have said that some of these are satirical in nature.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/www-livemint-september-25-2012-surabhi-agarwal-pitroda-seeks-to-put-govt-information-in-public-domain

The Five Monkeys & Ice-cold Water

sunil — 2012-10-30T10:43:38Z

The Indian government provides leadership, both domestically and internationally, when it comes to access to knowledge.

This article by Sunil Abraham was published in Deccan Chronicle on September 16, 2012.

Our domestic patent policy ensures that generic medicines are available and largely affordable not only within India but also in Africa and elsewhere. It also allows Indians to consume a wide range of technological innovations without worrying about legal bans that are an otherwise common feature in the developed countries, thanks to phenomena such as the ongoing mobile phone patent wars.

Copyright policy, including the last amendment of the copyright act, has ensured that fair dealing and the rights of students, researchers, disabled, etc., are protected. Texts, audio and video for education and entertainment are relatively affordable, especially in comparison to other countries in the Asia-Pacific.

Even at the World Intellectual Property Organisation, other developing countries look to India for guidance. The interventions of the copyright registrar G.R. Raghavender and the Indian team won praise during the most recent round of negotiations for the Treaty for the Visually Impaired. An excellent example of India's soft power protecting public interest at home and abroad.

In diametrical contrast, India has a terrible track record when it comes to freedom of expression, especially expression mediated by networked technologies such as telecommunications and the Internet.

Our policy-makers seem determined to extinguish the privacy of communications and also anonymous/pseudonymous speech through such devices as Know Your Customer (KYC) and data retention requirements for accessing the Internet through cyber-cafes, mobile phones, dial-up or broadband, ban on open wi-fi networks, plans to tie together Aadhaar and NATGRID and Central Monitoring System (CMS) to track a citizen using his/her UID across devices, networks and intermediaries, and requiring real-time interception equipment to be installed at all network and data centres.

All these without any horizontal privacy law or a data protection law that is compliant with international best practices. Security hawks argue that this pervasive, multi-tiered surveillance regime helps thwart criminal and terrorist attacks, but its poor design extracts a terrible price in terms of freedom of expression.

Citizens who cannot express themselves anonymously and privately begin to censor themselves, seriously undermining our democracy, which is most importantly founded on an anonymous expression, the electoral ballot.

In addition, in April 2011, rules under the amended IT Act were notified for intermediaries that have a chilling effect on free speech via unclear and unconstitutional limits on freedom of expression, encouragement of private censorship without any notice to those impacted, missing procedure for redress, and lack of penalties for those who abuse the rules to target legitimate speech. This was followed by calls for proactive censorship of social media, which caused much outrage amongst the twitterati.

Even when the government had legitimate grounds (the recent exodus of North-East Indians) to censor free speech, it overreached and acted incompetently, cracking down on parody accounts on social media rather than carefully configuring the text message ban. As if that weren't enough, the government beats up a cartoonist and jails him for sedition.

There’s a plan behind such attacks on free speech. The powerful in India, with their fragile egos, can afford expensive lawyers who can ensure that for those who dare to speak their mind, “the process is the punishment”, as Lawrence Liang of the Alternative Law Forum put it. Needless to say, cartoonists and others that dare to speak their mind cannot usually afford the time and expense of courts.

An experiment featuring monkeys, bananas and ice-cold water, commonly attributed to the late American psychologist Harry Harlow, explains what’s being attempted by those who attack free speech. First, five monkeys are put in a cage with bananas hanging from the top that can be reached by climbing a ladder. Every time one of the monkeys try to climb the ladder, ice-cold water is thrown on all of them. Soon, the monkeys learn not to climb the ladder.

Then, one of them is replaced with a monkey that has never been drenched with ice-cold water. When the new monkey tries to climb the ladder, the other four monkeys attack it and prevent it from reaching the banana. This is continued till all the original monkeys are replaced with new ones.

When that’s done, although none of the monkeys left in the cage has ever been drenched with ice-cold water, they continue to enforce the regulation on themselves. This is what has happened in China. This is what is being attempted here – to social engineer the Indian netizen.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/www-deccan-chronicle-sep-16-2012-sunil-abraham-the-five-monkeys-and-ice-cold-water

E-Governance, Identity & Privacy

praskrishna — 2012-09-26T06:17:03Z

This chapter will look at different legislations, projects, and policies pertaining to e-governance and identity that India has put in place, and examine both the strengths and the weaknesses of these, through the lense of privacy.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/e-governance-identity-privacy.pdf

An Introduction to the Issues in Internet Governance

smarika — 2014-04-22T02:47:04Z

That the internet cannot be governed was a central conviction of the early architects of the internet. In many ways it proved true when a majority of nation-States were kept off interference with the functioning of the internet. However with growing popularity of the internet, countries of the world are increasingly vying for control over it. This has become especially significant with the involvement of developing nations into the power struggle.

With the proposal by India at the UNGA to form a Committee for Internet-Related Policies, there has emerged the widespread fear of “UN overtake of the internet,” and internet governance has become a major focus for internet users in the third world.

The present blog post is a humble attempt to canvass the controversies in the arena of internet governance (IG). These controversies broadly focus around the institutional structures to govern the internet. Here, I first discuss the evolution of these models against the historical background of IG and then proceed to present criticisms of each of these models, with an emphasis on the interests of the regular internet user.

Where It All Started: The World Summit on Information Society

Discussions on IG took an international flavor with the convening of the World Summit on Information Society (WSIS) in Geneva in mid-2002. The Summit originally had an agenda to construct better telecommunications infrastructure in developing nations to erase the digital divide, as reflected in the self-declared purpose of WSIS as “ to harness the potential of knowledge and technology to promote the development Goals of the Millenium Declaration.” But this agenda was modified in two important ways as WSIS progressed. First, the focus was expanded from mere improvement of infrastructure to a variety of human rights issues involving communications, like freedom of speech and privacy, which came to be known as internet public policy issues. Second, a new dominant agenda of technical governance of the internet emerged.

A New Mode of Governance: multi-stakeholderism on the Internet

Subsequent to the first WSIS phase in Geneva, the Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) Report confirmed the larger policy issues concerning the internet rather than mere improvement of telecommunications infrastructure, as an aspect of IG by choosing a broad definition of IG, which included both creation of public policy and technical governance. The Geneva Declaration of 2003, which resulted from the 2002 WSIS process, held that internet governance “should involve all stakeholders and relevant intergovernmental and international organizations.” This multi-stakeholder model for governance with involvement of nation-State participants was reflective of the largely networked management of the internet till the time, and hence pretty revolutionary. The Geneva Declaration however did tone down its revolutionary flavor by dividing the areas of governance concerns between the different multi-stakeholders such that the public policy role was assigned to the nation-States. It said, at para 49:

a. “Policy authority for Internet-related public policy issues is the sovereign right of States. They have rights and responsibilities for international Internet-related public policy issues;
b. The private sector has had and should continue to have an important role in the development of the Internet, both in the technical and economic fields;
c. Civil society has also played an important role on Internet matters, especially at community level, and should continue to play such a role;
d. Intergovernmental organizations have had and should continue to have a facilitating role in the coordination of Internet-related public policy issues;
e. International organizations have also had and should continue to have an important role in the development of Internet-related technical standards and relevant policies.”

This was reaffirmed in 2005 by the Tunis Agenda at para 35. Thus a sectorally-defined multi-stakeholderism for internet governance was agreed upon with traditional forms of State security being protected from large-scale erosion.

Enhanced Co-operation to Govern the Internet

The Tunis Agenda further called for a process called “enhanced co-operation” to enable governments frame international public policy issues related to the internet, but not in the day-to-day technical and operational matters, as follows:

“69. We further recognize the need for enhanced cooperation in the future, to enable governments, on an equal footing, to carry out their roles and responsibilities, in international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet, but not in the day-to-day technical and operational matters, that do not impact on international public policy issues.”

The scope of enhanced co-operation however, was not strictly limited to framing of public policy issues of socio-cultural nature, like privacy and freedom of expression on the internet. The Tunis Agenda, in fact, recognizes that enhanced co-operation should include framing of principles on public policy issues related to the CIRs. Such principles are proposed to be global in scope:

“70. Using relevant international organizations, such cooperation should include the development of globally-applicable principles on public policy issues associated with the coordination and management of critical Internet resources. In this regard, we call upon the organizations responsible for essential tasks associated with the Internet to contribute to creating an environment that facilitates this development of public policy principles.”

What about the ICANN? : The Problem of US Oversight

As mentioned earlier, during the WSIS process technical governance emerged as an important part of internet governance. And a major feature of technical governance comprised of the control of the organization which administers significant technical aspects of the internet, which was the ICANN.

ICANN is the body largely understood to manage what later came to be known as Critical Internet Resources (CIRs); in other words the basic internet infrastructure. ICANN is a non-profit corporation with a multi-stakeholder model, incorporated under Californian laws in 1998 upon the directive of the US Department of Commerce. Its main functions include the allocation of address blocks to the Regional Internet Registries, coordinating assignment of unique protocol numbers, the management of DNS root zone file.

These functions however are performed under US political oversight under the IANA contract which ICANN has with the U.S. Government. Consequently all edits made to the root zone file must be audited and approved by the U.S. Department of Commerce (DoC). This means that any addition or removal of a top-level domain (TLD) must have the approval of DoC. It includes the addition or removal of country-code top level domains (ccTLDs) like .in or .uk. Next there is the DoC contract with Verisign, the US- based corporation which owns the master root server and owns the .com and .net TLDs. This contract requires Verisign to implement all the technical coordination decisions made through ICANN and follow the US Executive directives regarding the root zone file.

The problem is that this political oversight by the US government is not taken very well by the other countries. Why should a single State exercise unilateral power over such important resources which seemingly have the potential to blackout the internet in any part of the world? We all want a share in control over the CIRs, the other States argue. US unilaterism makes functioning of ICANN too arbitrary and it is in US State interests to keep ICANN least accountable, others argue. Add to it the empirical evidence of abuse of its oversight function by the US government, and the legitimacy of the argument is enhanced enormously. However resolving the question of how ICANN should be managed, is a matter of great controversy and none too easy.

Nonetheless it is very important to note that it would be rather naïve to equate the problem of internet governance to the issue of ICANN oversight. Internet governance comprises of both issues: of freedom, privacy, access to knowledge and other aspects of the internet affecting human rights- what is known as internet public policy, as well as technical governance, one of whose aspects is the management of CIRs, and of which ICANN oversight is an important part.

The Oversight-Policy Connection: He Who Manages the CIRs Controls Policy on the Internet

It is fine to say that States will make public policy while sticking to a form of multi-stakeholder model, but none of it holds much ground unless models for implementation of such policy are secured. This is where the issues of technical governance, like ICANN oversight and the framing of public policy on the internet get linked. A procedure to allocate address blocks or separation of registries or registrars raises questions of competition policy. Editing of root zone files can have impact on national economies over the world and be tied with problems of digital divide like multilingualism on the internet. Issue of new TLDs brings forth considerations about trademark law and policy. New DNS securitization regimes have the potential to hamper national security! In the words of Milton Mueller, “To enforce public policy upon the Internet is to regulate technical and operational matters (and vice-versa).”

In such a scenario, every step to further enhanced co-operation ultimately gets focused upon the ICANN oversight issue, as the latter, with its authority over the management of CIRs, lies at the core of any attempt to frame public policy for the internet. And so in the subsequent post the focus will be on the various models proposed for ICANN oversight and their respective criticisms. Not least because all of the models proposed for ICANN oversight tie up with one or the other model proposed to further enhanced co-operation.

“Democratise the Internet”: Involve All Nation-States and Only Nation-States

In the last post, I discussed how enhanced co-operation to achieve a mechanism for internet governance under the Tunis Agenda can be classified into two broad portions: development of public policy and a mechanism for technical governance; and how ICANN oversight constitutes an important part of technical governance. I further discussed the relationship between internet public policy and technical governance and how it is impossible to frame or implement relevant public policy without an understanding and control over technical aspects constituting the internet.

In the present post, I embark upon an analysis of the various governance models which are suggested for the management of ICANN. Even though ICANN management is only a small segment of enhanced co-operation, I think there exist a number of parallels between models suggested for the accountability of ICANN and models for furthering the broader process of enhanced co-operation. Therefore an understanding of governance models for ICANN can also significantly enhance one’s understanding of models for enhanced co-operation, and it is to this end that the following exercise is undertaken. Here, I have also tried to link broader models for enhanced co-operation to models for ICANN oversight to aid this understanding; however yet again I do strongly warn against equating enhanced co-operation to the administration of ICANN.

Though multiplicity of proposed governance mechanisms abound, four broad models are popularly debated with regard to oversight upon ICANN. The basic idea behind each of these models is to remove the arbitrariness associated with the ICANN (currently in the form of US unilateral oversight), which as discussed earlier is the central problem with it. Consequently each model offers some rationale about how it can reduce power sans accountability of the ICANN over the CIRs. However none of these models seems to offer the common ground for negotiations for all the stakeholders involved in IG due to various issues with each of them.

I discuss the first model along with its pros and cons in the present post.

Model I: Oversight by an Intergovernmental Organisation

Parallel Enhanced Co-operation Model: International Telecommunications Union (ITU)

This model proposes that the oversight function over ICANN by the US Government be replaced by an organization composed of the nation-State representatives from countries all around the world.

Pros

The following arguments are usually advanced in favour of such a model.

Democratising the oversight mechanism: It is argued that such a model would be helpful in making the oversight function democratic, as all the governments of the world would now be represented in the oversight regime.
Giving nation-States power to enforce public policy: It is argued that by having an intergovernmental oversight mechanism, the governments of the world would be adequately able to exercise their sovereign right as per the Geneva Declaration, i.e. making public policy for the internet.
Curtailing the power of non-State actors to make policy decisions: It is argued that by having an intergovernmental oversight mechanism, non-State actors would be prevented from making public policy decisions via technical governance, which private interests and unelected representatives should not have the power to do.
Making use of international law to produce accountability: The current ICANN regime functions in US and is subject to US laws, which those outside the US, deem to be not a great situation. It is obvious that such dissatisfaction arises from the fact that US laws are subject to change by the US Congress, which non-US nationals have no representation in. The argument therefore is to use international law, which is global in scope in order to govern ICANN, rather than a country-specific law.

The ITU is an enhanced co-operation model in this regard, as it provides the intergovernmental mechanism which the above model for ICANN oversight envisions. It is supported by the more countries like China and Russia, which lay store by Statist institutions. Though no formal takeover of the ICANN by the ITU has been agreed to, or even the use of ITU as such, to make public policy for the internet, in pursuance of enhanced co-operation, the Temporary Document-64, containing proposals for the amendment of ITRs to expand ITU’s scope to the internet at the upcoming World Congress on Information Technology in November 2012, seems to advocate for such a mechanism. Although it is to be noted that there are no comments regarding ITU’s role social policy issues on the web, like censorship.

Cons

The intergovernmental oversight/enhanced co-operation model is however criticized on the following grounds.

Erosion of bottom-up processes: It is argued that the intergovernmental model of oversight is a stark degradation of the bottom-up processes on which the internet has been built and flourished. In other words, intergovernmental oversight is likely to hamper democratic management of CIRs, as on the international arena, States represent their interest as States (interests like national security and defence concerns) and not the interests of their citizens. Add to this the fact that not all States of the world are democratically elected, and one begins to see a major anti-democracy stance in this model. In such a scenario it is likely that the CIR management process would be used to further geopolitical rivalries between nation-States rather than promote public interest.
International law is not carved in citizens’ interests: This is an extension of the previous argument as it says that international law has been structured to serve the interests of sovereign powers and not that of individual citizens, a.k.a. internet users. Institutions under international law for protecting human rights are not strong and the relevant processes are slow and ineffective. Additionally, it is argued that in case ICANN is internationalized, it will be subject purely to the whims of the governments of the world and will have even less accountability.
Intergovernmental oversight will slow down technical processes: From the viewpoint of the technical community, intergovernmental oversight will slow down technical functioning and decision-making by miring it in layers of bureaucracy. Such a structure would be in stark contrast with the very architectural rationale of the internet: a free and fast medium of communication realised by the end-to-end principle. It will also slow down the growth of the internet and is likely to overturn decades of hard work by the technical community with the use of Veto powers in every stage of decision-making by the oversight committee and limited understanding of the internet architecture.
Promotion of traditional communications industry at behest of internet industry: It is also largely perceived that the most nation-States in the world, with strong lobbies for traditional communications industry will use their power in ICANN oversight to retard the growth of internet communications. A recent example is the case of Ethiopia where use of VOIP services can be punished with upto 15 years in prison, in order to preserve the State-owned telephone monopoly. With ITU as the parallel enhanced-co-operation model this threat becomes even more severe as ITU is dominated by giant telecom companies which will push to no end to restrict competition from the internet sector.
Fragmentation of global internet into national internets: This is a worst-case scenario envisioned by the critics who believe that this model has the potential to fragment the one global internet into a multitude of nationally regulated internets, because of the high level of power given to nation-States, who would try to strengthen their sovereignty claims over the internet. Some steps in this direction have already been set in motion by the Chinese government, underlining that the threat of such a worst-case scenario may be very real.

The next post analyses another model for ICANN governance: a hierarchical multi-stakeholder model, and which by analogy can be extended to a model for enhanced co-operation.

Call for Multi-stakeholder Governance (With The Appropriate Regulation)

In the last post I discussed the pros and cons of an intergovernmental model for ensuring accountability of the ICANN. In this post, I analyse the second broad model of oversight of ICANN by a hierarchical multi-stakeholder organization. By analogy, a parallel model for enhanced co-operation would be the Committee On Internet Related Policies proposed by India at the UN.

Model II: Oversight by a Hierarchical multi-stakeholder Organisation

Parallel Enhanced Co-operation Model: Committee on Internet Related Policies (CIRP)

This model was developed to temper the unlimited power of nation-States in the intergovernmental oversight model. The simple idea here is add more stakeholders into the oversight mechanism process so that the national governments are held accountable to the other stakeholders and vice-versa. Although a major departure from previous governance models by allowing for the participation of all stakeholders in the governance process, this model still predicates itself upon the nation-State hegemony. This it does by assigning decision-making privileges only to the States, while the other stakeholders are relegated to a position where they can participate only in policy discussion processes.

The UN Committee on Internet-Related Policies (CIRP) proposed by the Indian government is a model which embodies the above structure of functioning in matters of enhanced co-operation. It proposes the formation of four advisory bodies involving the stakeholders identified by the Tunis Agenda i.e. the Civil Society, the Private Sector, Inter-Governmental and International Organisations, and the Technical and Academic Community. These four advisory bodies would discuss policy issues and inputs from each of these bodies would then be submitted to the CIRP which would be composed of representatives of 50 nation-States, chosen or elected on the basis of equitable geographical representation. The CIRP would report annually to the UN General Assembly to present its recommendations.

However, many aspects of the CIRP proposal still remain unclear: for example- the budgetary structure, its relationship with the ICANN and the questionable need for an advisory body composed of international and intergovernmental organisations for a committee already composed of nation-States.

However taking into account that a CIRP-like model embodying the hierarchical multi-stakeholder structure does have the potential to discharge the ICANN oversight function, a broad analysis can be made regarding its pros and cons, without going into the fine details of the CIRP proposal specifically.

Pros

In support of the hierarchical multi-stakeholder model, certain additional arguments are made apart from the arguments already made in favour of an intergovernmental model for ICANN oversight. These are as following:

Strengthening bottom-up processes: It is argued that such a model takes into account and preserves the multi-stakeholder structure upon which the internet has been built and thrived. Involvement of all stakeholders in internet governance is further deemed to be important to understand various aspects of the internet in terms of technical functioning and community impact, and to preserve the free flow of information—areas which might not be fully understood by nation-States. Hence, being informed by the relevant stakeholders in this regard would be crucial to good policy-making processes by consolidating bottom-up processes in internet governance.

Control on unlimited power of nation-States: It is argued that such a multi-stakeholder model is also important to curtail the power of nation-States to dominate the internet as has been the case with other traditional media. The potential of the internet lies in the low-cost tools of communication to a global audience that it provides an individual user. This potential however is always under the threat of erosion by Statist interests, which would typically like to control the information flowing into their jurisdiction by putting forth the argument of sovereignty. A multi-stakeholder model in such a scenario, can act as a check upon the furtherance of the interests of nation-States, which cannot always be equated to public interest, especially with concerns like freedom of expression and privacy.

Optimum model for internet governance: A pragmatist argument in favour of the present model is that it is perhaps the only model which in the present scenario, nation-States around the world would perhaps agree to, and which at the same time would optimize benefits for other stakeholders by involving them in an unprecedented international governance model. The alternative to this model in the current political scenario, it is opined, can only be strict regulations by a intergovernmental organization or the continuance of US unilateralism, both of which are undesirable options compared to the present model. The basic drift of the argument being that something is better than nothing.

Cons

The hierarchical multi-stakeholder model of internet governance however comes under criticism upon the following grounds:

Problems in recognition of stakeholders: A recurring problem with regard to any multi-stakeholder model is how to define who constitutes “a stakeholder” in internet governance. This problem was encountered even during the IGF constitution process, where the proposal for election of multi-stakeholder representatives to the MAG was swept off in favour of the nomination of the members. In a multi-stakeholder model therefore, deciding who can participate in the policy process as a “stakeholder” remains a tough task. In this context, a civil society representative may end up participating in the policy process without having the support or recognition of the civil society. Another perspective may even ask if nation-States can be deemed as stakeholders in internet governance. The problem of who defines, legitimizes and authorizes “a stakeholder” to be one then comes increasingly to fore.
Failure to provide a useful check upon Statist power: Though the present multi-stakeholder model claims to confine unlimited Statist power on the future of the internet, the question is does it really help in achieving the same? Because the ultimate policy decision making power in such a model lies with the nation-States themselves. Which implies that substantive power would still lie with nation-States who are likely to use it aggressively to further their interests. The multi-stakeholder structure then manages to be reduced to a mere symbol for bottom-up processes, but in fact fails to ensure the implementation of the same.

In the subsequent post, I discuss the advantages and disadvantages of another model for ICANN governance: an equal-footing multi-stakeholder model, and which by analogy can be extended to a model for enhanced co-operation.

Equality in Multi-stakeholderism: How Great Is That Idea?

I have discussed previously the pros and cons of an intergovernmental model and a hierarchical multi-stakeholder model for the management of ICANN, and by analogy for the furtherance of enhanced co-operation. In this post, I analyse a third broad model of oversight of ICANN by an equal-footing multi-stakeholder organization.

Model III: Oversight by a Equal-Footing Multi-stakeholder Organisation

Parallel Enhanced Co-operation Model: Internet Governance Forum (IGF)

Model III is a modification of Model II in that it allows for the participation of all stakeholders in not just policy deliberation but also policy decision. Apart from the argument that policy decisions should be confined to nation-States who are the representatives of their citizens, it cannot be denied that a political inertia prevails for the non-involvement of other stakeholders in decision-making processes as any such move would be unprecedented. At the December 2010 UNCSTD conference, it was argued by India that the involvement of stakeholders apart from the nation-State representatives in the finalization of policy would be in contradiction to UN procedural rules. The question then arises why such a multi-stakeholder body cannot be relegated to an extra-UN forum. Pursuant to this, some critics of the hierarchical multi-stakeholder model have suggested the expansion of the mandate of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) to decision-making processes. Though the IGF is convened by the CSTD, which is a part of the ECOSOC, it is not a body falling under UN umbrella and has flexible procedures which grant each stakeholder an equal footing in policy discussion. Private sector and civil society discuss policy with nation-State representatives on an equal status. The IGF however, is perceived to be a largely dying forum as it does not presently have the power to further enhanced co-operation, i.e. it cannot take decisions with respect to internet policy. This has heightened the sense of dissatisfaction with IGF especially among the newly developing countries, who have come to view the IGF as a mechanism to foster the status quo which is favourable to the developed nations, particularly the US. Expansion of IGF mandate to policy decision-making could however mean that an enhanced co-operation mechanism including an oversight body for ICANN is put into place within an equal-footing multi-stakeholder model.

Pros

Arguments in favour of such model build up as following:

True multi-stakeholder participation: The present model seems to offer what the hierarchical multi-stakeholder model couldn’t—that is, the participation of all stakeholders at all levels of policy making.
Effective checks on nation-State power: By ensuring the participation of all stakeholders in policy discussion and decision processes, the equal-footing multi-stakeholder model effectively checks the power of each stakeholder in unilaterally advancing its own interests.

Cons

But all is not pink and perfect even here. The criticisms of this model run as following:

Use of unelected representatives in decision-making: The problem of recognition of stakeholder representatives has already been outlined earlier. The equal-footing multi-stakeholder model seems to compound this problem by additionally giving the stakeholders whose legitimacy is questionable, a say in the decision-making process. This has been criticized as undemocratic. The involvement of the private sector in decision-making further aggravates those who have seen liberalisation and globalization deepening the economic divide and enabling covert violations of human rights in the garb of “development.”

Allocation of votes: If all stakeholders are indeed involved in the decision-making process, it remains an issue whether each of them should be granted an equal vote. Should private interests be granted the same voting power as the civil society which purports to act in public benefit? Should both of these be granted equal voting power as nation-States, which traditionally have had exclusivity over governance at international settings? These questions remain unresolved.
Failure of consensual decision-making: An alternative to policy decision-making by voting in Model III can be policy decision-making by consensus. It is however argued that involvement of all stakeholders with largely polar interests in decision-making will never produce a consensus, and forestall decision-making altogether: The inability of the IGF, an equal footing multi-stakeholder body, to reach agreement on governance issues, which has led to reduced faith and participation in such a model is often cited in this regard. It is argued that in such instances the use of the nation-State as a mediator between these contradictory interests is essential—a suggestion which relegates one back to Model II. However it is important to note that such an argument naively assumes nation-States to be too benign entities with their agenda being public interest exclusively. It cannot be forgotten that many nation-States of the world have not even been born out of democratic processes like universal adult franchise; and even the most liberal of democratic States do enact questionable laws repressive of basic human rights and freedoms.

A subsequent post analyses the last broad model for ICANN governance: the replacement of oversight function by participatory accountability mechanisms.

Governance by Participatory Accountability Mechanisms

In the last few posts, I have analysed the advantages and disadvantages of an intergovernmental model, a hierarchical multi-stakeholder model, and an equal-footing multi-stakeholder model for the management of ICANN. The last post in this series discusses the fourth and last model in this respect- a model which proposes the replacement of ICANN oversight by participatory accountability mechanisms. It is important to note that at present it cannot be said that a parallel enhanced co-operation model has been formally proposed for this model of ICANN accountability. Therefore this model remains specific only to ICANN oversight, and does not by extension cover enhanced co-operation.

Model IV: Replacement of Oversight by Participatory Accountability Mechanisms

Parallel Enhanced Co-operation Model: None

Model IV envisions the complete removal of oversight function over ICANN by making it an independent body. The idea is to make ICANN self-regulating.

There are however, two variants of this model which are suggested in this regard. The first envisions slight modifications to the status quo by persuading the US government to release control over ICANN via the IANA contract and also eliminating the role of the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC). Moreover, the reviews system under the Affirmation of Commitments (AoCs) needs to be strengthened so that ICANN keeps respecting the basic principles on internet freedom while discharging its technical functions. This proposal supports the usage of the current RIR mechanism for addressing public policy issues in technical governance. RIR refers to a Regional Internet Registry, each of which has its own technical community which considers such issues. The difference here from regular policy-making is that public policy questions would be answered keeping in mind technical feasibility. This is an approach which seems to be working for the past decade, and has led to the conclusion of policies which suit regional concerns specifically. For example in the ARIN region, residential privacy concerns cause that information be redacted from the public WHOIS directory per community developed policy. It can further be noted that good policies tend to get adapted across all RIRs.

The proponents of this first variant of Model IV exist especially within the internet technical community, which argues that the simplest solution to technical governance is to remove governmental interference in ICANN processes by any nation-State anywhere in the world, thus leaving technical governance entirely to the technical community, who are people who understand and can provide solutions for the technical structure of the internet the best. It is thought among this group that the existing internal administrative processes of ICANN are sufficient to ensure good governance

The second variant suggests the removal of oversight function by replacing it with a membership-at-large structure for the ICANN. This would mean that any interested individual from anywhere in the world could apply to be a Board member in the ICANN and participate in the decisions which it makes. It calls for dissolution of the GAC and the participation of nation-State reps via the Supporting Organisations of the ICANN. It further mandates that an international agreement be undertaken whereby nation-States agree not to interfere in the functioning of ICANN or use it for censorship purposes. Though as a negotiating point for nation-States, it proposes that the control of ccTLDs be transferred to the national governments who should be allowed to exercise complete sovereignty over them. In short, this variant seems to propose two parallel running regimes for the internet: one embodying the global internet, another comprising of a bunch of nationally-controlled internets under the ccTLD domains.

The proponents of this second variant are largely skeptical for governmental and bureaucratic forces. At the same time, they are concerned about potential corruption rising within the ICANN due to unregulated market influences and call for reforms within the ICANN administration which would make it directly accountable to people who use the internet all over the world.

Both these variants of Model IV envision governmental involvement as supportive of a shared legal framework which upholds accountability in the ICANN, and provides non-State actors a legal basis for settling important disputes, at the same time leaving larger internet policy questions out of the framework and focusing on only the technical issues.

Thus by limiting itself to technical policy issues is specific to the ICANN oversight problem, Model IV proposal does not extend to the larger internet public policy issues which come up in conjunction with enhanced co-operation. Hence there is no potential overall enhanced co-operation model parallel to it—an issue which Model IV suggests dealing with separately.

Pros

To summarise, the following arguments are put forth in favour of Model IV.

The Don’t Fix What is Not Broken Argument: This is the other pole to the purely intergovernmental oversight/enhanced co-operation model. The drift is that since the internet functions fine the way it is now without the involvement of governments, especially in the case of technical governance, why change to fix it. The problem with this argument being that it is not exactly true, and is perhaps too US-centric.

Hand-in-hand Technical and Policy Decision-making: The close involvement of the internet technical community in the policy-making process in this model would help to bring technical and public policy issues together. The problem with involvement of governments in technical policy-decision making process is that they tend to ignore the technical feasibility of their policy implications. The technical community on its part resents such political interference (that is not always internet-oriented) into technical matters which has the potential to nullify decades of hard work by the community. It is thus argued that removal of any patronizing oversight under Model IV would bring about smooth framing of technical policies by inclusion of the “technical” aspects.

Invocation of Participatory Democracy: Proponents of Model IV show little faith in the politics of representative democracy for the securitization of best interests of the citizens. This model therefore, prides itself in establishing a mechanism of participatory democracy via either the RIRs or the ICANN Board memberships-at-large variations, either of which it is believed, will help users of the internet participate directly in internet governance, while keeping in mind regional variations in concerns regarding governance issues.

Need for Principles over Redistribution of Power: Another argument which comes to the support of this model is that it intends to provide a set of principles to bring accountability to technical governance, rather than merely using multiple players to diffuse the power of the other. The argument here is that mere induction of a number of nation-States (like in Model I) or additional stakeholders (like in Models II and III) would not be of much consequence to contain unilateral power unless proper mechanisms for accountability are put into place. Rather, the addition of more stakeholders without guiding principles agreed upon by everyone is likely to make things worse for the abuse of power would then be possible by more actors.

Best Option in Absence of Globally Agreed Principles: This is a pragmatic argument for the first variation of Model IV. It entails that in the absence of any globally-acceptable principles of technical governance, this proposal is the most acceptable. The technical community especially feels that without global consensus of principles for technical governance, any talk about changing the existing mechanisms, which seems to be working decently, is an unhelpful approach.

Cons

But not everyone agrees with these arguments. The following criticisms are made with regard to Model IV.

Influence of jurisdiction of incorporation: The criticism here is that as long as ICANN is a private corporation incorporated in a particular jurisdiction, the laws and the executive policies of that jurisdiction would be enforced against ICANN, thus providing the relevant State a unilateral power to influence ICANN’s technical decisions. A counter-proposal in this regard however suggests that ICANN be protected from such jurisdictional interference via immunities under an international agreement.
Inadequacy of an Affirmation of Commitments structure: The AoCs structure particularly does not find much support with developing nations, because it seems to be a unilateral declaration without much force of law in the international scenario. It is demanded that something more than an agreement between the government of a particular country and a private corporation incorporated in that country be sought to protect the interests of internet users worldwide.
Excessive power to the technical community: Some of the critics view the present model to be excessively favorable to the internet technical community, which has strong bonds with the private sector in the internet industry. They see the involvement of the technical community in policy decisions as unnecessary and as a leeway for potential abuse by monopolization of such functions.

The four models discussed above present a very broad view of the conflicts present in the entire project of internet governance. There are infinitesimal other details associated with the task of governance which have an impact on how we are able to use the internet, but which could not be presented here in all their detail. As an unprecedented transnational medium of communication, the internet challenges the very idea of modern governance, which is enmeshed in the hierarchical nation-State framework. How we rise to this challenge will be consequential in determining whether a new technology with the potential of completely free flow of information across any boundaries can be preserved, or whether traditional boundaries of regulation succeed in moulding the internet to its form. Or whether in the process, both the technology and our idea of governance will be transformed in ways hitherto unknown.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/issues-in-internet-governance