We are anonymous, we are legion

Policy Brief: Oversight Mechanisms for Surveillance

elonnai — 2015-11-24T06:09:01Z

Introduction

Across jurisdictions, the need for effective and relevant oversight mechanisms (coupled with legislative safeguards) for state surveillance has been highlighted by civil society, academia, citizens and other key stakeholders.[1] A key part of oversight of state surveillance is accountability of intelligence agencies. This has been recognized at the international level. Indeed, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, The United Nations, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, and the Inter-Parliamentary Union have all recognized that intelligence agencies need to be subject to democratic accountability.[2] Since 2013, the need for oversight has received particular attention in light of the information disclosed through the 'Snowden Revelations'. [3] Some countries such as the US, Canada, and the UK have regulatory mechanisms for the oversight of state surveillance and the intelligence community, while many other countries – India included - have piecemeal oversight mechanisms in place. The existence of regulatory mechanisms for state surveillance does not necessarily equate to effective oversight – and piecemeal mechanisms – depending on how they are implemented, could be more effective than comprehensive mechanisms. This policy brief seeks to explore the purpose of oversight mechanisms for state surveillance, different forms of mechanisms, and what makes a mechanism effective and comprehensive. The brief also reviews different oversight mechanisms from the US, UK, and Canada and provides recommendations for ways in which India can strengthen its present oversight mechanisms for state surveillance and the intelligence community.

What is the purpose and what are the different components of an oversight mechanism for State Surveillance?

The International Principles on the Application of Human Rights to Communication Surveillance, developed through a global consultation with civil society groups, industry, and international experts recommends that public oversight mechanisms for state surveillance should be established to ensure transparency and accountability of Communications Surveillance. To achieve this, mechanisms should have the authority to:

Access all potentially relevant information about State actions, including, where appropriate, access to secret or classified information;
Assess whether the State is making legitimate use of its lawful capabilities;
Evaluate whether the State has been comprehensively and accurately publishing information about the use and scope of Communications Surveillance techniques and powers in accordance with its Transparency obligations publish periodic reports and other information relevant to Communications Surveillance;
Make public determinations as to the lawfulness of those actions, including the extent to which they comply with these Principles[4]

What can inform oversight mechanisms for state surveillance?

The development of effective oversight mechanisms for state surveillance can be informed by a number of factors including:

Rapidly changing technology – how can mechanisms adapt, account for, and evaluate perpetually changing intelligence capabilities?
Expanding surveillance powers – how can mechanisms evaluate and rationalize the use of expanding agency powers?
Tensions around secrecy, national interest, and individual rights – how can mechanisms respect, recognize, and uphold multiple competing interests and needs including an agency's need for secrecy, the government's need to protect national security, and the citizens need to have their constitutional and fundamental rights upheld?
The structure, purpose, and goals of specific intelligence agencies and circumstances– how can mechanisms be sensitive and attuned to the structure, purpose, and functions of differing intelligence agencies and circumstances?

These factors lead to further questions around:

The purpose of an oversight mechanism: Is an oversight mechanism meant to ensure effectiveness of an agency? Perform general reviews of agency performance? Supervise the actions of an agency? Hold an agency accountable for misconduct?
The structure of an oversight mechanism: Is it internal? External? A combination of both? How many oversight mechanisms that agencies should be held accountable to?
The functions of an oversight mechanism: Is an oversight mechanism meant to inspect? Evaluate? Investigate? Report?
The powers of an oversight mechanism: The extent of access that an oversight mechanism needs and should have to the internal workings of security agencies and law enforcement to carry out due diligence? The extent of legal backing that an oversight mechanism should have to hold agencies legally accountable.

What oversight mechanisms for State Surveillance exist in India?

In India the oversight 'ecosystem' for state surveillance is comprised of:

Review committee: Under the Indian Telegraph Act 1885 and the Rules issued thereunder (Rule 419A), a Central Review Committee that consists of the Cabinet Secretary, Secretary of Legal Affairs to the Government of India, Secretary of Department of Telecommunications to the Government of India is responsible for meeting on a bi-monthly basis and reviewing the legality of interception directions. The review committee has the power to revoke the directions and order the destruction of intercepted material.[5] This review committee is also responsible for evaluating interception, monitoring, and decryption orders issued under section 69 of the Information Technology Act 2000.[6] and orders for the monitoring and collection of traffic data under section 69B of the Information Technology Act 2000.[7]
Authorizing Authorities: The Secretary in the Ministry of Home Affairs of the Central Government is responsible for authorizing requests for the interception, monitoring, and decryption of communications issued by central agencies.[8] The Secretary in charge of the Home Department is responsible for authorizing requests for the interception, monitoring, and decryption of communications from state level agencies and law enforcement.[9] The Secretary to the Government of India in the Department of Information Technology under the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology is responsible for authorizing requests for the monitoring and collection of traffic data.[10] Any officer not below the rank of Joint Secretary to the Government of India, who has been authorised by the Union Home Secretary or the State Home Secretary in this behalf, may authorize the interception of communications in case of an emergency.[11] A Commissioner of Police, District Superintendent of Police or Magistrate may issue requests for stored data to any postal or telegraph authority.[12]
Administrative authorities: India does not have an oversight mechanism for intelligence agencies, but agencies do report to different authorities. For example: The Intelligence Bureau reports to the Home Minister, the Research and Anaylsis Wing is under the Cabinet Secretariat and reports to the Prime Minister, the Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC), National Technical Research Organisation (NTRO) and Aviation Research Centre (ARC) report to the National Security Adviser; and the National Security Council Secretariat under the NSA which serves the National Security Council.[13]

It is important to note that though India has a Right to Information Act, but most of the security agencies are exempt from the purview of the Act[14] as is disclosure of any information that falls under the purview of the Official Secrets Act 1923.[15] [Note: There is no point in listing out all the exceptions given in section 8 and other sections as well. I think the point is sufficiently made when we say that security agencies are exempt from the purview of the Act.] The Official Secrets Act does not provide a definition of an 'official secret' and instead protects information: pertaining to national Security, defence of the country, affecting friendly relations with foreign states, etc.[16] Information in India is designated as classified in accordance to the Manual of Departmental Security Instruction which is circulated by the Ministry of Home Affairs. According to the Public Records Rules 1997, “classified records" means the files relating to the public records classified as top-secret, confidential and restricted in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Manual of Departmental Security Instruction circulated by the Ministry of Home affairs from time to time;”[17] Bi-annually officers evaluate and de-classify classified information and share the same with the national archives.[18] In response to questions raised in the Lok Sabha on the 5th of May 2015 regarding if the Official Secrets Act, 1923 will be reviewed, the number of classified files stored with the Government under the Act, and if the Government has any plans to declassify some of the files – the Ministry of Home Affairs clarified that a committee consisting of Secretaries of the Ministry of Home Affairs, the Department of Personnel and Training, and the Department of Legal Affairs has been established to examine the provisions of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 particularly in light of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The Ministry of Home Affairs also clarified that the classification and declassification of files is done by each Government Department as per the Manual of Departmental Security Instructions, 1994 and thus there is no 'central database of the total number of classified files'.[19]

How can India's oversight mechanism for state surveillance be clarified?

Though these mechanisms establish a basic framework for an oversight mechanism for state surveillance in India, there are aspects of this framework that could be clarified and there are ways in which the framework could be strengthened.

Aspects of the present review committee that could be clarified:

Powers of the review committee: Beyond having the authority to declare that orders for interception, monitoring, decryption, and collection of traffic data are not within the scope of the law and order for destruction of any collected information – what powers does the review committee have? Does the committee have the power to compel agencies to produce additional or supporting evidence? Does the committee have the power to compel information from the authorizing authority?
Obligations of the review committee: The review committee is required to 'record its findings' as to whether the interception orders issued are in accordance with the law. Is there a standard set of questions/information that must be addressed by the committee when reviewing an order? Does the committee only review the content of the order or do they also review the implementation of the order? Beyond recording its findings, are there any additional reporting obligations that the review committee must fulfill?
Accountability of the review committee: Does the review committee answer to a higher authority? Do they have to submit their findings to other branches of the government – such as Parliament? Is there a mechanism to ensure that the review committee does indeed meet every two months and review all orders issued under the relevant sections of the Indian Telegraph Act 1885 and the Information Technology Act 2008?

Proposed oversight mechanisms in India

Oversight mechanisms can help with avoiding breaches of national security by ensuring efficiency and effectiveness in the functioning of security agencies. The need for the oversight of state surveillance is not new in India. In 1999 the Union Government constituted a Committee with the mandate of reviewing the events leading up to Pakistani aggression in Kargil and to recommend measures towards ensuring national security. Though the Kargil Committee was addressing surveillance from the perspective of gathering information on external forces, there are parellels in the lessons learned for state surveillance. Among other findings, in their Report the Committee found a number of limitations in the system for collection, reporting, collation, and assessment of intelligence. The Committee also found that there was a lack of oversight for the intelligence community in India – resulting in no mechanisms for tasking the agencies, monitoring their performance and overall functioning, and evaluating the quality of the work.

The Committee also noted that such a mechanism is a standard feature in jurisdictions across the world. The Committee emphasized this need from an economic perspective – that without oversight – the Government and the nation has no way of evaluating whether or not they are receiving value for their money. The Committee recommended a review of the intelligence system with the objective of solving such deficiencies.[20]

In 2000 a Group of Ministers was established to review the security and intelligence apparatus of the country. In their report issued to the Prime Minister, the Group of Ministers recommended the establishment of an Intelligence Coordination Group for the purpose of providing oversight of intelligence agencies at the Central level. Specifically the Intelligence Coordination Group would be responsible for:

Allocation of resources to the intelligence agencies
Consideration of annual reviews on the quality of inputs
Approve the annual tasking for intelligence collection
Oversee the functions of intelligence agencies
Examine national estimates and forecasts[21]

Past critiques of the Indian surveillance regime have included the fact that intelligence agencies do not come under the purview of any overseeing mechanism including Parliament, the Right to Information Act 2005, or the General Comptroller of India.

In 2011, Manish Tewari, who at the time was a Member of Parliament from Ludhiana, introduced the Private Member's Bill - “The Intelligence Services (Powers and Regulation) Bill” proposed stand alone statutory regulation of intelligence agencies. In doing so it sought to establish an oversight mechanism for intelligence agencies within and outside of India. The Bill was never introduced into Parliament.[22] Broadly, the Bill sought to establish: a National Intelligence and Security Oversight Committee which would oversee the functionings of intelligence agencies and would submit an annual report to the Prime Minister, a National Intelligence Tribunal for the purpose of investigating complaints against intelligence agencies, an Intelligence Ombudsman for overseeing and ensuring the efficient functioning of agencies, and a legislative framework regulating intelligence agencies.[23]

Proposed policy in India has also explored the possibility of coupling surveillance regulation and oversight with private regulation and oversight. In 2011 the Right to Privacy Bill was drafted by the Department of Personnel and Training. The Bill proposed to establish a “Central Communication Interception Review Committee” for the purposes of reviewing orders for interception issued under the Telegraph Act. The Bill also sought to establish an authorization process for surveillance undertaken by following a person, through CCTV's, or other electronic means.[24] In contrast, the 2012 Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy, which provided recommendations for a privacy framework for India, recommended that the Privacy Commissioner should exercise broad oversight functions with respect to interception/access, audio & video recordings, the use of personal identifiers, and the use of bodily or genetic material.[25]

A 2012 report by the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses titled “A Case for Intelligence Reforms in India” highlights at least four 'gaps' in intelligence that have resulted in breaches of national security including: zero intelligence, inadequate intelligence, inaccurate intelligence, and excessive intelligence – particularly in light of additional technical inputs and open source inputs.[26] In some cases, an oversight mechanism could help in remediating some of these gaps. Returning to the 2012 IDSA Report, the Report recommends the following steps towards an oversight mechanism for Indian intelligence:

Establishing an Intelligence Coordination Group (ICG) that will exercise oversight functions for the intelligence community at the Central level. This could include overseeing functions of the agencies, quality of work, and finances.
Enacting legislation defining the mandates, functions, and duties of intelligence agencies.
Holding intelligence agencies accountable to the Comptroller & Auditor General to ensure financial accountability.
Establishing a Minister for National Security & Intelligence for exercising administrative authority over intelligence agencies.
Establishing a Parliamentary Accountability Committee for oversight of intelligence agencies through parliament.
Defining the extent to which intelligence agencies can be held accountable to reply to requests pertaining to violations of privacy and other human rights issued under the Right to Information Act.

Highlighting the importance of accountable surveillance frameworks, in 2015 the external affairs ministry director general of India Santosh Jha stated at the UN General Assembly that the global community needs to "to create frameworks so that Internet surveillance practices motivated by security concerns are conducted within a truly transparent and accountable framework.”[27]

In what ways can India's mechanisms for state surveillance be strengthened?

Building upon the recommendations from the Kargil Committee, the Report from the Group of Ministers, the Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy, the Draft Privacy Bill 2011, and the IDSA report, ways in which the framework for oversight of state surveillance in India could be strengthened include:

Oversight to enhance public understanding, debate, accountability, and democratic governance: State surveillance is unique in that it is enabled with the objective of protecting a nations security. Yet, to do so it requires citizens of a nation to trust the actions taken by intelligence agencies and to allow for possible access into their personal lives and possible activities that might infringe on their constitutional rights (such as freedom of expression) for a larger outcome of security. Because of this, oversight mechanisms for state surveillance must balance securing national security while submitting itself to some form of accountability to the public.
Independence of oversight mechanisms: Given the Indian context, it is particularly important that an oversight mechanism for surveillance powers and the intelligence community is capable of addressing and being independent from political interference. Indeed, the majority of cases regarding illegal interceptions that have reached the public sphere pertain to the surveillance of political figures and political turf wars.[28] Furthermore, though the current Review Committee established in the Indian Telegraph Act does not have a member from the Ministry of Home Affairs (the Ministry responsible for authorizing interception requests), it is unclear how independent this committee is from the authorizing Ministry. To ensure non-biased oversight, it is important that oversight mechanisms are independent.
Legislative regulation of intelligence agencies: Currently, intelligence agencies are provided surveillance powers through the Information Technology Act and the Telegraph Act, but beyond the National Intelligence Agency Act which establishes the National Intelligence Agency, there is no legal mechanism creating, regulating and overseeing intelligence agencies using these powers. In the 'surveillance ecosystem' this creates a policy vacuum, where an agency is enabled through law with a surveillance power and provided a procedure to follow, but is not held legally accountable for the effective, ethical, and legal use of the power. To ensure legal accountability of the use of surveillance techniques, it is important that intelligence are created through legislation that includes oversight provisions.
Comprehensive oversight of all intrusive measures: Currently the Review Committee established under the Telegraph Act is responsible for the evaluation of orders for the interception, monitoring, decryption, and collection of traffic data. The Review Committee is not responsible for reviewing the implementation or effectiveness of such orders and is not responsible for reviewing orders for access to stored information or other forms of electronic surveillance. This situation is a result of 1. Present oversight mechanisms not having comprehensive mandates 2. Different laws in India enabling different levels of access and not providing a harmonized oversight mechanism and 3.Indian law not formally addressing and regulating emerging surveillance technologies and techniques. To ensure effectiveness, it is important for oversight mechanisms to be comprehensive in mandate and scope.
Establishment of a tribunal or redress mechanism: India currently does not have a specified means for individuals to seek redress for unlawful surveillance or surveillance that they feel has violated their rights. Thus, individuals must take any complaint to the courts. The downsides of such a system include the fact that the judiciary might not be able to make determinations regarding the violation, the court system in India is overwhelmed and thus due process is slow, and given the sensitive nature of the topic – courts might not have the ability to immediately access relevant documentation. To ensure redress, it is important that a tribunal or a redress mechanism with appropriate powers is established to address complaints or violations pertaining to surveillance.
Annual reporting by security agencies, law enforcement, and service providers: Information regarding orders for surveillance and the implementation of the same is not disclosed by the government or by service providers in India.[29] Indeed, service providers by law are required to maintain the confidentiality of orders for the interception, monitoring, or decryption of communications and monitoring or collection of traffic data. At the minimum, an oversight mechanism should receive annual reports from security agencies, law enforcement, and service providers with respect to the surveillance undertaken. Edited versions of these Reports could be shared with Parliament and the public.
Consistent and mandatory reviews of relevant legislation: Though committees have been established to review various legislation and policy pertaining to state surveillance, the time frame for these reviews is not clearly defined by law. These reviews should take place on a consistent and publicly stated time frame. Furthermore, legislation enabling surveillance in India do not require review and assessment for relevance, adequacy, necessity, and proportionality after a certain period of time. Mandating that legislation regulating surveillance is subject to review on a consistent is important in ensuring that the provisions are relevant, proportionate, adequate, and necessary.
Transparency of classification and declassification process and centralization of de-classified records: Currently, the Ministry of Home Affairs establishes the process that government departments must follow for classifying and de-classifying information. This process is not publicly available and de-classified information is stored only with the respective department. For transparency purposes, it is important that the process for classification of records be made public and the practice of classification of information take place in exceptional cases. Furthermore, de-classified records should be stored centrally and made easily accessible to the public.
Executive and administrative orders regarding establishing of agencies and surveillance projects should be in the public domain: Intelligence agencies and surveillance projects in India are typically enabled through executive orders. For example, NATGRID was established via an executive order, but this order is not publicly available. As a form of transparency and accountability to the public, it is important that if executive orders establish an agency or a surveillance project, these are made available to the public to the extent possible.
Oversight of surveillance should incorporate privacy and cyber/national security: Increasingly issues of surveillance, privacy, and cyber security are interlinked. Any move to establish an oversight mechanism for surveillance and the intelligence committee must incorporate and take into consideration privacy and cyber security. This could mean that an oversight mechanism for surveillance in India works closely with CERT-IN and a potential privacy commissioner or that the oversight mechanism contains internal expertise in these areas to ensure that they are adequately considered.
Oversight by design: Just like the concept of privacy by design promotes the ideal that principles of privacy are built into devices, processes, services, organizations, and regulation from the outset – oversight mechanisms for state surveillance should also be built in from the outset of surveillance projects and enabling legislation. In the past, this has not been the practice in India– the National Intelligence Grid was an intelligence system that sought to link twenty one databases together – making such information easily and readily accessible to security agencies – but the oversight of such a system was never defined.[30] Similarly, the Centralized Monitoring System was conceptualized to automate and internalize the process of intercepting communications by allowing security agencies to intercept communications directly and bypass the service provider.[31] Despite amending the Telecom Licenses to provide for the technical components of this project, oversight of the project or of security agencies directly accessing information has yet to be defined.[32]

Examples of oversight mechanisms for State Surveillance: US, UK, Canada and United States

United States

In the United States the oversight 'ecosystem' for state surveillance is made up of:

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court

The U.S Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) is the predominant oversight mechanism for state surveillance and oversees and authorizes the actions of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Security Agency.[33] The court was established by the enactment of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act 1978 and is governed by Rules of Procedure, the current Rules being formulated in 2010.[34] The Court is empowered to ensure compliance with the orders that it issues and the government is obligated to inform the Court if orders are breached.[35] FISA allows for individuals who receive an order from the Court to challenge the same,[36] and public filings are available on the Court's website.[37] Additionally, organizations, including the American Civil Liberties Union[38] and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, have filed motions with the Court for release of records. [39] Similarly, Google has approached the Court for the ability to publish aggregate information regarding FISA orders that the company recieves.[40]

Government Accountability Office

The U.S Government Accountability Office (GAO) is an independent office that works for Congress and conducts audits, investigates, provides recommendations, and issues legal decisions and opinions with regard to federal government spending of taxpayer's money by the government and associated agencies including the Defence Department, the FBI, and Homeland Security.[41] The head of the GAO is the Comptroller General of the United States and is appointed by the President. The GAO will initiate an investigation if requested by congressional committees or subcommittees or if required under public law or committee reports. The GOA has reviewed topics relating to Homeland Security, Information Security, Justice and Law Enforcement, National Defense, and Telecommunications.[42] For example, in June 2015 the GOA completed an investigation and report on 'Foreign Terrorist Organization Process and U.S Agency Enforcement Actions” [43] and an investigation on “Cyber Security: Recent Data Breaches Illustrate Need for Strong Controls across Federal Agencies”.[44]

Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence

The U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence is a standing committee of the U.S Senate with the mandate to review intelligence activities and programs and ensure that these are inline with the Constitution and other relevant laws. The Committee is also responsible for submitting to Senate appropriate proposals for legislation, and for reporting to Senate on intelligence activities and programs.[45] The House Permanent Select Committee holds similar jurisdiction. The House Permanent Select Committee is committed to secrecy and cannot disclose classified information excepted authorized to do so. Such an obligation does not exist for the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the committee can disclose classified information publicly on its own.[46]

Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB)

The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board was established by the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 and is located within the executive branch.[47] The objective of the PCLOB is to ensure that the Federal Government's actions to combat terrorism are balanced against privacy and civil liberties. Towards this, the Board has the mandate to review and analyse ant-terrorism measures the executive takes and ensure that such actions are balanced with privacy and civil liberties, and to ensure that privacy and civil liberties are liberties are adequately considered in the development and implementation of anti-terrorism laws, regulations and policies.[48] The Board is responsible for developing principles to guide why, whether, when, and how the United States conducts surveillance for authorized purposes. Additionally, officers of eight federal agencies must submit reports to the PCLOB regarding the reviews that they have undertaken, the number and content of the complaints, and a summary of how each complaint was handled. In order to fulfill its mandate, the Board is authorized to access all relevant records, reports, audits, reviews, documents, papers, recommendations, and classified information. The Board may also interview and take statements from necessary personnel. The Board may request the Attorney General to subpoena on the Board's behalf individuals outside of the executive branch.[49]

To the extent possible, the Reports of the Board are made public. Examples of recommendations that the Board has made in the 2015 Report include: End the NSA”s bulk telephone records program, add additional privacy safeguards to the bulk telephone records program, enable the FISC to hear independent views on novel and significant matters, expand opportunities for appellate review of FISC decisions, take advantage of existing opportunities for outside legal and technical input in FISC matters, publicly release new and past FISC and DISCR decisions that involve novel legal, technical, or compliance questions, publicly report on the operation of the FISC Special Advocate Program, Permit Companies to Disclose Information about their receipt of FISA production orders and disclose more detailed statistics on surveillance, inform the PCLOB of FISA activities and provide relevant congressional reports and FISC decisions, begin to develop principles for transparency, disclose the scope of surveillance authorities affecting US Citizens.[50]

The Wiretap Report

The Wiretap Report is an annual compilation of information provided by federal and state officials regarding applications for interception orders of wire, oral, or electronic communications, data address offenses under investigation, types and locations of interception devices, and costs and duration of authorized intercepts.[51] When submitting information for the report a judge will include the name and jurisdiction of the prosecuting official who applied for the order, the criminal offense under investigation, the type of intercept device used, the physical location of the device, and the duration of the intercept. Prosecutors provide information related to the cost of the intercept, the number of days the intercept device was in operation, the number of persons whose communications were intercepted, the number of intercepts, and the number of incriminating intercepts recorded. Results of the interception orders such as arrest, trials, convictions, and the number of motions to suppress evidence are also noted in the prosecutor reports. The Report is submitted to Congress and is legally required under Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968. The report is issued by the Administrative Office of the United States Courts.[52]

United Kingdom

The Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) of Parliament

The Intelligence Security Committee was established by the Intelligence Services Act 1994. Members are appointed by the Prime Minster and the Committee reports directly to the same. Additionally, the Committee submits annual reports to Parliament. Towards this, the Committee can take evidence from cabinet ministers, senior officials, and from the public.[53] The most recent report of the Committee is the 2015 “Report on Privacy and Security”.[54] Members of the Committee are subject to the Official Secrets Act 1989 and have access to classified material when carrying out investigations.[55]

Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC)

This Joint Intelligence Committee is located in the Cabinet office and is broadly responsible for overseeing national intelligence organizations and providing advice to the Cabinet on issues related to security, defense, and foreign affairs. The JIC is overseen by the Intelligence and Security Committee.[56]

The Interception of Communications Commissioner

The Interception of Communications Commissioner is appointed by the Prime Minster under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 for the purpose of reviewing surveillance conducted by intelligence agencies, police forces, and other public authorities. Specifically, the Commissioner inspects the interception of communications, the acquisition and disclosure of communications data, the interception of communications in prisons, and the unintentional electronic interception.[57] The Commissioner submits an annual report to the Prime Minister. The Reports of the Commissioner are publicly available.[58]

The Intelligence Services Commissioner

The Intelligence Services Commissioner is an independent body appointed by the Prime Minister that is legally empowered through the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) 2000. The Commissioner provides independent oversight on the use of surveillance by UK intelligence services.[59] Specifically, the Commissioner is responsible for reviewing authorized interception orders and the actions and performance of the intelligence services.[60] The Commissioner is also responsible for providing assistance to the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, submitting annual reports to the Prime Minister on the discharge of its functions, and advising the Home Office on the need of extending the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures regime.[61] Towards these the Commissioner conducts in-depth audits on the orders for interception to ensure that the surveillance is within the scope of the law, that the surveillance was necessary for a legally established reason, that the surveillance was proportionate, that the information accessed was justified by the privacy invaded, and that the surveillance authorized by the appropriate official. The Commissioner also conducts 'site visits' to ensure that orders are being implemented as per the law.[62] As a note, the Intelligence Services Commissioner does not undertake any subject that is related to the Interception of Communications Commissioner. The Commissioner has access to any information that he feels is necessary to carry out his investigations. The Reports of the Intelligence Service Commissioner are publicly available.[63]

Investigatory Powers Tribunal

The Investigatory Powers Tribunal is a court which investigates complaints of unlawful surveillance by public authorities or intelligence/law enforcement agencies.[64] The Tribunal was established under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 and has a range of oversight functions to ensure that public authorities act and agencies are in compliance with the Human Rights Act 1998.[65] The Tribunal specifically is an avenue of redress for anyone who believes that they have been a victim of unlawful surveillance under RIPA or wider human rights infringements under the Human Rights Act 1998. The Tribunal can provide seven possible outcomes for any application including 'found in favor of complainant, no determination in favour of complainant, frivolous or vexatious, out of time, out of jurisdiction, withdrawn, or no valid complaint.[66] The Tribunal has the authority to receive and consider evidence in any form, even if inadmissible in an ordinary court.[67] Where possible, cases are available on the Tribunal's website. Decisions by the Tribunal cannot be appealed, but can be challenged in the European Court of Human Rights.[68]

Canada

In Canada the oversight 'ecosystem' for state surveillance includes:

Security Intelligence Review Committee

The Security Intelligence Review Committee is an independent body that is accountable to the Parliament of Canada and reports on the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.[69] Members of the Security Intelligence Review Committee are appointed by the Prime Minister of Canada. The committee conducts reviews on a pro-active basis and investigates complaints. Committee members have access to classified information to conduct reviews. The Committee submits an annual report to Parliament and an edited version is publicly available. The 2014 Report was titled “Lifting the Shroud of Secrecy”[70] and includes reviews of the CSIS's activities, reports on complaints and subsequent investigations, and provides recommendations.

Office of the Communications Security Establishment Commissioner

The Communications Security Commissioner conducts independent reviews of Communications Security Establishment (CSE) activities to evaluate if they are within the scope of Canadian law.[71] The Commissioner submits a report to Parliament on an annual basis and has a number of powers including the power to subpoena documents and personnel.[72] If the Commissioner believes that the CSE has not complied with the law – it must report this to the Attorney General of Canada and to the Minister of National Defence. The Commissioner may also receive information from persons bound to secrecy if they deem it to be in the public interest to disclose such information.[73] The Commissioner is also responsible for verifying that the CSE does not surveil Canadians and for promoting measures to protect the privacy of Canadians.[74] When conducting a review, the Commissioner has the ability to examine records, receive briefings, interview relevant personnel, assess the veracity of information, listen to intercepted voice recordings, observe CSE operators and analysts to verify their work, examine CSI electronic tools, systems and databases to ensure compliance with the law.[75]

Office of the Privacy Commissioner

The Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (OPC) oversees the implementation of and compliance with the Privacy Act and the Personal information and Electronic Documents Act.[76]

The OPC is an independent body that has the authority to investigate complaints regarding the handling of personal information by government and private companies, but can only comment on the activities of security and intelligence agencies. For example, in 2014 the OPC issued the report “Checks and Controls: Reinforcing Privacy Protection and Oversight for the Canadian Intelligence Community in an Era of Cyber Surveillance”[77] The OPC can also provide testimony to Parliament and other government bodies.[78] For example, the OPC has made appearances before the Senate Standing Committee of National Security and Defense on Bill C-51.[79] The OPC cannot conduct joint audits or investigations with other bodies.[80]

Annual Interception Reports

Under the Criminal Code of Canada, regional governments must issue annual interception reports. The reports must include number of individuals affected by interceptions, average duration of the interception, type of crimes investigated, numbers of cases brought to court, and number of individuals notified that interception had taken place.[81]

Conclusion

The presence of multiple and robust oversight mechanisms for state surveillance does not necessarily correlate to effective oversight. The oversight mechanisms in the UK, Canada, and the U.S have been criticised. For example, Canada . For example, the Canadian regime has been characterized as becoming weaker it has removed one of its key over sight mechanisms – the Inspector General of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service which was responsible for certifying that the Service was in compliance with law.[82]

Other weaknesses in the Canadian regime that have been highlighted include the fact that different oversight bodies do not have the authority to share information with each other, and transparency reports do not include many new forms of surveillance.[83] Oversight mechanisms in the U.S on the other hand have been criticized as being opaque[84] or as lacking the needed political support to be effective.[85] The UK oversight mechanism has been criticized for not having judicial authorization of surveillance requests, have opaque laws, and for not having a strong right of redress for affected individuals.[86] These critiques demonstrate that there are a number of factors that must come together for an oversight mechanism to be effective. Public transparency and accountability to decision making bodies such as Parliament or Congress can ensure effectiveness of oversight mechanisms, and are steps towards providing the public with means to debate in an informed manner issues related to state surveillance and allows different bodies within the government the ability to hold the state accountable for its actions.

.[1]. For example, “Public Oversight” is one of the thirteen Necessary and Proportionate principles on state communications surveillance developed by civil society and academia globally, that should be incorporated by states into communication surveillance regimes. The principles can be accessed here: https://en.necessaryandproportionate.org/

[2]. Hans Born and Ian Leigh, “Making Intelligence Accountable. Legal Standards and Best Practice for Oversight of Intelligence Agencies.” Pg. 13. 2005. Available at: http://www.prsindia.org/theprsblog/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/making-intelligence.pdf. Last accessed: August 6, 2015.

[3]. For example, this point was made in the context of the UK. For more information see: Nick Clegg, 'Edward Snowden's revelations made it clear: security oversight must be fit for the internet age,”. The Guardian. March 3rd 2014. Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/03/nick-clegg-snowden-security-oversight-internet-age. Accessed: July 27, 2015.

[4]. International Principles on the Application of Human Rights to Communications Surveillance. Available at: https://en.necessaryandproportionate.org/

[5]. Sub Rules (16) and (17) of Rule 419A, Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951. Available at:http://www.dot.gov.in/sites/default/files/march2007.pdf Note: This review committee is responsible for overseeing interception orders issued under the Indian Telegraph Act and the Information Technology Act.

[6]. Information Technology Procedure and Safeguards for Interception, Monitoring, and Decryption of Information Rules 2009. Definition q. Available at: http://dispur.nic.in/itact/it-procedure-interception-monitoring-decryption-rules-2009.pdf

[7]. Information Technology (Procedure and safeguard for Monitoring and Collecting Traffic Data or Information Rules, 2009). Definition (n). Available at: http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/it-procedure-and-safeguard-for-monitoring-and-collecting-traffic-data-or-information-rules-2009

[8]. This authority is responsible for authorizing interception requests issued under the Indian Telegraph Act and the Information Technology Act. Section 2, Indian Telegraph Act 1885 and Section 4, Information Technology Procedure and Safeguards for Interception, Monitoring, and Decryption of Information) Rules, 2009

[9]. This authority is responsible for authorizing interception requests issued under the Indian Telegraph Act and the Information Technology Act. Section 2, Indian Telegraph Act 1885 and Section 4, Information Technology Procedure and Safeguards for Interception, Monitoring, and Decryption of Information) Rules, 2009

[10]. Definition (d) and section 3 of the Information Technology (Procedure and safeguard for Monitoring and Collecting Traffic Data or Information Rules, 2009). Available at: http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/it-procedure-and-safeguard-for-monitoring-and-collecting-traffic-data-or-information-rules-2009

[11]. Rule 1, of the 419A Rules, Indian Telegraph Act 1885. Available at:http://www.dot.gov.in/sites/default/files/march2007.pdf This authority is responsible for authorizing interception requests issued under the Indian Telegraph Act and the Information Technology Act.

[12]. Section 92, CrPc. Available at: http://www.icf.indianrailways.gov.in/uploads/files/CrPC.pdf

[13]. Press Information Bureau GOI. Reconstitution of Cabinet Committees. June 19th 2014. Available at: http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=105747. Accessed August 6, 2015.

[14]. Press Information Bureau, Government of India. Home minister proposes radical restructuring of security architecture. Available at: http://www.pib.nic.in/newsite/erelease.aspx?relid=56395. Accessed August 6, 2015.

[15]. Section 24 read with Schedule II of the Right to Information Act 2005. Available at: http://rti.gov.in/rti-act.pdf

[16]. Section 8 of the Right to Information Act 2005. Available at: http://rti.gov.in/rti-act.pdf

[17]. Abhimanyu Ghosh. “Open Government and the Right to Information”. Legal Services India. Available at: http://www.legalservicesindia.com/articles/og.htm. Accessed: August 8, 2015

[18]. Public Record Rules 1997. Section 2. Definition c. Available at: http://nationalarchives.nic.in/writereaddata/html_en_files/html/public_records97.html. Accessed: August 8, 2015

[19]. Times of India. Classified information is reviewed after 25-30 years. April 13th 2015. Available at: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Classified-information-is-reviewed-after-25-30-years/articleshow/46901878.cms. Accessed: August 8, 2015.

[20]. Government of India. Ministry of Home Affairs. Lok Sabha Starred Question No 557. Available at: http://mha1.nic.in/par2013/par2015-pdfs/ls-050515/557.pdf.

[21]. The Kargil Committee report Executive Summanry. Available at: http://fas.org/news/india/2000/25indi1.htm. Accessed: August 6, 2015.

[22]. PIB Releases. Group of Ministers Report on Reforming the National Security System”. Available at: http://pib.nic.in/archieve/lreleng/lyr2001/rmay2001/23052001/r2305200110.html. Last accessed: August 6, 2015

[23]. The Observer Research Foundation. “Manish Tewari introduces Bill on Intelligence Agencies Reform. August 5th 2011. Available at: http://www.observerindia.com/cms/sites/orfonline/modules/report/ReportDetail.html?cmaid=25156&mmacmaid=20327. Last accessed: August 6, 2015.

[24]. The Intelligence Services (Powers and Regulation) Bill, 2011. Available at: http://www.observerindia.com/cms/export/orfonline/documents/Int_Bill.pdf. Accessed: August 6, 2015.

[25]. The Privacy Bill 2011. Available at: https://bourgeoisinspirations.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/draft_right-to-privacy.pdf

[26]. The Report of Group of Experts on Privacy. Available at: http://planningcommission.nic.in/reports/genrep/rep_privacy.pdf

[27]. Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses. “A Case for Intelligence Reforms in India”. Available at: http://www.idsa.in/book/AcaseforIntelligenceReformsinIndia.html. Accessed: August 6, 2015.

[28]. India Calls for Transparency in internet Surveillance. NDTV. July 3rd 2015. Available at: http://gadgets.ndtv.com/internet/news/india-calls-for-transparency-in-internet-surveillance-710945. Accessed: July 6, 2015.

[29]. Lovisha Aggarwal. “Analysis of News Items and Cases on Surveillance and Digital Evidence in India”. Available at: http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/analysis-of-news-items-and-cases-on-surveillance-and-digital-evidence-in-india.pdf

[30]. Rule 25 (4) of the Information Technology (Procedures and Safeguards for the Interception, Monitoring, and Decryption of Information Rules) 2011. Available at: http://dispur.nic.in/itact/it-procedure-interception-monitoring-decryption-rules-2009.pdf

[31]. Ministry of Home Affairs, GOI. National Intelligence Grid. Available at: http://www.davp.nic.in/WriteReadData/ADS/eng_19138_1_1314b.pdf. Last accessed: August 6, 2015

[32]. Press Information Bureau, Government of India. Centralised System to Monitor Communications Rajya Sabha. Available at: http://pib.nic.in/newsite/erelease.aspx?relid=54679. Last accessed: August 6, 2015.

[33]. Department of Telecommunications. Amendemnt to the UAS License agreement regarding Central Monitoring System. June 2013. Available at: http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/uas-license-agreement-amendment

[34]. United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. July 29th 2013. Available at: http://www.fisc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/Leahy.pdf. Last accessed: August 8, 2015

[35]. United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. Rules of Procedure 2010. Available at: http://www.fisc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/FISC%20Rules%20of%20Procedure.pdf

[36]. United States Foreign Intelligence Court. Honorable Patrick J. Leahy. 2013. Available at: http://www.fisc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/Leahy.pdf

[37]. United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. July 29th 2013. Available at: http://www.fisc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/Leahy.pdf. Last accessed: August 8, 2015

[38]. Public Filings – U.S Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. Available at: http://www.fisc.uscourts.gov/public-filings

[39]. ACLU. FISC Public Access Motion – ACLU Motion for Release of Court Records Interpreting Section 215 of the Patriot Act. Available at: https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/fisc-public-access-motion-aclu-motion-release-court-records-interpreting-section-215

[40]. United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court Washington DC. In Re motion for consent to disclosure of court records or, in the alternative a determination of the effect of the Court's rules on statutory access rights. Available at: https://www.eff.org/files/filenode/misc-13-01-opinion-order.pdf

[41]. Google Official Blog. Shedding some light on Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) requests. February 3rd 2014. Available at: http://googleblog.blogspot.in/2014/02/shedding-some-light-on-foreign.html

[42]. U.S Government Accountability Office. Available at: http://www.gao.gov/key_issues/overview#t=1. Last accessed: August 8, 2015.

[43]. Report to Congressional Requesters. Combating Terrorism: Foreign Terrorist Organization Designation Proces and U.S Agency Enforcement Actions. Available at: http://www.gao.gov/assets/680/671028.pdf. Accessed: August 8, 2015

[44]. United States Government Accountability Office. Cybersecurity: Recent Data Breaches Illustrate Need for Strong Controls across Federal Agencies. Available: http://www.gao.gov/assets/680/670935.pdf. Last accessed: August 6, 2015.

[45]. Committee Legislation. Available at: http://ballotpedia.org/United_States_Senate_Committee_on_Intelligence_(Select)#Committee_legislation

[46]. Congressional Research Service. Congressional Oversight of Intelligence: Current Structure and Alternatives. May 14th 2012. Available at: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/RL32525.pdf. Last Accessed: August 8, 2015

[47]. The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board: About the Board. Available at: https://www.pclob.gov/aboutus.html

[48]. The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board: About the Board. Available at: https://www.pclob.gov/aboutus.html

[49]. Congressional Research Service. Congressional Oversight of Intelligence: Current Structure and Alternatives. May 14th 2012. Available at: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/RL32525.pdf. Last Accessed: August 8th 2015

[50]. United States Courts. Wiretap Reports. Available at: http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/analysisreports/wiretap-reports

[51]. United States Courts. Wiretap Reports. Available at: http://www.uscourts.gov/statisticsreports/
analysis-reports/wiretap-reports/faqs-wiretap-reports#faq-What-information-does-the-AO-receive-from-prosecutors?. Last Accessed: August 8th 2015

[52]. Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament. Transcripts and Public Evidence. Available at: http://isc.independent.gov.uk/public-evidence. Last accessed: August 8th 2015.

[53]. Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament. Special Reports. Available at http://isc.independent.gov.uk/committee-reports/special-reports. Last accessed: August 8th 2015.

[54]. Hugh Segal. The U.K. has legislative oversight of surveillance. Why not Canada. The Globe and Mail. June 12th 2013. Available at: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/uk-haslegislative-oversight-of-surveillance-why-not-canada/article12489071/. Last accessed: August 8th 2015

[55]. The Joint Intelligence Committee home page. For more information see: https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/national-security/groups/joint-intelligence-committee

[56]. Interception of Communications Commissioner's Office. RIPA. Available at: http://www.iocco-uk.info/sections.asp?sectionID=2&type=top. Last accessed: August 8th 2015

[57]. Interception of Communications Commissioner's Office. Reports. Available at: http://www.iocco-uk.info/sections.asp?sectionID=1&type=top. Last accessed: August 8th 2015

[58]. The Intelligence Services Commissioner's Office Homepage. For more information see: http://intelligencecommissioner.com/

[59]. The Intelligence Services Commissioner's Office – The Commissioner's Statutory Functions. Available at: http://intelligencecommissioner.com/content.asp?id=4

[60]. The Intelligence Services Commissioner's Office – The Commissioner's Statutory Functions. Available at: http://intelligencecommissioner.com/content.asp?id=4

[61]. The Intelligence Services Commissioner's Office. What we do. Available at: http://intelligencecommissioner.com/content.asp?id=5. Last Accessed: August 8th 2015.

[62]. The Intelligence Services Commissioner's Office. Intelligence Services Commissioner's Annual Reports. Available at: http://intelligencecommissioner.com/content.asp?id=19. Last
accessed: August 8th 2015

[63]. The Investigatory Powers Tribunal Homepage. Available at: http://www.ipt-uk.com/

[64]. The Investigatory Powers Tribunal – Functions – Key role. Available at: http://www.ipt-uk.com/section.aspx?pageid=1

[65]. Investigatory Powers Tribunal. Functions – Decisions available to the Tribunal. Available at: http://www.ipt-uk.com/section.aspx?pageid=4. Last accessed: August 8th 2015

[66]. Investigator Powers Tribunal. Operation - Available at: http://www.ipt-uk.com/section.aspx?pageid=7

[67]. Investigatory Powers Tribunal. Operation- Differences to the ordinary court system. Available at: http://www.ipt-uk.com/section.aspx?pageid=7. Last accessed: August 8th 2015

[68]. Security Intelligence Review Committee – Homepage. Available at: http://www.sirc-csars.gc.ca/index-eng.html

[69]. SIRC Annual Report 2013-2014: Lifting the Shroud of Secrecy. Available at: http://www.sirccsars. gc.ca/anrran/2013-2014/index-eng.html. Last accessed: August 6th 2015.

[70]. The Office of the Communications Security Establishment – Homepage. Available at: http://www.ocsecbccst.gc.ca/index_e.php

[71]. The Office of the Communications Security Establishment – Homepage. Available at: http://www.ocsecbccst.gc.ca/index_e.php

[72]. The Office of the Communications Security Establishment – Mandate. Available at: http://www.ocsecbccst.gc.ca/mandate/index_e.php

[73]. The Office of the Communications Security Establishment – Functions. Available at: http://www.ocsecbccst.gc.ca/functions/review_e.php

[74]. The Office of the Communications Security Establishment – Functions. Available at: http://www.ocsecbccst.gc.ca/functions/review_e.php

[75]. Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada. Homepage. Available at: https://www.priv.gc.ca/index_e.ASP

[76]. Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada. Reports and Publications. Special Report to Parliament “Checks and Controls: Reinforcing Privacy Protection and Oversight for the Canadian Intelligence Community in an Era of Cyber-Surveillance. January 28th 2014. Available at: https://www.priv.gc.ca/information/srrs/201314/sr_cic_e.asp

[77]. Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada. Available at: https://www.priv.gc.ca/index_e.asp. Last accessed: August 6th 2015.

[78]. Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada. Appearance before the Senate Standing Commitee National Security and Defence on Bill C-51, the Anti-Terrorism Act, 2015. Available at: https://www.priv.gc.ca/parl/2015/parl_20150423_e.asp. Last accessed: August 6th 2015.

[79]. Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada. Special Report to Parliament. January 8th 2014. Available at: https://www.priv.gc.ca/information/sr-rs/201314/sr_cic_e.asp. Last accessed: August 6th 2015.

[80]. Telecom Transparency Project. The Governance of Telecommunications Surveillance: How Opaque and Unaccountable Practices and Policies Threaten Canadians. Available at: http://www.telecomtransparency.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Governance-of-Telecommunications-Surveillance-Final.pdf. Last accessed: August 6th 2015.

[81]. Patrick Baud. The Elimination of the Inspector General of the Canadian Security Intelligence Serive. May 2013. Ryerson University. Available at; http://www.academia.edu/4731993/The_Elimination_of_the_Inspector_General_of_the_Canadian_Security_Intelligence_Service

[82]. Telecom Transparency Project. The Governance of Telecommunications Surveillance: How Opaque and Unaccountable Practices and Policies Threaten Canadians. Available at: http://www.telecomtransparency.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Governance-of-Telecommunications-Surveillance-Final.pdf. Last accessed: August 6th 2015.

[83]. Glenn Greenwald. Fisa court oversight: a look inside a secret and empty process. The Guardian. June 19th 2013. Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jun/19/fisa-court-oversight-process-secrecy, Nadia Kayyali. Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board to NSA: Why is Bulk Collection of Telelphone Records Still Happening? February 2105. Available at :https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/02/privacy-and-civil-liberties-oversight-board-nsa-whybulk-collection-telephone. Last accessed: August 8th 2015.

[84]. Scott Shance. The Troubled Life of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board. August 9th 2012. The Caucus. Available at: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/09/thetroubled-life-of-the-privacy-and-civil-liberties-oversight-board/?_r=0. Last accessed: August 8th 2015

[85]. The Open Rights Group. Don't Spy on Us. Reforming Surveillance in the UK. September 2014. Available at: https://www.openrightsgroup.org/assets/files/pdfs/reports/DSOU_Reforming_surveillance_old.pdf

[86].

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/policy-brief-oversight-mechanisms-for-surveillance

WhatsApps with fireworks, apps with diyas: Why Diwali needs to go beyond digital

nishant — 2015-11-23T13:27:37Z

The idea of a 'digital' Diwali reduces our social relationships to a ledger of give and take. The last fortnight, I have been bombarded with advertisements selling the idea of a “Digital Diwali”. We have become so used to the idea that everything that is digital is modern, better and more efficient.

The article was published in the Indian Express on November 22, 2015.

I have WhatsApp messages with exploding fireworks, singing greeting cards that chant mystic sounding messages, an app that turns my smartphone into a flickering diya, another app that remotely controls the imitation LED candles on my windows, an invitation to Skype in for a puja at a friend’s house 3,000 km away, and the surfeit of last minute shopping deals, each one offering a dhamaka of discounts.

However, to me, the digitality of Diwali is beyond the surface level of seductive screens and one-click shopping, or messages of love and apps of light. Think of Diwali as sharing the fundamental logic that governs the digital — the logic of counting. As we explode with joy this festive season, we count our blessings, our loved ones, the gifts and presents that we exchange. If we are on the new Fitbit trend, we count the calories we consume and burn as we make our way through parties where it is important to see and be seen, compare and contrast, connect with all the people who could be thought of as friends, followers, connectors, or connections.

While there is no denying that there is a sociality that the festival brings in, there is also a cruel algebra of counting that comes along with it. It is no surprise that as we celebrate the victory of good over evil and right over wrong, we also simultaneously bow our heads to the goddess of wealth in this season.

Look beyond the glossy surface of Diwali festivities, and you realise that it is exactly like the digital. Digital is about counting. It is right there in the name — digits refers to numbers. Or digits refer to fingers — these counting appendages which we can manipulate and flex in order to achieve desired results. At the core of digital systems is the logic of counting, and counting, as anybody will tell us, is not a benign process. What gets counted, gets accounted for, thus producing a ledger of give and take which often becomes the measure of our social relationships.

I remember, as a child, my mother meticulously making a note of every gift or envelope filled with money that ever came our way from the relatives, so that there would be precise and exact reciprocation. I am certain that there is now an app which can keep a track of these exchanges. I am not suggesting that these occasions of gifting are merely mercenary, but they are embodiments of finely calibrated values and worth of relationships defined by proximity, intimacy, hierarchy and distance. The digital produces and works on a similar algorithm, which is often as inscrutable and opaque as the unspoken codes of the Diwali ledger.

There is something else that happens with counting. The only things that can have value are things that have value. I don’t know which ledger counts the coming together of my very distributed family for an evening of chatting, talking, sharing lives and laughter. I don’t know how anybody would reciprocate that one late night when a cousin came to our home and spent hours with my younger brother making a rangoli to surprise the rest of us. I have no idea how they will ever reciprocate gifts that one of the younger kids made at school for all the members of the family.

Diwali is about the things, but like the digital system, these are things that cannot be counted. And within the digital system, things that cannot be counted are things that get discounted. They become unimportant. They become noise, or rubbish. Our social networks are counting systems that might notice the low frequency of my connections with my extended family but they cannot quantify the joy I hear in the voice of my grandmother when I call her from a different time-zone to catch up with her. Digital systems can only deal with things with value and not their worth.

I do want to remind myself that there is more to this occasion than merely counting. And for once, I want to go beyond the digital, where my memories of the past and the expectations of the future are not shaped by the digital systems of counting and quantifying. Instead, I want Diwali to be analogue. I shall still be mediating my collectivity with the promises of connectivity, but I want to think of this moment as beyond the logics and logistics of counting that codify our social transactions and take such a central location in our personal functioning. This Diwali, I am rooting for a post-digital Diwali, that accounts for all those things that cannot be counted, but are sometimes the only things that really count.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/the-indian-express-nishant-shah-november-22-2015-whatsapps-with-fireworks-apps-with-diyas-why-diwali-needs-to-go-beyond-digital

Summary Report Internet Governance Forum 2015

jyoti — 2015-11-30T10:47:13Z

Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), India participated in the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) held at Poeta Ronaldo Cunha Lima Conference Center, Joao Pessoa in Brazil from 10 November 2015 to 13 November 2015. The theme of IGF 2015 was ‘Evolution of Internet Governance: Empowering Sustainable Development’. Sunil Abraham, Pranesh Prakash & Jyoti Panday from CIS actively engaged and made substantive contributions to several key issues affecting internet governance at the IGF 2015. The issue-wise detail of their engagement is set out below.

INTERNET GOVERNANCE

I. The Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group to the IGF organised a discussion on Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and Internet Economy at the Main Meeting Hall from 9:00 am to 12:30 pm on 11 November, 2015. The discussions at this session focused on the importance of Internet Economy enabling policies and eco-system for the fulfilment of different SDGs. Several concerns relating to internet entrepreneurship, effective ICT capacity building, protection of intellectual property within and across borders were availability of local applications and content were addressed. The panel also discussed the need to identify SDGs where internet based technologies could make the most effective contribution. Sunil Abraham contributed to the panel discussions by addressing the issue of development and promotion of local content and applications. List of speakers included:

Lenni Montiel, Assistant-Secretary-General for Development, United Nations
Helani Galpaya, CEO LIRNEasia
Sergio Quiroga da Cunha, Head of Latin America, Ericsson
Raúl L. Katz, Adjunct Professor, Division of Finance and Economics, Columbia Institute of Tele-information
Jimson Olufuye, Chairman, Africa ICT Alliance (AfICTA)
Lydia Brito, Director of the Office in Montevideo, UNESCO
H.E. Rudiantara, Minister of Communication & Information Technology, Indonesia
Daniel Sepulveda, Deputy Assistant Secretary, U.S. Coordinator for International and Communications Policy at the U.S. Department of State
Deputy Minister Department of Telecommunications and Postal Services for the republic of South Africa
Sunil Abraham, Executive Director, Centre for Internet and Society, India
H.E. Junaid Ahmed Palak, Information and Communication Technology Minister of Bangladesh
Jari Arkko, Chairman, IETF
Silvia Rabello, President, Rio Film Trade Association
Gary Fowlie, Head of Member State Relations & Intergovernmental Organizations, ITU

Detailed description of the workshop is available here http ://www .intgovforum .org /cms /igf 2015-main -sessions

Transcript of the workshop is available here http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/187-igf-2015/transcripts-igf-2015/2327-2015-11-11-internet-economy-and-sustainable-development-main-meeting-room

Video link Internet economy and Sustainable Development here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6obkLehVE8

II. Public Knowledge organised a workshop on The Benefits and Challenges of the Free Flow of Data at Workshop Room 5 from 11:00 am to 12:00 pm on 12 November, 2015. The discussions in the workshop focused on the benefits and challenges of the free flow of data and also the concerns relating to data flow restrictions including ways to address them. Sunil Abraham contributed to the panel discussions by addressing the issue of jurisdiction of data on the internet. The panel for the workshop included the following.

Vint Cerf, Google
Lawrence Strickling, U.S. Department of Commerce, NTIA
Richard Leaning, European Cyber Crime Centre (EC3), Europol
Marietje Schaake, European Parliament
Nasser Kettani, Microsoft
Sunil Abraham, CIS India

Detailed description of the workshop is available here http ://www .intgovforum .org /cms /workshops /list -of -published -workshop -proposals

Transcript of the workshop is available here http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/187-igf-2015/transcripts-igf-2015/2467-2015-11-12-ws65-the-benefits-and-challenges-of-the-free-flow-of-data-workshop-room-5

Video link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtjnHkOn7EQ

III. Article 19 and Privacy International organised a workshop on Encryption and Anonymity: Rights and Risks at Workshop Room 1 from 11:00 am to 12:30 pm on 12 November, 2015. The workshop fostered a discussion about the latest challenges to protection of anonymity and encryption and ways in which law enforcement demands could be met while ensuring that individuals still enjoyed strong encryption and unfettered access to anonymity tools. Pranesh Prakash contributed to the panel discussions by addressing concerns about existing south Asian regulatory framework on encryption and anonymity and emphasizing the need for pervasive encryption. The panel for this workshop included the following.

David Kaye, UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression
Juan Diego Castañeda, Fundación Karisma, Colombia
Edison Lanza, Organisation of American States Special Rapporteur
Pranesh Prakash, CIS India
Ted Hardie, Google
Elvana Thaci, Council of Europe
Professor Chris Marsden, Oxford Internet Institute
Alexandrine Pirlot de Corbion, Privacy International

Detailed description of the workshop is available here http ://www .intgovforum .org /cms /worksh o ps /list -of -published -workshop -proposals

Transcript of the workshop is available here http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/187-igf-2015/transcripts-igf-2015/2407-2015-11-12-ws-155-encryption-and-anonymity-rights-and-risks-workshop-room-1

Video link available here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUrBP4PsfJo

IV. Chalmers & Associates organised a session on A Dialogue on Zero Rating and Network Neutrality at the Main Meeting Hall from 2:00 pm to 4:00 pm on 12 November, 2015. The Dialogue provided access to expert insight on zero-rating and a full spectrum of diverse views on this issue. The Dialogue also explored alternative approaches to zero rating such as use of community networks. Pranesh Prakash provided a detailed explanation of harms and benefits related to different approaches to zero-rating. The panellists for this session were the following.

Jochai Ben-Avie, Senior Global Policy Manager, Mozilla, USA
Igor Vilas Boas de Freitas, Commissioner, ANATEL, Brazil
Dušan Caf, Chairman, Electronic Communications Council, Republic of Slovenia
Silvia Elaluf-Calderwood, Research Fellow, London School of Economics, UK/Peru
Belinda Exelby, Director, Institutional Relations, GSMA, UK
Helani Galpaya, CEO, LIRNEasia, Sri Lanka
Anka Kovacs, Director, Internet Democracy Project, India
Kevin Martin, VP, Mobile and Global Access Policy, Facebook, USA
Pranesh Prakash, Policy Director, CIS India
Steve Song, Founder, Village Telco, South Africa/Canada
Dhanaraj Thakur, Research Manager, Alliance for Affordable Internet, USA/West Indies
Christopher Yoo, Professor of Law, Communication, and Computer & Information Science, University of Pennsylvania, USA

Detailed description of the workshop is available here http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/igf2015-main-sessions

Transcript of the workshop is available here http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/187-igf-2015/transcripts-igf-2015/2457-2015-11-12-a-dialogue-on-zero-rating-and-network-neutrality-main-meeting-hall-2

V. The Internet & Jurisdiction Project organised a workshop on Transnational Due Process: A Case Study in MS Cooperation at Workshop Room 4 from 11:00 am to 12:00 pm on 13 November, 2015. The workshop discussion focused on the challenges in developing an enforcement framework for the internet that guarantees transnational due process and legal interoperability. The discussion also focused on innovative approaches to multi-stakeholder cooperation such as issue-based networks, inter-sessional work methods and transnational policy standards. The panellists for this discussion were the following.

Anne Carblanc Head of Division, Directorate for Science, Technology and Industry, OECD
Eileen Donahoe Director Global Affairs, Human Rights Watch
Byron Holland President and CEO, CIRA (Canadian ccTLD)
Christopher Painter Coordinator for Cyber Issues, US Department of State
Sunil Abraham Executive Director, CIS India
Alice Munyua Lead dotAfrica Initiative and GAC representative, African Union Commission
Will Hudsen Senior Advisor for International Policy, Google
Dunja Mijatovic Representative on Freedom of the Media, OSCE
Thomas Fitschen Director for the United Nations, for International Cooperation against Terrorism and for Cyber Foreign Policy, German Federal Foreign Office
Hartmut Glaser Executive Secretary, Brazilian Internet Steering Committee
Matt Perault, Head of Policy Development Facebook

Detailed description of the workshop is available here http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals

Transcript of the workshop is available here http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/187-igf-2015/transcripts-igf-2015/2475-2015-11-13-ws-132-transnational-due-process-a-case-study-in-ms-cooperation-workshop-room-4

Video link Transnational Due Process: A Case Study in MS Cooperation available here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9jVovhQhd0

VI. The Internet Governance Project organised a meeting of the Dynamic Coalition on Accountability of Internet Governance Venues at Workshop Room 2 from 14:00 – 15:30 on 12 November, 2015. The coalition brought together panelists to highlight the challenges in developing an accountability framework for internet governance venues that include setting up standards and developing a set of concrete criteria. Jyoti Panday provided the perspective of civil society on why acountability is necessary in internet governance processes and organizations. The panelists for this workshop included the following.

Robin Gross, IP Justice
Jeanette Hofmann, Director Alexander von Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society
Farzaneh Badiei, Internet Governance Project
Erika Mann, Managing Director Public PolicyPolicy Facebook and Board of Directors ICANN
Paul Wilson, APNIC
Izumi Okutani, Japan Network Information Center (JPNIC)
Keith Drazek , Verisign
Jyoti Panday, CIS
Jorge Cancio, GAC representative

Detailed description of the workshop is available here http://igf2015.sched.org/event/4c23/dynamic-coalition-on-accountability-of-internet-governance-venues?iframe=no&w=&sidebar=yes&bg=no

Video link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIxyGhnch7w

VII. Digital Infrastructure Netherlands Foundation organized an open forum at Workshop Room 3 from 11:00 – 12:00 on 10 November, 2015. The open forum discussed the increase in government engagement with “the internet” to protect their citizens against crime and abuse and to protect economic interests and critical infrastructures. It brought together panelists topresent ideas about an agenda for the international protection of ‘the public core of the internet’ and to collect and discuss ideas for the formulation of norms and principles and for the identification of practical steps towards that goal. Pranesh Prakash participated in the e open forum. Other speakers included

Bastiaan Goslings AMS-IX, NL
Pranesh Prakash CIS, India
Marilia Maciel (FGV, Brasil
Dennis Broeders (NL Scientific Council for Government Policy)

Detailed description of the open forum is available here http://schd.ws/hosted_files/igf2015/3d/DINL_IGF_Open%20Forum_The_public_core_of_the_internet.pdf

Video link available here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joPQaMQasDQ

VIII. UNESCO, Council of Europe, Oxford University, Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights, Google, Internet Society organised a workshop on hate speech and youth radicalisation at Room 9 on Thursday, November 12. UNESCO shared the initial outcome from its commissioned research on online hate speech including practical recommendations on combating against online hate speech through understanding the challenges, mobilizing civil society, lobbying private sectors and intermediaries and educating individuals with media and information literacy. The workshop also discussed how to help empower youth to address online radicalization and extremism, and realize their aspirations to contribute to a more peaceful and sustainable world. Sunil Abraham provided his inputs. Other speakers include

1. Chaired by Ms Lidia Brito, Director for UNESCO Office in Montevideo

2.Frank La Rue, Former Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression

3. Lillian Nalwoga, President ISOC Uganda and rep CIPESA, Technical community

4. Bridget O’Loughlin, CoE, IGO

5. Gabrielle Guillemin, Article 19

6. Iyad Kallas, Radio Souriali

7. Sunil Abraham executive director of Center for Internet and Society, Bangalore, India

8. Eve Salomon, global Chairman of the Regulatory Board of RICS

9. Javier Lesaca Esquiroz, University of Navarra

10. Representative GNI

11. Remote Moderator: Xianhong Hu, UNESCO

12. Rapporteur: Guilherme Canela De Souza Godoi, UNESCO

Detailed description of the workshop is available here http://igf2015.sched.org/event/4c1X/ws-128-mitigate-online-hate-speech-and-youth-radicalisation?iframe=no&w=&sidebar=yes&bg=no

Video link to the panel is available here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIO1z4EjRG0

INTERMEDIARY LIABILITY

IX. Electronic Frontier Foundation, Centre for Internet Society India, Open Net Korea and Article 19 collaborated to organize a workshop on the Manila Principles on Intermediary Liability at Workshop Room 9 from 11:00 am to 12:00 pm on 13 November 2015. The workshop elaborated on the Manila Principles, a high level principle framework of best practices and safeguards for content restriction practices and addressing liability for intermediaries for third party content. The workshop saw particpants engaged in over lapping projects considering restriction practices coming togetehr to give feedback and highlight recent developments across liability regimes. Jyoti Panday laid down the key details of the Manila Principles framework in this session. The panelists for this workshop included the following.

Kelly Kim Open Net Korea,
Jyoti Panday, CIS India,
Gabrielle Guillemin, Article 19,
Rebecca McKinnon on behalf of UNESCO
Giancarlo Frosio, Center for Internet and Society, Stanford Law School
Nicolo Zingales, Tilburg University
Will Hudson, Google

Detailed description of the workshop is available here http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals

Transcript of the workshop is available here http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/187-igf-2015/transcripts-igf-2015/2423-2015-11-13-ws-242-the-manila-principles-on-intermediary-liability-workshop-room-9

Video link available here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFLmzxXodjs

ACCESSIBILITY

X. Dynamic Coalition on Accessibility and Disability and Global Initiative for Inclusive ICTs organised a workshop on Empowering the Next Billion by Improving Accessibility at Workshop Room 6 from 9:00 am to 10:30 am on 13 November, 2015. The discussion focused on the need and ways to remove accessibility barriers which prevent over one billion potential users to benefit from the Internet, including for essential services. Sunil Abraham specifically spoke about the lack of compliance of existing ICT infrastructure with well established accessibility standards specifically relating to accessibility barriers in the disaster management process. He discussed the barriers faced by persons with physical or psychosocial disabilities. The panelists for this discussion were the following.

Francesca Cesa Bianchi, G3ICT
Cid Torquato, Government of Brazil
Carlos Lauria, Microsoft Brazil
Sunil Abraham, CIS India
Derrick L. Cogburn, Institute on Disability and Public Policy (IDPP) for the ASEAN(Association of Southeast Asian Nations) Region
Fernando H. F. Botelho, F123 Consulting
Gunela Astbrink, GSA InfoComm

Detailed description of the workshop is available here http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals

Transcript of the workshop is available here http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/187-igf-2015/transcripts-igf-2015/2438-2015-11-13-ws-253-empowering-the-next-billion-by-improving-accessibility-workshop-room-3

Video Link Empowering the next billion by improving accessibility https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RZlWvJAXxs

OPENNESS

XI. A workshop on FOSS & a Free, Open Internet: Synergies for Development was organized at Workshop Room 7 from 2:00 pm to 3:30 pm on 13 November, 2015. The discussion was focused on the increasing risk to openness of the internet and the ability of present & future generations to use technology to improve their lives. The panel shred different perspectives about the future co-development of FOSS and a free, open Internet; the threats that are emerging; and ways for communities to surmount these. Sunil Abraham emphasised the importance of free software, open standards, open access and access to knowledge and the lack of this mandate in the draft outcome document for upcoming WSIS+10 review and called for inclusion of the same. Pranesh Prakash further contributed to the discussion by emphasizing the need for free open source software with end‑to‑end encryption and traffic level encryption based on open standards which are decentralized and work through federated networks. The panellists for this discussion were the following.

Satish Babu, Technical Community, Chair, ISOC-TRV, Kerala, India
Judy Okite, Civil Society, FOSS Foundation for Africa
Mishi Choudhary, Private Sector, Software Freedom Law Centre, New York
Fernando Botelho, Private Sector, heads F123 Systems, Brazil
Sunil Abraham, CIS India
Pranesh Prakash, CIS India
Nnenna Nwakanma- WWW.Foundation
Yves MIEZAN EZO, Open Source strategy consultant
Corinto Meffe, Advisor to the President and Directors, SERPRO, Brazil
Frank Coelho de Alcantara, Professor, Universidade Positivo, Brazil
Caroline Burle, Institutional and International Relations, W3C Brazil Office and Center of Studies on Web Technologies

Detailed description of the workshop is available here http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals

Transcript of the workshop is available here http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/187-igf-2015/transcripts-igf-2015/2468-2015-11-13-ws10-foss-and-a-free-open-internet-synergies-for-development-workshop-room-7

Video link available here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwUq0LTLnDs

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/summary-report-internet-governance-forum-2015

Bangalore Chapter Meet - DSCI

praskrishna — 2015-11-22T12:10:16Z

The Centre for Internet & Society (CIS) is glad to host the Bangalore Chapter Meet of DSCI on Tuesday, December 1, 2015, from 2.30 p.m. to 5.30 p.m.

Pronab Mohanty, Inspector General of Police, will give a talk on Cybercrimes. Given his rich experience in handling cyber-crimes, participants are expected to immensely benefit from his talk. Sunil Abraham, Executive Director, CIS will present the outcome of his SIG, the study period for which got recently concluded after about six months of in-depth study - "Anonymity in Cyberspace" - a topic that touches our daily lives when we browse internet. The session will also include developments from the recent Jaipur International ISO Conference.

Agenda

Time	Detail
2.30 3.00	Recent developments, updates from DSCI and SIGs: P. Srinivas
3.00 4.00	Anonymity in Cyberspace: Sunil Abraham, Executive Director, CIS
4.00 5.00	Talk on Cybercrimes: Pronab Mohanty, Inspector General of Police, Karnataka
5.00 5.30	High Tea and Networking

Since seats are limited, the participation will be restricted to first 50 confirmations. Please rush your email confirmation to Rajesh_K18@infosys.com

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/events/bangalore-chapter-meet-dsci

Comments on the Draft Outcome Document of the UN General Assembly’s Overall Review of the Implementation of WSIS Outcomes (WSIS+10)

geetha — 2015-11-18T06:33:13Z

Following the comment-period on the Zero Draft, the Draft Outcome Document of the UN General Assembly's Overall Review of implementation of WSIS Outcomes was released on 4 November 2015. Comments were sought on the Draft Outcome Document from diverse stakeholders. The Centre for Internet & Society's response to the call for comments is below.

The WSIS+10 Overall Review of the Implementation of WSIS Outcomes, scheduled for December 2015, comes as a review of the WSIS process initiated in 2003-05. At the December summit of the UN General Assembly, the WSIS vision and mandate of the IGF are to be discussed. The Draft Outcome Document, released on 4 November 2015, is towards an outcome document for the summit. Comments were sought on the Draft Outcome Document. Our comments are below.

The Draft Outcome Document of the UN General Assembly’s Overall Review of the Implementation of WSIS Outcomes (“the current Draft”) stands considerably altered from the Zero Draft. With references to development-related challenges, the Zero Draft covered areas of growth and challenges of the WSIS. It noted the persisting digital divide, the importance of innovation and investment, and of conducive legal and regulatory environments, and the inadequacy of financial mechanisms. Issues crucial to Internet governance such as net neutrality, privacy and the mandate of the IGF found mention in the Zero Draft.
The current Draft retains these, and adds to them. Some previously-omitted issues such as surveillance, the centrality of human rights and the intricate relationship of ICTs to the Sustainable Development Goals, now stand incorporated in the current Draft. This is most commendable. However, the current Draft still lacks teeth with regard to some of these issues, and fails to address several others.
In our comments to the Zero Draft, CIS had called for these issues to be addressed. We reiterate our call in the following paragraphs.

(1) ICT for Development

In the current Draft, paragraphs 14-36 deal with ICTs for development. While the draft contains rubrics like ‘Bridging the digital divide’, ‘Enabling environment’, and ‘Financial mechanisms’, the following issues are unaddressed:
Equitable development for all;
Accessibility to ICTs for persons with disabilities;
Access to knowledge and open data.

Equitable development

In the Geneva Declaration of Principles (2003), two goals are set forth as the Declaration’s “ambitious goal”: (a) the bridging of the digital divide; and (b) equitable development for all (¶ 17). The current Draft speaks in detail about the bridging of the digital divide, but the goal of equitable development is conspicuously absent. At WSIS+10, when the WSIS vision evolves to the creation of inclusive ‘knowledge societies’, equitable development should be both a key principle and a goal to stand by.
Indeed, inequitable development underscores the persistence of the digital divide. The current Draft itself refers to several instances of inequitable development; for ex., the uneven production capabilities and deployment of ICT infrastructure and technology in developing countries, landlocked countries, small island developing states, countries under occupation or suffering natural disasters, and other vulnerable states; lack of adequate financial mechanisms in vulnerable parts of the world; variably affordable (or in many cases, unaffordable) spread of ICT devices, technology and connectivity, etc.
What underscores these challenges is the inequitable and uneven spread of ICTs across states and communities, including in their production, capacity-building, technology transfers, gender-concentrated adoption of technology, and inclusiveness.
As such, it is essential that the WSIS+10 Draft Outcome Document reaffirm our commitment to equitable development for all peoples, communities and states.
We suggest the following inclusion to paragraph 5 of the current Draft:

“5. We reaffirm our common desire and commitment to the WSIS vision to build an equitable, people-centred, inclusive, and development-oriented Information Society…”

Accessibility for persons with disabilities

10. Paragraph 13 of the Geneva Declaration of Principles (2003) pledges to “pay particular attention to the special needs of marginalized and vulnerable groups of society” in the forging of an Information Society. Particularly, ¶ 13 recognises the special needs of older persons and persons with disabilities.

11. Moreover, ¶ 31 of the Geneva Declaration of Principles calls for the special needs of persons with disabilities, and also of disadvantaged and vulnerable groups, to be taken into account while promoting the use of ICTs for capacity-building. Accessibility for persons with disabilities is thus core to bridging the digital divide – as important as bridging the gender divide in access to ICTs.

12. Not only this, but the WSIS+10 Statement on the Implementation of WSIS Outcomes (June 2014) also reaffirms the commitment to “provide equitable access to information and knowledge for all… including… people with disabilities”, recognizing that it is “crucial to increase the participation of vulnerable people in the building process of Information Society…” (¶8).

13. In our previous submission, CIS had suggested language drawing attention to this. Now, the current Draft only acknowledges that “particular attention should be paid to the specific ICT challenges facing… persons with disabilities…” (paragraph 11). It acknowledges also that now, accessibility for persons with disabilities constitutes one of the core elements of quality (paragraph 22). However, there is a glaring omission of a call to action, or a reaffirmation of our commitment to bridging the divide experienced by persons with disabilities.

14. We suggest, therefore, the addition of the following language the addition of paragraph 24A to the current Draft. Sections of this suggestion are drawn from ¶8, WSIS+10 Statement on the Implementation of WSIS Outcomes.

"24A. Recalling the UN Convention on the rights of people with disabilities, the Geneva principles paragraph 11, 13, 14 and 15, Tunis Commitment paras 20, 22 and 24, and reaffirming the commitment to providing equitable access to information and knowledge for all, building ICT capacity for all and confidence in the use of ICTs by all, including youth, older persons, women, indigenous and nomadic peoples, people with disabilities, the unemployed, the poor, migrants, refugees and internally displaced people and remote and rural communities, it is crucial to increase the participation of vulnerable people in the building process of information Society and to make their voice heard by stakeholders and policy-makers at different levels. It can allow the most fragile groups of citizens worldwide to become an integrated part of their economies and also raise awareness of the target actors on the existing ICTs solution (such as tolls as e- participation, e-government, e-learning applications, etc.) designed to make their everyday life better. We recognise need for continued extension of access for people with disabilities and vulnerable people to ICTs, especially in developing countries and among marginalized communities, and reaffirm our commitment to promoting and ensuring accessibility for persons with disabilities. In particular, we call upon all stakeholders to honour and meet the targets set out in Target 2.5.B of the Connect 2020 Agenda that enabling environments ensuring accessible telecommunication/ICT for persons with disabilities should be established in all countries by 2020.”

Access to knowledge and open data

15. The Geneva Declaration of Principles dedicates a section to access to information and knowledge (B.3). It notes, in ¶26, that a “rich public domain” is essential to the growth of Information Society. It urges that public institutions be strengthened to ensure free and equitable access to information (¶26), and also that assistive technologies and universal design can remove barriers to access to information and knowledge (¶25). Particularly, the Geneva Declaration advocates the use of free and open source software, in addition to proprietary software, to meet these ends (¶27).

16. It was also recognized in the WSIS+10 Statement on the Implementation of WSIS Outcomes (‘Challenges-during implementation of Action Lines and new challenges that have emerged’) that there is a need to promote access to all information and knowledge, and to encourage open access to publications and information (C, ¶¶9 and 12).

17. In our previous submission, CIS had highlighted the importance of open access to knowledge thus: “…the implications of open access to data and knowledge (including open government data), and responsible collection and dissemination of data are much larger in light of the importance of ICTs in today’s world. As Para 7 of the Zero Draft indicates, ICTs are now becoming an indicator of development itself, as well as being a key facilitator for achieving other developmental goals. As Para 56 of the Zero Draft recognizes, in order to measure the impact of ICTs on the ground – undoubtedly within the mandate of WSIS – it is necessary that there be an enabling environment to collect and analyse reliable data. Efforts towards the same have already been undertaken by the United Nations in the form of ‘Data Revolution for Sustainable Development’. In this light, the Zero Draft rightly calls for enhancement of regional, national and local capacity to collect and conduct analyses of development and ICT statistics (Para 56). Achieving the central goals of the WSIS process requires that such data is collected and disseminated under open standards and open licenses, leading to creation of global open data on the ICT indicators concerned.”

18. This crucial element is missing from the current Draft of the WSIS+10 Outcome Document. Of course, the current Draft notes the importance of access to information and free flow of data. But it stops short of endorsing and advocating the importance of access to knowledge and free and open source software, which are essential to fostering competition and innovation, diversity of consumer/ user choice and ensuring universal access.

19. We suggest the following addition – of paragraph 23A to the current Draft:

"23A. We recognize the need to promote access for all to information and knowledge, open data, and open, affordable, and reliable technologies and services, while respecting individual privacy, and to encourage open access to publications and information, including scientific information and in the research sector, and particularly in developing and least developed countries.”

(2) Human Rights in Information Society

20. The current Draft recognizes that human rights have been central to the WSIS vision, and reaffirms that rights offline must be protected online as well. However, the current Draft omits to recognise the role played by corporations and intermediaries in facilitating access to and use of the Internet.

21. In our previous submission, CIS had noted that “the Internet is led largely by the private sector in the development and distribution of devices, protocols and content-platforms, corporations play a major role in facilitating – and sometimes, in restricting – human rights online”.

22. We reiterate our suggestion for the inclusion of paragraph 43A to the current Draft:

"43A. We recognize the critical role played by corporations and the private sector in facilitating human rights online. We affirm, in this regard, the responsibilities of the private sector set out in the Report of the Special Representative of the Secretary General on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises, A/HRC/17/31 (21 March 2011), and encourage policies and commitments towards respect and remedies for human rights.”

(3) Internet Governance

The support for multilateral governance of the Internet

23. While the section on Internet governance is not considerably altered from the zero draft, there is a large substantive change in the current Draft. The current Draft states that the governance of the Internet should be “multilateral, transparent and democratic, with full involvement of all stakeholders” (¶50). Previously, the zero draft recognized the “the general agreement that the governance of the Internet should be open, inclusive, and transparent”.

24. A return to purely ‘multilateral’ Internet governance would be regressive. Governments are, without doubt, crucial in Internet governance. As scholarship and experience have both shown, governments have played a substantial role in shaping the Internet as it is today: whether this concerns the availability of content, spread of infrastructure, licensing and regulation, etc. However, these were and continue to remain contentious spaces.

25. As such, it is essential to recognize that a plurality of governance models serve the Internet, in which the private sector, civil society, the technical community and academia play important roles. We recommend returning to the language of the zero draft in ¶32: “open, inclusive and transparent governance of the Internet”.

Governance of Critical Internet Resources

26. It is curious that the section on Internet governance in both the zero and the current Draft makes no reference to ICANN, and in particular, to the ongoing transition of IANA stewardship and the discussions surrounding the accountability of ICANN and the IANA operator. The stewardship of critical Internet resources, such as the root, is crucial to the evolution and functioning of the Internet. Today, ICANN and a few other institutions have a monopoly over the management and policy-formulation of several critical Internet resources.

27. While the WSIS in 2003-05 considered this a troubling issue, this focus seems to have shifted entirely. Open, inclusive, transparent and global Internet are misnomer-principles when ICANN – and in effect, the United States – continues to have monopoly over critical Internet resources. The allocation and administration of these resources should be decentralized and distributed, and should not be within the disproportionate control of any one jurisdiction.

28. Therefore, we reiterate our suggestion to add paragraph 53A after Para 53:

"53A. We affirm that the allocation, administration and policy involving critical Internet resources must be inclusive and decentralized, and call upon all stakeholders and in particular, states and organizations responsible for essential tasks associated with the Internet, to take immediate measures to create an environment that facilitates this development.”

Inclusiveness and Diversity in Internet Governance

29. The current Draft, in ¶52, recognizes that there is a need to “promote greater participation and engagement in Internet governance of all stakeholders…”, and calls for “stable, transparent and voluntary funding mechanisms to this end.” This is most commendable.

30. The issue of inclusiveness and diversity in Internet governance is crucial: today, Internet governance organisations and platforms suffer from a lack of inclusiveness and diversity, extending across representation, participation and operations of these organisations. As CIS submitted previously, the mention of inclusiveness and diversity becomes tokenism or formal (but not operational) principle in many cases.

31. As we submitted before, the developing world is pitifully represented in standards organisations and in ICANN, and policy discussions in organisations like ISOC occur largely in cities like Geneva and New York. For ex., 307 out of 672 registries listed in ICANN’s registry directory are based in the United States, while 624 of the 1010 ICANN-accredited registrars are US-based.

32. Not only this, but 80% of the responses received by ICANN during the ICG’s call for proposals were male. A truly global and open, inclusive and transparent governance of the Internet must not be so skewed. Representation must include not only those from developing countries, but must also extend across gender and communities.

33. We propose, therefore, the addition of a paragraph 51A after Para 51:

"51A. We draw attention to the challenges surrounding diversity and inclusiveness in organisations involved in Internet governance, including in their representation, participation and operations. We note with concern that the representation of developing countries, of women, persons with disabilities and other vulnerable groups, is far from equitable and adequate. We call upon organisations involved in Internet governance to take immediate measures to ensure diversity and inclusiveness in a substantive manner.”

Prepared by Geetha Hariharan, with inputs from Sunil Abraham and Japreet Grewal. All comments submitted towards the Draft Outcome Document may be found at this link.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/comments-on-the-draft-outcome-document-of-the-un-general-assembly2019s-overall-review-of-the-implementation-of-wsis-outcomes-wsis-10

Come, be my guest

praskrishna — 2015-11-16T02:11:01Z

The success of art residencies in the city has a lot to do with its openness and artists' initiatives.

The article was published in the Hindu on November 14, 2015.

Can we deny even for a moment that a setting has inspired many a creative minds in their pursuits? A space which allows you to express, create and innovate is crucial to a thinking mind. Bengaluru's art residencies afford that freedom and setting to artists.

Players like 1 Shanthiroad, Jaaga, Taj Residency have rendered city’s art residency scene vibrant. Shortly, TAJ Residency in collaboration with the Centre for Internet and Society, Bengaluru is coming out with “Silicon Plateau”, a book observing intersection of the arts, technology and society. There would be observations emerging from the personal experiences and perspectives of a variety of contemporary artists, writers and researchers, national and international, who either live in or have spent a period of time in the city, or have just crossed paths with its communities. “The book will have original work by the participants of residency,” says artist Tara Kelton who founded TAJ Residency with Galleryske’s Sunitha Kumar Emmart in 2013. When contemporary artist Tara Kelton returned to Bengaluru from New York, Tara felt a gap between people of divergent streams needed to be bridged. “I felt artists were only talking to artists which is why we wanted to build something interdisciplinary. So, we invite economists, scientists, designers, architects, writers and artists to our residencies,” says Tara. As two day residents and three live-in residents create art at the space in Cooke Town for six weeks TAJ Residency works in the direction of furthering a dialogue and facilitating collaborative projects. Over the last two years, the space has hosted around 50 residents.

Art residency is not a new concept but a slightly improved version of art camps which have been happening forever. With exchange programme through fellowships and grants given by Indian and international institutes, entering the fold, art residencies became more common. In Bangalore, artist-led space, 1 Shanthiroad elevated the art residencies to another level.

One of the most seminal names in the world of art residencies, Khoj, an alternative space for art in Delhi, also collaborated with 1 Shanthiroad for three years with a view to have South Asian artists work with artists from Bengaluru or different parts of Southern India.

“With Khoj being in Delhi, artists from Pakistan, Bangladesh would travel to Delhi and go back. The collaboration allowed them to travel down south. It went on to have several ripple effects. Suresh went on to co-curate the first Colombo Biennale in 2012,” says Pooja Sood, Director, Khoj.

According to her, the presence of several art schools also has a role to play. With not much infrastructure to boast, the artists coming out of these places worked towards creating these opportunities to cater to themselves.

The absence of a buoyant market for art unlike Delhi and Mumbai, the art community of Bengaluru started to look beyond. “Bangalore, as such is not a gallery-driven city which is why the residency space often executes the various functions of a gallery. 1 Shanthi Road stands out from many because it is an artist-led initiative, which is why TAKE has often chosen to collaborate with 1 Shanthi Road...” says Bhavna Kakar who runs Gallery Latitude in Delhi and also TAKE on art, an art magazine.

In 1 Shanthiroad again, Bhavna found a perfect platform to organise ‘TAKE on Residencies’ seminar in collaboration with India Foundation for the arts. “The ethos of the residency reflects that of the city — as it is born of the specific culture and is located within it, so naturally it will reflect that aspect of the city. 1 ShanthiRoad aims is to function as an experimental laboratory, it is different in its approach in that it is more homely with its open soup kitchen, its endless addas and the warm paternal presence of Suresh Jayaram as a mentor. It also addresses issues that are often considered ‘out of syllabus’ and it consciously creates a neighbourhood of cultural ethics in the heart of the city,” observes Kakar.

Bar 1, was another force to reckon with once upon a time with regard to art residencies in Bangalore. It hosted more than 120 local, national and international artists. “The India India Residency in collaboration with IFA was special as it brought people from different disciplines together. Six participants - writers, poets, curators - lived together for three months and created works. The residency had artists not only from Bangalore but from small towns and cities in Karnataka. For an artist of Coorg, Bijapur, seeing so much of art meant a lot,” says artist Surekha, who along with Christoph Storz, Ayisha Abraham, Suresh and Smitha Cariappa, formed the core group of BAR 1. It hosted its last residency in 2012.

Suresh Jayaram of 1 ShanthiRoad on art residencies

“These art residencies have put Bangalore on the cultural map of India and also made it a global player. Some major players who have pushed the cause of residencies are Goethe Institut, Pro-Helvetia Swiss Arts Council, Asialink Arts Residency Foundation, Asia New Zealand Foundation. And we have a long-term relationship with them.”

Raising the bar

Bar 1 was another force to reckon with, once upon a time, with regard to art residencies in Bangalore. It hosted more than 120 local, national and international artists. “The India India Residency in collaboration with IFA was special as it brought people from different disciplines together. Six participants - writers, poets, curators - lived together for three months and created works. The residency had artists not only from Bangalore but from small towns and cities in Karnataka. For an artist of Coorg, Bijapur, seeing so much of art meant a lot. While several interesting projects emerged from these residencies like Swiss artist Rahel Hagnauer worked on an environmental project of felling of trees due to construction of flyovers. Haruko created an inflatable space ship and Shreyas Karle created ‘Demon heads of Bangalore’,” says artist Surekha, who along with Christoph Storz, Ayisha Abraham, Suresh and Smitha Cariappa, formed the core group of BAR 1. It hosted its last residency in 2012.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-hindu-november-14-2015-come-be-my-guest

A Dialogue on "Zero Rating" and Network Neutrality

praskrishna — 2015-11-08T04:21:26Z

Internet Governance Forum (IGF) 2015 will be held at Jao Pessoa in Brazil from November 10 to 13, 2015. The theme of IGF 2015 is Evolution of Internet Governance: Empowering Sustainable Development. The workshop on Zero Rating and Network Neutrality will be held on November 12, 2015 at IGF 2015. Pranesh Prakash will be speaking at this event.

This was published on the IGF website. Read here the details.

Overview:
The objective of this session is to provide the global Internet community, and policymakers in particular, with an informed and balanced dialogue on the complex Internet policy issue of “zero-rating.”

The purpose of the session is to help others, in their respective countries and locales, in their own analyses of Zero-Rating (ZR). The session will promote access to expert insight and multistakeholder community discussion. We encourage remote and in-person participation and aim for complete diversity across stakeholder groups and perspectives. As a main session, translation will be available in the official UN languages.

There are many different viewpoints on ZR, with some stakeholders being completely against the practice to others being fully supportive. In the open discussion leading up to this session, it has become apparent that some stakeholder approaches to ZR are more nuanced and varied than “for or against.” The session will consider the full spectrum of views.

In the case where ZR is advanced as a means to drive Internet access and narrow the digital divide, this session will also explore alternative approaches, such as the use of community networks.

Agenda:

The agenda is currently being developed between organizers and moderators. Based upon list discussion to date, the session will involve the following elements:

Introduction and Opening - After a brief introduction by the session organizers, the lead moderator will ask expert speakers to provide a brief description of how they view ZR.

Multistakeholder, expert dialogue - A moderated discussion on zero-rating amongst experts holding different positions and perspectives. The discussion will be based upon policy questions contributed from the community.

Community questions and discussion - Remote and in-person participants will be invited to pose questions to the experts, as well as to engage in guided discussion on topics raised.

Alternatives - Alternatives to zero-rating as a means to advance access, such as community networks, will be explained and illustrated.

Contributions from relevant IGF workshops - A handful of workshops at this year’s IGF will consider zero-rating. Organisers or participants from these workshops will be invited to contribute a readout to the session.

Policy Questions:

Based upon submissions from the community, below are examples of the policy questions that will be addressed during the session:

Please describe ZR as you see it in 90 seconds.
Under what circumstances are there benefits of ZR? What are the benefits? Under what circumstances are there detriments from ZR? What are the detriments?
Is all zero-rating bad? Or are there business models of ZR that are good? Should the bad models be regulated? should the good models be regulated? How?
Is ZR an anti-competitive business practice, or does ZR enhance competition?
Does a focus on Zero-Rated Internet access in developing countries divert government attention and investment away from other efforts to enhance access?
In those countries which have banned zero rating, what has been the impact?
Does ZR limit or skew end-user behavior? If so, how? Is this effect different from that of other free offerings over the Internet?
1. What are your thoughts,, for example, the following hypothetical: Imagine that Developer says to Consumer, "Send me your Internet bill at the end of the month. If you are being charged $Y/MB, and you consume Z MB of our service, we will send you a check for $Y*Z or simply reduce your bill with us by that amount.
How should regulators / governments address the potential tension between expanding Internet connectivity and the desire for “pure net neutrality?”

Host Country Chair: Mr. Nivaldo Cleto, Owner at Classico Consultoria, Advisor to the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee of Brazil (CGI.br) and Board member of the Board of Trade of Sao Paulo (JUCESP), as a Representative of the Union.

Moderators:

The role of the moderators is to keep the discussion focused, self-referencing, fluid, friendly, and on time.

Lead/expert moderator: Robert Pepper, VP, Global Technology Policy, Cisco
Remote moderator: Ginger Paque, Director, Internet Governance Programmes, Diplo
Floor and Readout moderator: Carolina Rossini, VP, International Policy, Public Knowledge
Floor and Readout moderator: Vladimir Radunovic, Director, E-diplomacy and Cybersecurity Programmes, Diplo

Expert speakers: (confirmed as of 29 October 2015)

Jochai Ben-Avie, Senior Global Policy Manager, Mozilla, USA
Eduardo Bertoni, Professor, Universidad de Palermo, Argentina
Igor Vilas Boas de Freitas, Commissioner, ANATEL, Brazil
Dušan Caf, Chairman, Electronic Communications Council, Republic of Slovenia
Silvia Elaluf-Calderwood, Research Fellow, London School of Economics, UK/Peru
Belinda Exelby, Director, Institutional Relations, GSMA, UK
Bob Frankston, Computer Scientist, USA
Helani Galpaya, CEO, LIRNEasia, Sri Lanka
Anka Kovacs, Director, Internet Democracy Project, India
Kevin Martin, VP, Mobile and Global Access Policy, Facebook, USA
Pranesh Prakash, Policy Director, Center for Internet and Society, India
Steve Song, Founder, Village Telco, South Africa/Canada
Dhanaraj Thakur, Research Manager, Alliance for Affordable Internet, USA/West Indies
Christopher Yoo, Professor of Law, Communication, and Computer & Information Science, University of Pennsylvania, USA

Plan for online interaction:

This session will include a remote panelist who will be prepared to speak from a remote hub.

Both in situ and remote interventions are being carefully coordinated to maximise a diversity of views in the available time.

This session will treat online participants on equal footing with in situ attendees, and will monitor remote attendees specifically to ensure that their requests to ask questions will be noted. Participant interventions in the session will consist of questions, at two structured points in the session. Floor moderators will collect the questions, and will consult with the panel remote moderator to ensure that remote questions are considered, as the moderators select for stakeholder balance and remote representation. Remote participant questions will be read into the session in English or Spanish by the remote moderator, to avoid 'transaction cost' (time and possible connection difficulties).

‘Feeder’ workshops and/or connections with other sessions:

We have identified the following workshops and other sessions as relevant. Each shall provide a 1-2 minute readout or preview from their session.

Workshop No. 156: Zero-rating and neutrality policies in developing countries
Workshop No. 79: Zero-rating, Open Internet, and Freedom of Expression
Workshop No. 21: SIDS Roundtable: “Free Internet” - Bane or Boon?
Dynamic Coalition Session: Dynamic Coalition on Net Neutrality
Access/PROTESTE event on Zero-Rating

Desired results/output:

As explained above, our desired result is to provide the global Internet community with a well-rounded and insightful dialogue on the Internet policy issue of zero-rating. The discussion is an output in and of itself, from which policymakers around the world should benefit. In accordance with the IGF reporting requirement, a rapporteur shall produce a neutral report of the session, which will not draw conclusions on the topic, but rather will summarise the main points discussed.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/a-dialogue-on-zero-rating-and-network-neutrality

Transnational Due Process: A Case Study in MS Cooperation

praskrishna — 2015-11-08T03:27:02Z

nternet Governance Forum (IGF) 2015 will be held at Jao Pessoa in Brazil from November 10 to 13, 2015. The theme of IGF 2015 is Evolution of Internet Governance: Empowering Sustainable Development. Internet & Jurisdiction Project is organizing a workshop on Transnational Due Process on November 13, 2015. Sunil Abraham is a panelist.

Multi-stakeholder cooperation is necessary to develop and implement operational solutions to Internet Governance challenges. One such challenge is the tension between the cross-border nature of the Internet and diverse national jurisdictions. As a result, direct requests are increasingly addressed by public authorities and courts in one country to Internet platforms and DNS operators in other jurisdictions for domain seizures, content takedowns and user identification.

Since 2012, the Internet & Jurisdiction Project facilitates a multi-stakeholder dialogue process on this issue. More than 80 entities have collaboratively produced a draft transnational due process framework. Here, the concept of multi-stakeholder cooperation is therefore relevant both as method (the dialogue process) and as outcome (the collaborative framework).

The roundtable will gather participants in the I&J Project from different stakeholder groups to describe:

the method employed to develop this framework, challenges encountered and solutions found
the potential distribution of roles among the respective stakeholders in the operation of the diverse framework components

The expected benefit is to share concrete experiences around innovative approaches for multi-stakeholder cooperation such as issue-based networks, inter-sessional work methods and transnational policy standards.

This session will also present the proposed framework to the IGF community to solicit feedback, reach out to new actors and discuss the way forward. The roundtable will be prepared in 2015 by two dedicated meetings in Germany and Brazil, as well as by a number of other sessions with stakeholders around the world organized by the Internet & Jurisdiction Project.

Click to read the details on IGF website.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/transnational-due-process-a-case-study-in-ms-cooperation

Cases on the right to be forgotten, what have we learned?

praskrishna — 2015-11-08T02:24:22Z

Internet Governance Forum (IGF) 2015 will be held at Jao Pessoa in Brazil from November 10 to 13, 2015. The theme of IGF 2015 is Evolution of Internet Governance: Empowering Sustainable Development. Jyoti Panday is attending the workshop on "Cases on the right to be forgotten, what have we learned?" to be held on November 11, 2015 at IGF 2015.

Click to read the full details on the IGF website.

Since the EU Court of Justice ruled to uphold and codify the Right to Be Forgotten, Free expression activists fear that the decision will open the door to corporate and government censorship. However and apart from the European case, how much do we know from the rest of the world? It is part of a cross-workshop collaboration with Workshop 31 that look at the procedural and legal implications of such rulings.

In a conversational format, the roundtable seek to understand arguments, scope, discussions and current situation of the Right to be Forgotten outside the EU and around the world in rulings and legislations (enacted and proposed).

The round table will start with kick off presentations (3 minutes) of cases by local activists, such as

Mexican data authority IFAI fine to Google
Colombian Court case against El Tiempo and ultimately Google
Chilean bill intended to modify the Data Protection Act
Legislation in Nicaragua codifying the ‘right to be forgotten’
Japan's court case against Google
South Korean analysis process to adopt the ‘right to be forgotten’

After those presentations, participants will be divided into groups to be facilitated by the speakers. These groups will discuss and note problems, challenges and enabling environments on the cases in order to draw some “lessons learned”. The full group will reconvene on the roundtable format to detect particularities of the debate beyond EU and will present, discuss and define 10 lessons that can be drawn from these experiences to protect freedom of expression in these debates.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/cases-on-the-right-to-be-forgotten-what-have-we-learned

The Benefits and Challenges of the “Free Flow” of Data

praskrishna — 2015-11-08T02:09:40Z

The Internet was designed so that global data flows would be dictated by efficiency, rather than centralized control or oversight. This engineering principle has provided businesses and consumers with access to the best available technology, information, and services, wherever those resources may be located around the world. It has benefitted virtually all industry sectors, from manufacturing to financial services, education, health care, and beyond. The “free flow” of data is what has allowed the Internet flourish into what it is today.

Yet governments, corporations, and non-state actors around the world are increasingly employing a variety of technical, legal, and administrative tools to restrict data flows, limiting routing and data storage to particular jurisdictions and restricting the kinds of content and data types that are permitted online. Some of these restrictions have been put in place for legitimate purposes, designed to further privacy protections, network security, and fair commerce, and have been justified within the bounds of international law and norms. Others, however, are less defensible, and are intended to unfairly support preferred commercial interests or to quell domestic political dissent.

This panel will discuss the many benefits and challenges of the free flow of data. It will foster a discussion of the ways in which stakeholders can address the underlying reasons for data flow restrictions (such as the need for law enforcement access to data or the desire to nurture local ICT industry development, etc.) without subverting the Internet’s core potential for innovation, economic growth, and public welfare.

Name, stakeholder group, and organizational affiliation of workshop proposal co-organizer(s)
Carolina Rossini
Civil Society
Public Knowledge

Has the proposer, or any of the co-organizers, organized an IGF workshop before?

no

Subject matter #tags that describe the workshop

#innovation #barriers #policy #cross-boarder flow #privacy

Description of the plan to facilitate discussion amongst speakers, audience members and remote participants

Each panelist will be given approximately 3 minutes for opening remarks, followed by a moderated discussion, and then audience question and answer. Remote participants will be given the opportunity to ask questions over an online forum, such as Webx and Twitter.

Names and affiliations (stakeholder group, organization) of the participants in the proposed workshop

Name Carolina Rossini Stakeholder group: Civil Society Organization: Public Knowledge Describe why this speaker has been selected: She is a world-renowned expert on Internet policy and law, a Brazilian national. Have you contacted the speaker? Yes Name Vint Cerf Stakeholder group: Private Sector/Technical Community Organization: Google Describe why this speaker has been selected: He has been involved in Internet issues for many years and currently serving in influential vice president and “chief evangelist” role at Google. Have you contacted the speaker? Yes Name Lawrence Strickling Stakeholder group: Government Organization: U.S. Department of Commerce, NTIA Describe why this speaker has been selected: He is the head of one of the United States government’s principal Internet policy agencies. Have you contacted the speaker? Yes Name Richard Leaning Stakeholder group: Government Organization: European Cyber Crime Centre (EC3), Europol Describe why this speaker has been selected: He understands the needs of the law enforcement community from a European perspective, a British national. Have you contacted the speaker? Yes Name Marietje Schaake Stakeholder group: Government Organization: European Parliament Describe why this speaker has been selected: She is a prominent privacy advocate within the European Parliament, a Netherlands national. Have you contacted the speaker? Yes Name Nasser Kettani Stakeholder group: Private Sector Organization: Microsoft Describe why this speaker has been selected: He helps build and design data centers for Microsoft in Africa, a Moroccan national. Have you contacted the speaker? Yes Name Sunil Abraham Stakeholder group: Civil Society Organization: Centre for Internet and Society, India Describe why this speaker has been selected: He is the executive director of one of India’s most influential Internet policy think tanks and advocacy groups. Have you contacted the speaker? No, but know him well. Name Zahra Rose Stakeholder group: Civil Society Organization: Developing Countries' Centre for Cyber Crime Law Describe why this speaker has been selected: A lawyer, she understands the needs of the law enforcement community from a civil society perspective in Pakistan. Have you contacted the speaker? No
Name of in-person Moderator(s) Jonah Force Hill
Name of Remote Moderator(s) Winter Casey, U.S. Department of Commerce, NTIA
Name of Rapporteur(s) Seth Bouvier, U.S. Department of State
Description of the proposer's plans for remote participation We intend to utilize the IGF’s WebX system to include remote participants in the question and answer portion of the panel. The remote participants will be afforded equal/proportional representation in the discussion. The remote moderator will facilitate the Q&A with the moderator. We’ll need a screen in the room to display the remote comments.

For more info visit IGF website.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-benefits-and-challenges-of-the-201cfree-flow201d-of-data

Open Forum - DINL, Digital Infrastructure Association

praskrishna — 2015-11-07T14:45:58Z

Internet Governance Forum (IGF) 2015 will be held at Jao Pessoa in Brazil from November 10 to 13, 2015. The theme of IGF 2015 is Evolution of Internet Governance: Empowering Sustainable Development. Digital Infrastructure Netherlands Foundation is organizing this workshop at IGF on Tuesday, November 10, 2015. Jyoti Panday will be speaking at this workshop.

In this open forum we wish to discuss the increase in government engagement with “the internet” to protect their citizens against crime and abuse and to protect economic interests and critical infrastructures. The fact that the traditional benign neglect of states towards the internet is increasingly replaced with political interest has positive and negative effects. We are particularly concerned with those state interventions – often for reasons of national security or economic interest - that impact on the technical and logical ‘core’ of the internet ecosystem – such as interventions in the DNS - and in the impact on organizations and businesses that are traditionally thought of as ‘technical’ and whose roles are in danger of being politicized, such as ISPs, CERTs and hard- and software developers. There is a growing need to separate out the legitimate interests of states from political overreach into the technical and logical core of the internet. A cooperative or constructive approach towards interaction, founded in firm principles, may strengthen the balance and lead to a sustainable protection of Internet values. In this open forum we will present ideas about an agenda for the international protection of ‘the public core of the internet’ and seek to collect and discuss ideas for the formulation of norms and principles and for the identification of practical steps towards that goal. More specifically we aim to discuss: A definition of a public core of the internet: this would comprise the core protocols and infrastructure of the internet which all governments should consider as a global public good, governed by the Internet community and protected from direct activities and involvement by any government Definitions of proper interfaces: outlining norms and mutual expectations that should govern the relations between governments and various central actors in the technical and economic internet ecosystem, such as ISPs, CERTs and hard- and software developers when it comes to fighting cybercrime, retrieve information, mandate takedowns, request information and more.

Speakers
In this IGF open forum DINL wants to explore these ideas and discuss them with thought leaders from other countries. Speakers include:

Bastiaan Goslings (AMS-IX, NL)
Jyoti Panday (CIS, India)
Marilia Maciel (FGV, Brasil)
Dennis Broeders (NL Scientific Council for Government Policy) and will be chaired by Michiel Steltman (DINL), but aims to broaden the debate on this issue with those present.

More information on IGF website here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/open-forum-dinl-digital-infrastructure-association

Empowering the next billion by improving accessibility

praskrishna — 2015-11-07T14:04:57Z

Internet Governance Forum (IGF) 2015 will be held at Jao Pessoa in Brazil from November 10 to 13, 2015. The theme of IGF 2015 is Evolution of Internet Governance: Empowering Sustainable Development. On Friday, November 13, 2015, Dynamic Coalition on Accessibility and Disability and Global Initiative for Inclusive ICTs (G3ICT) is organizing this workshop. Sunil Abraham is a panelist. Pranesh Prakash will be taking part in the discussions.

While considerable attention is given to the availability of the communication infrastructure to expand usage of the Internet, little attention has been given to the accessibility barriers which prevent over one billion potential users to benefit from the Internet, including for essential services. Those barriers affect persons living with a variety of sensorial or physical disabilities as well as illiterate individuals who may benefit from the same solutions designed for persons with disabilities.

This session will examine the technological and programmatic solutions available today for an effective removal of such barriers, potentially bringing a considerable number of new users to the Internet. Examples in Education, Emergency services, Assistive Technologies for work and independent living in a variety of economic and geographic environments will be covered. The session will also provide a detailed benchmark and statistical overview of the progress made by countries around the world in implementing those solutions. A general discussion with government, industry and persons with disabilities representatives will ensue.

Read more on the IGF website here. List of attendees here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/empowering-the-next-billion-by-improving-accessibility

Big Data in the Global South International Workshop

praskrishna — 2015-11-06T02:04:49Z

Institute for Technology and Society of Rio de Janeiro welcomes you to an international workshop on Big Data at Hotel Windsor Florida, Rua Ferreira Viana, Flamengo, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil on November 16 and 17, 2015. Open Society Foundations and British Embassy Brasilia are sponsors for the event. The Centre for Internet & Society (CIS) is a research partner. Sunil Abraham, Pranesh Prakash and Vipul Kharbanda will be speaking at this event.

The event will bring together key representatives from government, civil society, the business sector and academia from Brazil, India, United Kingdom and several other countries. This is a closed multistakeholder round-table to discuss and map international examples of Big Data uses and regulation, both by private and public sectors, in order to develop practical strategies to promote adoption of harmonized rules by different actors. The event will also map existing initiatives involving the use of Big Data and present the results of a joint research initiative conducted by ITS and CIS in this field.

Resources

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/events/big-data-in-the-global-south-international-workshop

Breaking Down ICANN Accountability: What It Is and What the Internet Community Wants

ramya — 2015-11-05T15:29:26Z

At the recent ICANN conference held in Dublin (ICANN54), one issue that was rehashed and extensively deliberated was ICANN's accountability and means to enhance the same. In light of the impending IANA stewardship transition from the NTIA to the internet's multi-stakeholder community, accountability of ICANN to the internet community becomes that much more important. In this blog post, some aspects of the various proposals to enhance ICANN's accountability have been deconstructed and explained.

The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, known as ICANN, is a private not-for-profit organization, registered in California. Among other functions, it is tasked with carrying out the IANA function[1], pursuant to a contract between the US Government (through the National Telecommunications and Information Administration – NTIA) and itself. Which means, as of now, there exists legal oversight by the USG over ICANN with regard to the discharge of these IANA functions.[2]

However, in 2014, the NTIA, decided to completely handover stewardship of the IANA functions to the internet’s ‘global multistakeholder community’. But the USG put down certain conditions before this transition could be effected, one of which was to ensure that there exists proper accountability within the ICANN.[3]

The reason for this, was that the internet community feared a shift of ICANN to a FIFA-esque organization with no one to keep it in check, post the IANA transition if these accountability concerns weren’t addressed.[4]

And thus, to answer these concerns, the Cross Community Working Group (CCWG-Accountability) has come up with reports that propose certain changes to the structure and functioning of ICANN.

In light of the discussions that took place at ICANN54 in Dublin, this blog post is directed towards summarizing some of these proposals - those pertaining to the Independent Review Process or IRP (explained below) as well the various accountability models that are the subject of extensive debate both on and off the internet.

Building Blocks Identified by the CCWG-Accountability

The CCWG-Accountability put down four “building blocks”, as they call it, on which all their work is based. One of these is what is known as the Independent Review Process (or IRP). This is a mechanism by which internal complaints, either by individuals or by SOs/ACs[5], are addressed. However, the current version of the IRP is criticized for being an inefficient mechanism of dispute resolution.[6]

And thus the CCWG-Accountability proposed a variety of amendments to the same.

Another building block that the CCWG-Accountability identified is the need for an “empowered internet community”, which means more engagement between the ICANN Board and the internet community, as well as increased oversight by the community over the Board. As of now, the USG acts as the oversight-entity. Post the IANA transition however, the community feels they should step in and have an increased say with regard to decisions taken by the ICANN Board.

As part of empowering the community, the CCWG-Accountability identified five core areas in which the community needs to possess some kind of powers or rights. These areas are – review and rejection of the ICANN budget, strategic plans and operating plans; review, rejection and/or approval of standard bylaws as well fundamental bylaws; review and rejection of Board decisions pertaining to IANA functions; appointment and removal of individual directors on the Board; and recall of the entire Board itself. And it is with regard to what kind of powers and rights are to be vested with the community that a variety of accountability models have been proposed, both by the CCWG-Accountability as well as the ICANN Board. However, of all these models, discussion is now primarily centered on three of them – the Sole Member Model (SMM), the Sole Designator Model (SDM) and the Multistakeholder Empowerment Model (MEM).

What is the IRP?

The Independent Review Process or IRP is the dispute resolution mechanism, by which complaints and/or oppositions by individuals with regard to Board resolutions are addressed. Article 4 of the ICANN bylaws lay down the specifics of the IRP. As of now, a standing panel of six to nine arbitrators is constituted, from which a panel is selected for hearing every complaint. However, the primary criticism of the current version of the IRP is the restricted scope of issues that the panel passes decisions on.[7]

The bylaws explicitly state that the panel needs to focus on a set on procedural questions while hearing a complaint – such as whether the Board acted in good faith or exercised due diligence in passing the disputed resolution.

Changes Proposed by the Internet Community to Enhance the IRP

To tackle this and other concerns with the existing version of the IRP, the CCWG-Accountability proposed a slew of changes in the second draft proposal that they released in August this year. What they proposed is to make the IRP arbitral panel hear complaints and decide the matter on both procedural (as they do now) and substantive grounds. In addition, they also propose a broadening of who all have locus to initiate an IRP, to include individuals, groups and other entities. Further, they also propose a more precedent-based method of dispute resolution, wherein a panel refers to and uses decisions passed by past panels in arriving at a decision.

At the 19^th October “Enhancing ICANN-Accountability Engagement Session” that took place in Dublin as part of ICANN54, the mechanism to initiate an IRP was explained by Thomas Rickert, CCWG Co-Chair.[8]

Briefly, the modified process is as follows -

An objection may be raised by any individual, even a non-member.
This individual needs to find an SO or an AC that shares the objection.
A “pre-call” or remote meeting between all the SOs and ACs is scheduled, to see if objection receives prescribed threshold of approval from the community.
If this threshold is met, dialogue is undertaken with the Board, to see if the objection is sustained by the Board.
If this dialogue also fails, then IRP can be initiated.

The question of which “enforcement model” empowers the community arises post the initiation of this IRP, and in the event that the community receives an unfavourable decision through the IRP or that the ICANN Board refuses to implement the IRP decision. Thus, all the “enforcement models” retain the IRP as the primary method of internal dispute resolution.

The direction that the CCWG-Accountability has taken with regard to enhancement of the IRP is heartening. And these proposals have received large support from the community. What is to be seen now is whether these proposals will be fully implemented by the Board or not, in addition to all the other proposals made by the CCWG.

Enforcement – An Overview of the Different Models

In addition to trying to enhance the existing dispute resolution mechanism, the CCWG-Accountability also came up with a variety of “enforcement models”, by which the internet community would be vested with certain powers. And in response to the models proposed by the CCWG-Accountability, the ICANN Board came up with a counter proposal, called the MEM.

Below is a tabular representation of what kinds of powers are vested with the community under the SMM, the SDM and the MEM.

Power	SMM	SDM	MEM
Reject/Review Budget, Strategies and OPs. + Review/Reject Board decisions with regard to IANA functions.	Sole Member has the reserved power to reject the budget up to 2 times. Member also has standing to enforce bylaw restrictions on the budget, etc.	Sole Designator can only trigger Board consultations if opposition to budget, etc exists. Further, bylaws specify how many times such a consultation can be triggered. Designator only possesses standing to enforce this consultation.	Community can reject Budget up to two times. Board is required by bylaws to reconsider budget post such rejection, by consulting with the community. If still no change is made, then community can initiate process to recall the Board.
Reject/Review amendments to Standard bylaws and Fundamental bylaws	Sole Member has right to veto these changes. Further, member also standing to enforce this right under the relevant Californian law.	Sole Designator can also veto these changes. However, ambiguity regarding standing of designator to enforce this right.	No veto power granted to any SO or AC. Each SO and AC evaluate if they want to voice the said objection. If certain threshold of agreement reached, then as per the bylaws, the Board cannot go ahead with the amendment.
Appointment and Removal of individual ICANN directors	Sole Member can appoint and remove individual directors based on direction from the applicable Nominating Committee.	Sole Member can appoint and remove individual directors based on direction from the applicable Nominating Committee.	The SOs/ACs cannot appoint individual directors. But they can initiate process for their removal. However, directors can only be removed for breach of or on the basis of certain clauses in a “pre-service letter” that they sign.
Recall of ICANN Board	Sole Member has the power to recall Board. Further, it has standing to enforce this right in Californian courts.	Sole Designator also has the power to recall the Board. However, ambiguity regarding standing to enforce this right.	Community is not vested with power to recall the Board. However, if simultaneous trigger of pre-service letters occurs, in some scenarios, only then can something similar to a recall of the Board occur.

A Critique of these Models

SMM:

The Sole Member Model (or SMM) was discussed and adopted in the second draft proposal, released in August 2015. This model is in fact the simplest and most feasible variant of all the other membership-based models, and has received substantial support from the internet community. The SMM proposes only one amendment to the ICANN bylaws - a move from having no members to one member, while ICANN itself retains its character as a non-profit mutual-benefit corporation under Californian laws.

This “sole member” will be the community as a whole, represented by the various SOs and ACs. The SOs and ACs require no separate legal personhood to be a part of this “sole member”, but can directly participate. This participation is to be effected by a voting system, explained in the second draft, which allocates the maximum number of votes each SO and AC can cast. This ensures that each SO/AC doesn’t have to cast a unanimous vote, but each differing opinion within an SO/AC is given equal weight.

SDM:

A slightly modified and watered down version of the SMM, proposed by the CCWG-Accountability as an alternative to the same, is the “Sole Designator Model” or the SDM. Such a model requires an amendment to the ICANN bylaws, by which certain SOs/ACs are assigned “designator” status. By virtue of this status, they may then exercise certain rights - the right to recall the Board in certain scenarios and the right to veto budgets and strategic plans.

However, there is some uncertainty in Californian law regarding who can be a designator - an individual or an entity as well. So whether unincorporated associations, such as the SOs and ACs, can be a “designator” as per the law is a question that doesn’t have a clear answer yet.

Where most discussion with respect to the SDM has occurred has been in the area of the designator being vested with the power to “spill” or remove all the members of the ICANN Board. The designator is vested with this power as a sort of last-resort mechanism for the community’s voice to be heard. However, an interesting point raised in one of the Accountability sessions at ICANN54 was the almost negligible probability of this course of action ever being taken, i.e. the Board being “spilled”. So while in theory this model seems to vest the community with massive power, in reality, because the right to “spill” the Board may never be invoked, the SDM is actually a weak enforceability model.

Other Variants of the Designator Model:

The CCWG-Accountability, in both its first and second report, discussed variants of the designator model as well. A generic SO/AC Designator model was discussed in the first draft. The Enhanced SO/AC Designator model, discussed in the second draft, also functions along similar lines. However, only those SOs and ACs that wanted to be made designators apply to become so, as opposed to the requirement of a mandatory designator under the SDM model.

After the second draft released by the CCWG-Accountability and the counter-proposal released by the ICANN Board (see below for the ICANN Board’s proposal), discussion was mostly directed towards the SMM and the MEM. However, the discussion with regard to the designator model has recently been revived by members of the ALAC at ICANN54 in Dublin, who unanimously issued a statement supporting the SDM.^{^[9]} And following this, many more in the community have expressed their support towards adopting the designator model.[10]

MEM:

The Multi-stakeholder Enforcement Model or MEM was the ICANN Board’s counter-model to all the models put forth by the CCWG-Accountability, specifically the SMM. However, there is no clarity with regard to the specifics of this model. In fact, the vagueness surrounding the model is one of the biggest criticisms of the model itself.

The CCWG-Accountability accounts for possible consequences of implementation every model by a mechanism known as “stress-tests”. The Board’s proposal, on the other hand, rejects the SMM due to its “unintended consequences”, but does not provide any clarity on what these consequences are or what in fact the problems with the SMM itself are.[11]

In addition, many are opposed to the Board proposal in general because it wasn’t created by the community, and therefore not reflective of the community’s views, as opposed to the SMM.[12]

Instead, the Board’s solution is to propose a counter-model that doesn’t in fact fix the existing problems of accountability.

What is known of the MEM though, gathered primarily from an FAQ published on the ICANN community forum, is this: The community, through the various SOs and ACs, can challenge any action of the Board that is CONTRADICTORY TO THE FUNDAMENTAL BYLAWS only, through a binding arbitration. The arbitration panel will be decided by the Board and the arbitration itself will be financed by ICANN. Further, this process will not replace the existing Independent Review Process or IRP, but will run parallely.

Even this small snippet of the MEM is filled with problems. Concerns of neutrality with regard to the arbitral panel and challenge of the award itself have been raised.[13]

Further, the MEM seems to be in direct opposition to the ‘gold standard’ multi-stakeholder model of ICANN. Essentially, there is no increased accountability of the ICANN under the MEM, thus eliciting severe opposition from the community.

What is interesting to note about all these models, is that they are all premised on ICANN continuing to remain within the jurisdiction of the United States. And even more surprising is that hardly anyone questions this premise. However, at ICANN54 this issue received a small amount of traction, enough for the setting up of an ad-hoc committee to address these jurisdictional concerns. But even this isn’t enough traction. The only option now though is to wait and see what this ad-hoc committee, as well as the CCWG-Accountability through its third draft proposal to be released later this year, comes up with.

[1]. The IANA functions or the technical functions are the name, number and protocol functions with regard to the administration of the Domain Name System or the DNS.

[2]. http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/sep/21/icann-internet-us-government

[3]. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/10/19/congress_tells_icann_quit_escaping_accountability/?page=1

[4]. http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/sep/21/icann-internet-us-government

[5]. SOs are Supporting Organizations and ACs are Advisory Committees. They form part of ICANN’s operational structure.

[6]. Leon Sanchez (ALAC member from the Latin American and Caribbean Region) speaking at the Enhancing ICANN Accountability Engagement Session !, ICANN54, Dublin (see page 5) https://meetings.icann.org/en/dublin54/schedule/mon-enhancing-accountability/transcript-enhancing-accountability-19oct15-en

[7]. Leon Sanchez (ALAC member from the Latin American and Caribbean Region) speaking at the Enhancing ICANN Accountability Engagement Session !, ICANN54, Dublin (see page 5) https://meetings.icann.org/en/dublin54/schedule/mon-enhancing-accountability/transcript-enhancing-accountability-19oct15-en

[8]. Thomas Rickert (GNSO-appointed CCWG co-chair) speaking at the Enhancing ICANN Accountability Engagement Session !, ICANN54, Dublin (see page 15,16) https://meetings.icann.org/en/dublin54/schedule/mon-enhancing-accountability/transcript-enhancing-accountability-19oct15-en

[9]. http://www.brandregistrygroup.org/alac-throws-spanner-in-icann-accountability-discussions

[10]. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/10/22/internet_community_icann_accountability/

[11]. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/09/07/icann_accountability_latest/

[12]. http://www.circleid.com/posts/20150923_empire_strikes_back_icann_accountability_at_the_inflection_point/

[13]. http://www.internetgovernance.org/2015/09/06/icann-accountability-a-three-hour-call-trashes-a-year-of-work/

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/breaking-down-icann-accountability-what-it-is-and-what-the-internet-community-wants

Leveraging Mobile Network Big Data for Development Policy: Opportunities & Challenges

praskrishna — 2015-12-16T01:31:11Z

Amber Sinha participated in this event held at IRDC, New Delhi on November 2, 2015. The event was organized by LIRNEasia.

As part of the International Development Research Centre (IDRC) distinguished lecture series, Sriganesh Lokanathan, Team Leader- Big Data Research at LIRNEasia gave a talk in Delhi (Ramalingaswami Conference Hall, International Development Research Centre, 208 Jor Bagh, New Delhi 110003) on Monday, 2nd November 2015. Sriganesh spoke on the topic of “Leveraging mobile network big data for developmental policy: opportunities & challenges.”

Program:

11.00 a.m.: Welcome and introductions: Dr. Anindya Chatterjee, Asia Regional Director, IDRC

11.05 a.m.: Talk by Mr Sriganesh Lokanathan, Team Leader, Big Data Research, LIRNEasia, Sri Lanka

11.40 a.m.: Discussions and Q & A

12.15 p.m.: Closing remarks: Phet Sayo, Senior Program Officer, IDRC

See the programme details published by LIRNEasia.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/leveraging-mobile-network-big-data-for-development-policy-opportunities-challenges