We are anonymous, we are legion

Encryption and Anonymity: Rights and Risks

praskrishna — 2015-10-27T02:37:45Z

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. ARTICLE 19 and Privacy International are organizing a workshop on Encryption and Anonymity on November 12, 2015. Pranesh Prakash is a speaker.

This was published on the IGF website.

Encryption and anonymity are two key aspects of the right to privacy and free expression online. From real-name registration in Iran to the UK Prime Minister's calls for Internet backdoors to encrypted communications, however, the protection of encrypted and anonymous speech is increasingly under threat. Recognising these challenges, the UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of expression, David Kaye, presented a report to the Human Rights Council in June 2015 which highlighted the need for greater protection of encryption and anonymity.

Five months on from the Special Rapporteur’s report, the participants in this roundtable will discuss his recommendations and the latest challenges to the protection of anonymity and encryption. For example, how can law enforcement demands be met while ensuring that individuals still enjoy strong encryption and unfettered access to anonymity tools? What steps should governments, civil society, individuals and the private sector take to avoid the legal and technological fragmentation of a tool now vital to expression and communication? How can individuals protect themselves from mass surveillance in the digital age?

At the end of the session, the participants should have identified areas for future advocacy both at the international and domestic levels as well as areas for further research for the protection of anonymity and encryption on the Internet.

Agenda

Moderator welcomes speakers and audience.
Outline of key issues on encryption and anonymity, including summary of the UN Special Rapporteur's report.
Each speaker speaks for 5-7 mins, giving their perspective re the issues.
Questions from participants, including remote participation via Twitter.
Conclusion and steps for further action.

About IGF 2015

Internet Governance Forum (IGF) is a multistakeholder, democratic and transparent forum which facilitates discussions on public policy issues related to key elements of Internet governance. IGF provides enabling platform for discussions among all stakeholders in the Internet governance ecosystem, including all entities accredited by the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), as well as other institutions and individuals with proven expertise and experience in all matters related to Internet governance.

After consulting the wider Internet community and discussing the overarching theme of the 2015 IGF meeting, the Multistakeholder Advisory Group decided to retain the title “Evolution of Internet Governance: Empowering Sustainable Development”. This theme will be supported by eight sub-themes that will frame the discussions at the João Pessoa meeting.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/encryption-and-anonymity-rights-and-risks

The Social Role of the Communications and the Strengthening of the Freedom of Expression Panel - "Cultural Diversity and Freedom of Expression"

praskrishna — 2015-10-27T01:48:04Z

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 Ministry of Culture and the Ministry of Communications of Brazil is organizing a panel on Cultural Diversity and Freedom of Expression on November 9, 2015, from 6.30 p.m. to 8.30 p.m., in the Sala de Concerto Maestro Jose Siqueria, located in the city of Jao Pessoa, Brazil. Sunil Abraham will be a panelist.

The experience of Internet as a global network has generated paradoxes in relation to the nationally established values and those practiced by companies providers of applications. In general, the challenge lies in fundamental civil rights balance such as freedom of expression and the personality's rights.

Although the 2005 UNESCO Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions enables the countries to adopt national policies directed to the protection of their cultural diversity, terms of use and codes of conduct are globally uniform and establish common rules to users around the world, which may affect cultural diversity.

In order to address these issues the Ministry of Culture and the Ministry of Communications, Brazil are organizing this event at IGF 2015.

About IGF 2015

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-social-role-of-the-communications-and-the-strengthening-of-the-freedom-of-expression-panel-cultural-diversity-and-freedom-of-expression

The rise and rise of slacktivism

praskrishna — 2015-10-25T14:49:58Z

Can we change the world with the click of a mouse? Or is it just another feel-good phenomenon? The writer explores the growing penchant for online petitions and desktop activism.

The article by Divya Gandhi was published in the Hindu on October 3, 2015. Pranesh Prakash was quoted.

“I am a female journalist and Kumudam’s history of objectifying and judging women sickens me,” writes reporter Kavitha Muralidharan in a no-holds-barred petition on change.org. Tamil magazine Kumudam, which last week published pictures of women in leggings describing them as “vulgar”, must apologise, she said. The apology didn’t come, but on last count the letter to Kumudam’s editor had galvanised over 20,000 signatures and, at least in part, the petition’s aim — to flag sexism in the media — had been met.

Online activism forums such as change.org, jhatkaa.org, avaaz.org or bitgiving.com have turned the Net into a vibrant space for debate, influencing public opinion and, to varying degrees, catalysing change.

Slacktivism — if we must call it that — has existed a while and cannot be dismissed, says Policy Director at the Centre for Internet and Society, Pranesh Prakash. “We can’t underestimate the power of the collective, the power of the word in influencing public opinion and policy.”

Take, for instance, the three-minute ‘Kodaikanal Won’t’ video promoted by Jhatkaa where artist Sofia Ashraf raps about Unilever’s flouting of environmental and safety norms at its thermometer unit in Kodaikanal. The video was watched over 3,00,000 times in its first 48 hours, and a parallel online petition, which asks the company to clean up its “toxic mess” got 91,054 signatures.

No, Unilever has not formally committed to ‘clean up its mess’ yet but what the campaign did was to create public pressure on the company to engage with the mainstream media, says Nityanand Jayaram, an environmental activist who has worked on the Kodaikanal case since 2001. “We had 14 years of invisible hard work behind us. That shroud of invisibility was removed with one social media campaign.”

“Most petitions I can think of have been accompanied by actions on the ground as well,” says Kavita Krishnan, Secretary, All India Progressive Women’s Association. “For instance, if an online petition that says arrest those threatening John Dayal gets 6,000 signatures in 48 hours, these are 6,000 people across the country. I cannot collect them on a Delhi street within 48 hours. It is not that these people would not join a demonstration if they could, but there is no real difference between their having attended a demonstration and their having signed that petition. There are other issues for which you need sustained action or quiet, behind-the-scenes work, but in terms of protests, I think online petitions are very effective.”

How do the views and shares and signatures turn into yardsticks to measure the success of a campaign? In the case of BitGiving, virality translates into crowdfunding. Among its success stories, it counts a campaign to help send India’s ice hockey team, which got no government support, to the Ice Hockey Championship Cup of Asia this year. The campaign came alive on social media, was highlighted in mainstream media, captured the interest of several high-profile funders, and managed to raise more money than the team needed for training, accommodation, airfare and equipment. Jhatkaa measures its campaigns by various criteria, says Deepa Gupta, Executive Director. “We track outcome, the number of people impacted… and we track media coverage.”

A quick scroll down some of these sites reflects the staggering range of subjects that has captured the urban imagination — from OROP to hyper-local issues (garbage in Bengaluru) or animal rights (the culling of stray dogs in Kerala). Just this past week on change.org, “#Khans4Kisaans” shouted out to Shah Rukh, Salman and Aamir to “help the farmers dying in Bollywood’s backyard”; another called for the declassification of Netaji-related files; and a third protested the ban on beef.

So are these forums then turning the apathetic urbanite into a political animal, someone who takes a stance? “Yes and no,” says Prakash. “It really is about how much people get involved in the issue. Often we have citizen groups that form around issues offline, and we have seen very real action on the ground, say, cleaning a lake or even getting a road repaired.”

Gupta says that Jhatkaa’s baseline assumption is not that Indians are apolitical, but that there aren’t enough meaningful ways for them to participate in our democracy outside of elections. “As individuals who aren’t issue experts, many citizens feel powerless when it comes to affecting change on the issues that they care most about.”

She was perplexed, she says, at how difficult it can be for citizens to meaningfully engage with government institutions or corporations in a way that they are heard. “I knew the only way to build a nation-wide constituency of citizens who could take collective action would be if we mobilised people with the help of modern communications and social media.”

Ghousiya Sultana, a PhD student, agrees. She has signed several online petitions and believes that she is, in some small way, making a difference. “I want to feel like I fought a good fight.” On the other hand, corporate executive Anant Kumar says he doesn’t believe in this trend. He is concerned about transparency, how his donation might be used or misused, and he does not see how a letter with a few thousand signatures can have much of a bearing on issues.

But, as Krishnan says, “An online petition doesn’t work like an on-off switch that resolves an issue immediately. It is about whether you successfully shamed them in public. It is about sparking a dialogue.”

With inputs from Zara Khan

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/hindu-october-3-2015-divya-gandhi-the-rise-and-rise-of-slacktivism

Do we need a Unified Post Transition IANA?

Pranesh Prakash, Padmini Baruah and Jyoti Panday — 2015-10-27T00:46:37Z

As we stand at the threshold of the IANA Transition, we at CIS find that there has been little discussion on the question of how the transition will manifest. The question we wanted to raise was whether there is any merit in dividing the three IANA functions – names, numbers and protocols – given that there is no real technical stability to be gained from a unified Post Transition IANA. The analysis of this idea has been detailed below.

The Internet Architecture Board, in a submission to the NTIA in 2011 claims that splitting the IANA functions would not be desirable.[1] The IAB notes, “There exists synergy and interdependencies between the functions, and having them performed by a single operator facilitates coordination among registries, even those that are not obviously related,” and also that that the IETF makes certain policy decisions relating to names and numbers as well, and so it is useful to have a single body. But they don’t say why having a single email address for all these correspondences, rather than 3 makes any difference: Surely, what’s important is cooperation and coordination. Just as IETF, ICANN, NRO being different entities doesn’t harm the Internet, splitting the IANA function relating to each entity won’t harm the Internet either. Instead will help stability by making each community responsible for the running of its own registers, rather than a single point of failure: ICANN and/or “PTI”.

A number of commentators have supported this viewpoint in the past: Bill Manning of University of Southern California’s ISI (who has been involved in DNS operations since DNS started), Paul M. Kane (former Chairman of CENTR's Board of Directors), Jean-Jacques Subrenat (who is currently an ICG member), Association française pour le nommage Internet en coopération (AFNIC), the Internet Governance Project, InternetNZ, and the Coalition Against Domain Name Abuse (CADNA).

The Internet Governance Project stated: “IGP supports the comments of Internet NZ and Bill Manning regarding the feasibility and desirability of separating the distinct IANA functions. Structural separation is not only technically feasible, it has good governance and accountability implications. By decentralizing the functions we undermine the possibility of capture by governmental or private interests and make it more likely that policy implementations are based on consensus and cooperation.”[2]

Similarly, CADNA in its 2011 submission to NTIA notes that that in the current climate of technical innovation and the exponential expansion of the Internet community, specialisation of the IANA functions would result in them being better executed. The argument is also that delegation of the technical and administrative functions among other capable entities (such as the IETF and IAB for protocol parameters, or an international, neutral organization with understanding of address space protocols as opposed to RIRs) determined by the IETF is capable of managing this function would ensure accountability in Internet operation. Given that the IANA functions are mainly registry-maintenance function, they can to a large extent be automated. However, a single system of automation would not fit all three.

Instead of a single institution having three masters, it is better for the functions to be separated. Most importantly, if one of the current customers wishes to shift the contract to another IANA functions operator, even if it isn’t limited by contract, it is limited by the institutional design, since iana.org serves as a central repository. This limitation didn’t exist, for instance, when the IETF decided to enter into a new contract for the RFC Editor role. This transition presents the best opportunity to cleave the functions logically, and make each community responsible for the functioning of their own registers, with IETF, which is mostly funded by ISOC, taking on the responsibility of handing the residual registries, and a discussion about the .ARPA and .INT gTLDs.

From the above discussion, three main points emerge:

Splitting of the IANA functions allows for technical specialisation leading to greater efficiency of the IANA functions.
Splitting of the IANA functions allows for more direct accountability, and no concentration of power.
Splitting of the IANA functions allows for ease of shifting of the {names,number,protocol parameters} IANA functions operator without affecting the legal structure of any of the other IANA function operators.

[1]. IAB response to the IANA FNOI, July 28, 2011. See: https://www.iab.org/wp-content/IAB-uploads/2011/07/IANA-IAB-FNOI-2011.pdf

[2]. Internet Governance Project, Comments of the Internet Governance Project on the NTIA's "Request for Comments on the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Functions" (Docket # 110207099-1099-01) February 25, 2011 See: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/federal-register-notices/2011/request-comments-internet-assigned-numbers-authority-iana-functions

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/do-we-need-a-unified-post-tranistion-iana

CIS Participation at ICANN 54

praskrishna — 2016-01-18T12:47:19Z

Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), India participated in the 54th meeting of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) held at the Convention Center in Dublin from 17 October 2015 to 22 October 2015. Pranesh Prakash, Jyoti Panday and Padmini Baruah attended the meeting.

CIS representation was possible at the meeting due to the generous support of MacArthur grant, NCUC ICANN Travel Grant and financial support from the National Internet Exchange of India (NIXI). The issue-wise detail of CIS engagement is set out below.

At the Public Forum, Jyoti Panday asked the ICANN Board to clarify its role and the role of the community in the development of the proposal with Verisign on its role as the Root Zone Maintainer. ICANN CEO confirmed what many feared, that there will be no community involvement on this proposal as ICANN's relationship with Verisign is an "implementation" detail. He added the assurance that post transition, on the decision of renewal of the contract and whether it will be awarded to Verisign, ICANN will seek inputs from the community. Jyoti's statement is replicated below:

"I want to ask the Board why when asked by the NTIA to develop a draft proposal for the with Verisign on its Root Zone Maintainer role, did you not pass on that mandate to the community, to the CWG which already exists, and ask the community to draft out the proposal with VeriSign? Will the ICANN Board seek public comments on the final proposal before it is approved? After all, ICANN cannot claim that it is an inverted pyramid where all decisions start from the community and flow up to the Board when on a crucial issue like this, the ICANN Board and staff have not taken the community in confidence nor invited its participation."

Padmini Baruah reiterated CIS message at the Public Forum on the lack of diversity observed through the transition and presented new data. Padmini's statement is replicated below:
Today, more than 50% of Internet users are in the Asia-Pacific region, and less than 10% are in North America. Yet, when one studies diversity within the ICANN community and in ICANN processes, one finds that diversity is sorely lacking, and it is dominated by people from the United States of America. Take the IANA transition, for instance. CIS studied participant data from ICANN, NRO, and IETF's lists related to the IANA transition. Of the substantive contributors, of which there were 98, we found:
* 1 in 4 (39 of 98) were from a single country: the United States of America.
* 4 in 5 (77 of 98) were from countries which are part of the WEOG grouping, which only has developed countries.
* None were from readily identifiable as being based in Eastern European and Russia, and only 5 of 98 from all of Latin American and the Caribbean.
* 4 in 5 (77 of 98) were male and 21 were female.
* 4 in 5 (76 of 98) were from industry or the technical community, and only 4 (or 1 in 25) were identifiable as primarily speaking on behalf of governments.
It would be a travesty of language to call this the "global multistakeholder community".
Further this problem is pervasive in the ICANN community:
* 66% (34 of 51) of the Business Constituency at ICANN, as per their own data, are from a single country: the United States of America.
* 3 in 5 registrars are from the United States of America (624 out of 1010, as of March 2014, according to ICANN's accredited registrars list), with only 0.6% being from the 54 countries in Africa (7 out of 1010).
* 45% of all the registries are from the United States of America! (307 out of 672 registries listed in ICANN’s registry directory in August 2015.)
Please take this as your top priority, since ICANN's legitimacy depends on being able to call itself globally representative.

CIS attended also raised a series of concerns at the following sessions:

Enhancing ICANN Accountability Open Engagement: CIS intervened with its stance on jurisdiction and their enforcement models, and our concerns about transparency.
GAC sessions
NCSG meeting
IANA Transition Stewardship Transition Engagement Session
CCWG Accountability Working Session
Illicit Internet Pharmacies
NCUC Meeting+engagement with Larry Strickling: Jyoti Panday asked about the dual role of Verisign as a Root zone maintainer and TLD operator. Padmini Baruah asked him about jurisdiction. He said the US Congress will not support a shift in ICANN's jurisdiction.
NCSG/gNSO (CIS work on DIDP got public mention)
Contractual Compliance Programme Update
CWG Stewardship working session
Role of Voluntary Practices in Combating Abuse and Illegal Activity
Joint meeting of the ICANN Board and NCSG

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/icann-54

The 'Global Multistakholder Community' is Neither Global Nor Multistakeholder

pranesh — 2016-11-03T10:42:53Z

CIS research shows how Western, male, and industry-driven the IANA transition process actually is.

In March 2014, the US government announced that they were going to end the contract they have with ICANN to run something called the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA), and hand over control to the “global multistakeholder community”. They insisted that the plan for transition had to come through a multistakeholder process and have stakeholders “across the global Internet community”.

Analysis of the process since then shows how flawed the “global multistakeholder community” that converges at ICANN has not actually represented the disparate interests and concerns of different stakeholders. CIS research has found that the discussions around IANA transition have not been driven by the “global multistakeholder community”, but mostly by males from industry in North America and Western Europe.

CIS analysed the five main mailing lists where the IANA transition plan was formulated: ICANN’s ICG Stewardship and CCWG Accountability lists; IETF’s IANAPLAN list; and the NRO’s IANAXFER list and CRISP lists. What we found was quite disheartening.

A total of 239 individuals participated cumulatively, across all five lists.
Only 98 substantively contributed to the final shape of the ICG proposal, if one takes a count of 20 mails (admittedly, an arbitrary cut-off) as a substantive contribution, with 12 of these 98 being ICANN staff some of whom were largely performing an administrative function.

We decided to look at the diversity within these substantive contributors using gender, stakeholder grouping, and region. We relied on public records, including GNSO SOI statements, and extensive searches on the Web. Given that, there may be inadvertent errors, but the findings are so stark that even a few errors wouldn’t affect them much.

2 in 5 (39 of 98, or 40%) were from a single country: the United States of America.
4 in 5 (77 of 98) were from countries which are part of the WEOG UN grouping (which includes Western Europe, US, Canada, Israel, Australia, and New Zealand), which only has developed countries.
None were from the EEC (Eastern European and Russia) group, and only 5 of 98 from all of GRULAC (Latin American and Caribbean Group).
4 in 5 (77 of 98) were male and 21 were female.
4 in 5 (76 of 98) were from industry or the technical community, and only 4 (or 1 in 25) were identifiable as primarily speaking on behalf of governments.

This shows also that the process has utterly failed in achieving the recommendation of Paragraph 6 of the 3 in 5 registrars are from the United States of America (624 out of 1010, as of March 2014, according to ICANN's accredited registrars list), with only 0.6% being from the 54 countries in Africa (7 out of 1010).

45% of all the registries are from the United States of America! (307 out of 672 registries listed in ICANN’s registry directory in August 2015.)

66% (34 of 51) of the Business Constituency at ICANN are from a single country: the United States of America. (N.B.: This page doesn’t seem to be up-to-date.)

This shows that businesses from the United States of America continues to dominate ICANN to a very significant degree, and this is also reflected in the nature of the dialogue within ICANN, including the fact that the proposal that came out of the ICANN ‘global multistakeholder community’ on IANA transition proposes a clause that requires the ‘IANA Functions Operator’ to be a US-based entity. For more on that issue, see this post on the jurisdiction issue at ICANN (or rather, on the lack of a jurisdiction issue at ICANN).

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/global-multistakeholder-community-neither-global-nor-multistakeholder

How To Win Friends, FB Style

praskrishna — 2015-10-18T12:02:10Z

True to form—and Facebook—there was a warm, friendly and familial feel to Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s townhall meeting at Melon, California, with Mark Zuckerberg on September 27. Modi got emotional (yet again) while talking about his mother. Zuckerberg, the youngish founder of the world’s largest social networking site, got his parents to meet and pose with Modi.

The article by Arindam Mukherjee was published in Outlook on October 12, 2015. Sunil Abraham was quoted.

“The most amazing moment was when I talked about our families,” Zuckerberg wrote in a post, “and he (Modi) shared stories of his childhood....” That’s just the kind of stuff we would see and post on Facebook—the benign visage of a profitable, all-pervasive US-based corporation. (Needless to say, everyone who has worked on this story is a registered user).

Of course, we know Modi too is on Facebook. No other Indian politician has so effectively utilised the power of ‘likes’: and he has got 30 million. The problem with this chummy approach is that one could almost forget that the PM is also the supreme leader of a country that is Facebook’s second-largest market in the world with 125 million users. A few days earlier, Zuckerberg flew to Seattle to meet Chinese President Xi Jinping. Facebook is not present in China. “On a personal note, this was the first time I’ve ever spoken with a world leader entirely in a foreign language,” wrote Zuckerberg in another post.

In contrast, Modi and Zuckerberg were speaking the same language. In fact, they even jointly updated their profile picture on Facebook—wrapped in the shades of the Indian tricolour—to support the Modi government’s Digital India initiative. Millions of Indians followed suit. And that’s when the shit hit the internet—it was discovered that people supporting the Digital India campaign were also putting in a ‘yes’ vote for Facebook’s contentious initiative internet.org (free but restricted net access; see accompanying faqs for all the details). Immediately, Modi became a party to the raging debate in India over net neutrality. This is unfortunate as the Modi government is yet to put on paper its stand on net neutrality. The nervous reaction to this engagement is also a function of the new truism of our times—“with this government, you never know”.

What we do know is that the internet.org class name was built into the code for support for Digital India. Many experts feel this is not a coincidence; rather a clever ploy by Facebook to get the support of Indians and promote its internet.org initiative. This upset a vocal community of activists who see internet.org on the opposite camp. This led to the charge that Facebook was trying to influence the debate. Says Sunil Abraham, executive director with the Bangalore-based Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), “The moves by Facebook are quite juvenile as it is trying to use the Modi visit to further muddy the net neutrality debate. We should be concerned about Facebook trying to damage the debate in India to spin the PM’s participation in its own favour.” Of course, there are two sides to this debate. There are many people within the government who feel net neutrality is an elitist concern—increasing internet penetration, which Facebook and other such initiatives promise, is the way forward in a poor, unconnected country like India. “Today to talk about net neutrality is to talk about the 20 per cent who have access to the internet,” says telecom expert Mahesh Uppal. “It is unreasonable to dismiss out of hand anybody who offers free service to a subset of websites or services. Eventually, access to internet must come first before we talk about net neutrality.”

Facebook promoted internet.org along with Samsung, Nokia, Qualcomm, Ericsson, MediaTek and Opera Software, the aim being to provide free internet service to developing nations. India, obviously, is a hot target for Facebook. Facebook has a partnership with Reliance in the country; the free internet service will be available only to Reliance users and the free access will be limited to Facebook’s partner sites. The debate over internet.org too has picked up steam in India—big media companies like NDTV and Times of India have pulled out of it on these issues. While Facebook has stressed that internet.org will ensure that the internet reaches people who do not have access to it, there have been concerns that it will restrict internet access only to sites that are internet.org’s partners.

On its part, Facebook has been quick to refute the charge. A spokesperson in the US said, “There is absolutely no connection between updating your profile picture for Digital India and internet.org. An engineer mistakenly used the words ‘internet.org profile picture’ as a shorthand name he chose for part of the code.” The code was changed soon after. Despite repeated requests, representatives from Facebook India were unavailable for comment.

But the damage has been done. Many now openly question Facebook’s motives in India and whether they have been truthful or not. Given all this brouhaha, questions will naturally be raised about Modi’s alignment with Facebook. Digital India is many things—but obviously increasing net penetration is one its goals. “Now whatever he does on net neutrality, it will be seen in terms of whether it will benefit Google or Facebook. That is the risk he took. I would like to know why the diplomatic advisors took the risk of putting the PM in a bargaining position instead of a bonus at the end of a deal,” says Prof Narendar Pani, who teaches at the National Institute of Advanced Studies, Bangalore.

All this matters because the Modi government positions itself as digital-friendly, even though its moves on this front have been invasive (the push for Aadhar despite a legal sanction and increasing reports of monitoring digital conversations), and contradictory (the abortive porn and WhatsApp bans, among others). “The PM is going way beyond the e-governance plan to a stage where the government will just sit and watch people speaking. It is scary,” says internet activist Usha Ramanathan. She feels it doesn’t make sense to have companies like Google sharing ideas with the government while Indian people are being kept out of the loop. “And now Facebook will be joining that gang, it doesn’t make sense. What has Facebook done to get that privilege?” she asks.

Here again there is a carefully worded counter-argument. Former telecom entrepreneur and Rajya Sabha MP Rajeev Chandrashekhar says, “Net neutrality is a definition that would be made in the public domain. It will not be influenced by the PM’s engagement with Facebook and Mark Zuckerberg. Anyone who tries to mess with the definition of net neutrality will be met with a public outcry and judicial intervention.” The substance of this view is that Modi was within his rights to speak to corporations to further Digital India, or Make in India for that matter, and that there should be an open debate on the future direction of net neutrality.

Clearly, the political knives are out. “Either the prime minister is not being briefed properly or he does not read his brief properly,” says former UPA minister Manish Tewari. Arguing that governments should be discussing rules of engagement in cyberspace, and not stakeholders, he asks, “Is India comfortable with that construct especially when the bulk of the technology companies, the root servers which form the underlying hardware of the internet, are all based in the US, and one being in Europe?”

Although the government is yet to firm up its decision on net neutrality and a policy on it is yet to be announced, the debate has already acquired political colour in India, with the Congress and Aam Aadmi Party putting their weight behind the people’s voice. This is the first time that there has been a nation-wide upsurge of such an unprecedented size and magnitude on an internet policy. Says AAP’s Adarsh Shastri, “Facebook, Google etc are just tools. People can use them at will. To make them the mainstay of your programme for digital empowerment is to step on the civil rights and liberties of citizens. Doing this is a complete no-no. Let people access internet as they want is the way to go.”

A consultation paper floated by telecom regulator Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) got almost 15 lakh responses from the Indian public in support of net neutrality. There was also strong opposition to zero rating platforms announced by telecom companies like Airtel which sought to provide free access to some websites on their platform in much the same way that internet.org proposes. And the reactions to the Facebook coding error are a pointer to what people in India think. Says Nikhil Pahwa, editor of Medianama and a leading net neutrality activist, “The reactions of the people to the Facebook event were heartening and showed that people are emotive and there is still mass support for net neutrality. The reaction to the TRAI paper was not a flash in the pan.”

Interestingly, a couple of months ago, a department of telecommunications committee had said that internet.org was a violation of net neutrality and should not be allowed. It will be difficult for Modi and the government to overrule that and give it full and free access in India. Internet experts feel that the engagement with India and Modi was a desperate move by Facebook to get numbers from India. Says internet expert Mahesh Murthy, “Facebook is pulling out all stops to get favour for internet.org and is desperate about it. If India says yes, many others will say yes, but if India says no, other countries will follow.”

Murthy says Facebook’s real problem is that it is finding it difficult to justify its price to earnings ratio as against its user numbers vis-a-vis Google which is much better in this respect. For this, it is desperately trying to get numbers, and with China banning Facebook, the only country left to get numbers is India. The massive electronic and print campaign at the cost of Rs 40-50 crore is a pointer towards this. He says everything about internet.org is about hooking Indians to it.

No wonder, Facebook has been cultivating Indian media. The Modi visit has also been tarnished by the news that Facebook paid for the travel and accommodation of journalists from three Indian newspapers and one magazine to go and cover the Facebook-Modi meeting and get favourable coverage. Says writer-activist Arundhati Roy, “Many journalists covering the event for the Indian media were flown in from India by Facebook. So were some who asked pre-assigned questions at the event. I don’t know who sponsored the crocodile tears and the clothes.” It is also quite strange that the entire display picture and source code controversy got almost no play in the national media which chose instead to talk about Modi’s speech and his tears.

All said and done, it is obvious that Facebook may be seeing India as an easy and vulnerable target which can be manipulated for its own advantage. Says Parminder Jeet Singh, executive director with IT for Change, an NGO working on information society, “India has low internet penetration and lots of people want to get on to the internet. There is low purchasing power but lots of aspiration. So the moment a free service is offered, a whole lot of people are likely to jump on it.” And that is something Facebook may be looking and aiming at.

Currently, three processes are on that will determine how India will look at net neutrality—one at the DoT, one at TRAI and a third one at a parliamentary standing committee. But given the massive people’s response net neutrality has got vis-a-vis TRAI’s paper and also during the present Facebook issue, the outcome is predictable. Or so it seems. There’s a lot of money power at stake. For now, millions of internet Indians have already voted with that dislike button. And then, governments move in mysterious ways.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/outlook-india-october-12-2015-arindam-mukherjee-how-to-win-friends-fb-style

Supreme Court provides partial relief for Aadhaar

praskrishna — 2015-10-18T05:01:49Z

In a small but significant win for the government, the Supreme Court on Thursday allowed the use of the Aadhaar number for the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS), the Pradhan Mantri Jan Dhan Yojana, pensions by central and state governments, and the Employees’ Provident Fund Scheme, in addition to its current use in the public distribution system (PDS) and the distribution of cooking gas and kerosene.

The article by Apurva Vishwanath and Saurabh Kumar was published in Livemint on October 15, 2015. Sunil Abraham was quoted.

In an interim order on 11 August, the apex court had restricted the use of Aadhaar, the unique identity number, to the PDS and the distribution of cooking gas and kerosene.

Subsequently, several state governments, government departments and regulatory agencies put up a joint defence seeking a modification of the interim order. They included the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), the Securities and Exchange Board of India and the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, the governments of Jharkhand, Maharashtra, Uttarakhand, Himachal Pradesh, Gujarat and Rajasthan, and industry body Indian Banks’ Association, along with the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI), the issuer of Aadhaar.

A five-judge constitutional bench comprising Chief Justice H.L Dattu and justices M.Y Eqbal, C. Nagappan, Arun Mishra and Amitava Roy said in an order on Thursday: “We are of the opinion that in para 3 of the interim order, we can include schemes like MGNREGS, pensions by state and central government, Jan Dhan Yojana and Employees’ Provident Fund Scheme along with PDS and LPG (liquefied petroleum gas).”

Para 3 of the 11 August interim order had allowed the voluntary use of Aadhaar only for direct benefit transfer in foodgrain, kerosene and cooking gas schemes.

The court’s interim order threw an element of uncertainty around flagship government programmes such as biometric attendance for government employees; the Jan Dhan Yojana, the Prime Minister’s ambitious financial inclusion initiative; digital certificates, and pension payments.

It also threatened to derail India’s progress towards a cashless economy where payments banks are expected to play an important role.

All of these depend on linking accounts to individuals electronically, and are dependent on the Aadhaar number.

“The government was able to convince the court on the utility of Aadhaar which is critical to provide services to the most vulnerable section of the society,” said a government official who spoke on condition of anonymity.

The apex court, however, did not allow the use of Aadhaar for the e-know-your-customer (e-KYC) specifically, which would have helped banks, including payments banks, to enrol new customers and telecom operators for issuing SIM cards. However, it is noteworthy that while obtaining bank accounts under the Jan Dhan scheme, banks use e-KYC. The clarification that RBI sought from the court, on whether the Aadhaar number can be used as proof of identification to open a bank account, still remains uncertain.

This will affect banks, mutual funds and companies that have won in-principle payments bank licences such as Airtel M Commerce Services Ltd (from the stable of Bharti Airtel Ltd, which had a customer base of 231.6 million as of July) and Vodafone m-pesa Ltd (a part of Vodafone India Ltd, which had a customer base of 185.4 million as of July).

The licensees also include the department of posts, which has 155,015 post offices across the country, of which 139,144 are in rural areas. The sheer reach of these entities is unrivalled. These entities hope to ride on the technology platform to reach customers, and e-KYC is critical to the process.

“The reason why the court has allowed use of Aadhaar for Jan Dhan Yojana and not other banking services is perhaps because the government made a humanitarian argument that the poorest will be able to avail banking services. It is, however, a technologically flawed argument, deeply so,” said Sunil Abraham, executive director of Bengaluru-based research organization Centre for Internet and Society.

The bench ordered the Union government to follow all earlier interim orders issued by the Supreme Court starting September 2013. Some of these orders include restrain on sharing of biometrics and keeping Aadhaar voluntary.

As of now, 920 million Indian citizens have been allotted Aadhaar numbers. The interim stay was affecting beneficiaries of the MGNREGS (91.7 million), pensioners (27.1 million) and recipients of scholarships (25.7 million), among others, according to data from the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI). Till now, 187 million bank accounts have been opened under the Pradhan Mantri Jan Dhan Yojana.

The apex court made the interim ruling in an ongoing hearing where several pleas related to Aadhaar were clubbed together. Some relate to Aadhaar numbers being made mandatory to enable people to avail of certain government benefits and services. Others deal with the number being a violation of privacy, especially in the absence of any backing regulation or oversight, and yet others deal with possible misuse of the information.

However, the constitution bench had clarified on Wednesday that only pleas seeking clarification and modification of the interim order will be decided, and the issue concerning the right to privacy will be heard subsequently by another constitution bench.

“I am very disappointed with the court’s order. The government claims that Aadhaar is voluntary, but actually it will not be till it is delinked from all government schemes. This way, people who do have Aadhaar are excluded and will have to run from pillar to post to receive benefits if they do not have the number,” said Kamayani Bali Mahabal, a Mumbai-based lawyer, human rights activist and a petitioner in the UIDAI case. She added that the order may increase the incidents of fake Aadhaar numbers as ineligible people choose to gain from all schemes, depriving the poor and aged of real benefits.

The attorney general, Mukul Rohatgi, on Wednesday assured the court that the government has issued advertisements in over 20 languages that Aadhaar is a voluntary scheme.

On 14 Wednesday, PTI reported that a Right to Information application has showed that the UIDAI has identified more than 25,000 duplicate Aadhaar numbers till August.

Mathew Thomas, one of the petitioners challenging the use and validity of the Aadhaar scheme, also expressed disappointment at the court’s ruling today. “Aadhaar is a case of great importance to the billion citizens of India. It is unfortunate that the constitution bench spent only a few hours in hearing the issues,” he said.

The Supreme Court will appoint a larger bench of at least nine judges to hear the privacy issue. The court in 1954, in the case of M.P. Sharma vs Satish Chandra, ruled that the right to privacy was not a fundamental right recognized by the Constitution. This case was decided by an eight-judge bench of the apex court, and only a bench of equal or larger strength will be able to override that decision.

The Chief Justice in the order on Thursday said that the larger bench, with nine or 11 judges, will be constituted at the earliest to hear the matter on Aadhaar potentially violating privacy and other intervening applications.

The petitioners have argued that UIDAI was approved only by an empowered group of ministers during the United Progressive Alliance tenure and has no statutory authority to collect biometrics of residents. Senior counsel for the petitioners, Shyam Divan, said: “The only law in India which allows the government to collect fingerprints is the Prisoner’s Act of 1920, which is a colonial enactment.”

The UIDAI does not have any legislative backing and was constituted by notification in 2009 by the erstwhile Planning Commission. Divan, however, said that the Planning Commission notification has no effect since the body itself has ceased to exist, and added that the centre is not introducing a legislation empowering the Aadhaar scheme as it realizes the vulnerability of the entire exercise.

The National Identification Authority of India Bill was introduced in the Rajya Sabha in 2010.

In 2012, the centre was mulling a privacy law that could be enacted to support the UIDAI scheme and, in connection, the Planning Commission then formed an expert committee on privacy under A.P Shah, a former chairperson of the Law Commission.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/livemint-october-15-2015-apurva-vishwanath-saurabh-kumar-supreme-court-provides-partial-relief-for-aadhaar

Digital India: Did Modi get it wrong in Silicon Valley?

praskrishna — 2015-10-18T04:44:52Z

A bear hug, a photo filter and a new debate on net neutrality - Ayeshea Perera examines the domestic fallout of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi's Facebook townhall in US.

This was published by BBC News on October 16, 2015. Sunil Abraham was quoted.

It was supposed to be a moment that rocked the virtual world. Mr Modi, widely acknowledged as one of the world's most influential politicians on social media, enveloped a slightly stunned Mark Zuckerberg in a bear hug.

But what was it that really happened in Menlo Park? Why did some people think Mr Modi wasn't acting in India's best digital interests when he hugged Mr Zuckerberg?

India with an internet population of 354 million - which has already grown by 17% in the first six months of 2015 - is an obvious target for not only Facebook, but other Silicon Valley giants. And they have all been more than happy to pledge their support for digital India - a recently launched government initiative aimed at reinvigorating an $18bn (£11.6bn) campaign to strengthen India's digital infrastructure.

Google offered to provide 500 railway stations with free WiFi and Microsoft pledged to connect 500,000 Indian villages with cheap broadband access.

Digitally colonised?

But this huge show of support and the increased interest in India has caused some concern within the country.

"Is Digital India going to only make India a consumer of services offered by global tech companies in lieu of data? Personal data is the currency of the digital world. Are we going to give that away simply to become a giant market for a Facebook or a Google? Look at the way the tech world is skewed. Only China has been able to come up with companies that can take on these MNCs" Prabir Purkayasta, chairman of the Society for Knowledge Commons in India, told the BBC.

"The British ruled the world because they controlled the seas," he said. "Is India going to be content to just be a digital consumer? To being colonised once again?"

And in the aftermath of the Facebook townhall in particular, some talk has begun to surface about what Mr Zuckerberg's real India ambitions are.

Soon after the townhall ended, both Mr Modi and Mr Zuckerberg declared their support for digital India by using a special Facebook filter to tint their profile pictures in the tri-colour of the Indian flag.

Multitudes of Indians followed suit and timelines were awash with snazzy tinted profile pictures, all in support of "Digital India".

'Innocent mistake'

But then a tech website released what it claimed to be a portion of Facebook's source code, which allegedly "proved" that the "Support Digital India" filter was actually a "Support Internet.Org" filter.

Facebook quickly issued a denial, blaming the text in the code on an "engineer mistake" in choosing a shorthand name he used for part of the code.

But the "mistake" which has been coupled with a huge advertising blitz for Internet.Org across television channels and newspapers has raised suspicion about Facebook's motives. A Facebook poll on Internet.Org that frequently appears on Indian user timelines has also been ridiculed for not giving users an option to say no.

Instead the answer options to the poll question "Do you want India to have free basic services?" are "Yes" and "Not now".

Internet.org (now called free basics), aims to extend internet services to the developing world by offering a selection of apps and websites free to consumers.

Facebook's vice-president of infrastructure engineering, Jay Parikh has described the initiative as an "attempt to connect the two-thirds of the world who do not have access to the Internet" by trying to solve issues pertaining to affordability, infrastructure and access.

When Facebook launched the initiative in India in February, it was criticised by Indian activists who expressed concerns that the project threatened freedom of expression, privacy and the principle of net neutrality.

On the other end of the debate, Indian columnist Manu Joseph wrote in the Hindustan Times newspaper, hitting out at the "selfish" stand on net neutrality. He said concerns over the issue should be "subordinate to the fact that the poor have a right to some Internet".

Wrong signal

A massive campaign by India's Save the Internet Coalition exhorting Indians to speak out against initiatives threatening net neutrality caught public imagination and saw more than a million emails to India's regulator, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI), demanding a free and fair internet in the country. Internet.Org was one of the initiatives immediately affected.

TRAI since released a draft policy on net neutrality, but a question that has been asked is whether it was appropriate for Mr Modi to visit Facebook given that the policy was still under consideration.

Mr Purkayasta is of the opinion that it could have been avoided. "It was not the time or the place to go. Even if it was simply a publicity gimmick, it still sends a signal to officials involved in drafting the policy," he said.

However, Sunil Abraham from the Centre for Internet and Society told the BBC he believed that while Facebook's intentions were suspect, Mr Modi's visit had the potential to safeguard net neutrality in India.

"India is a hugely important market for Facebook, and the prime minister has the power to force positive changes to its policies," he said. "We gain nothing by shutting them out."

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/bbc-october-16-2015-digital-india-did-modi-get-it-wrong-in-silicon-valley

Cyber Security Policy Research

praskrishna — 2015-10-16T16:47:12Z

Tim Maurer will give a presentation on cybersecurity policy research at the Centre for Internet & Society's New Delhi office on October 18, 2015, from 2 p.m. to 5 p.m. Geetha Hariharan and Sunil Abraham will participate in this event.

Tim Maurer's talk will give an outline of the definitional issues involved, the various threats to the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of information and underlying infrastructure, the actors involved and international efforts to address cybersecurity. The talk will also provide an overview of existing and ongoing cyber security policy research.

Tim Maurer

Tim Maurer is an associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. His work focuses on cyberspace and international affairs, with a concentration on global cybersecurity norms, human rights online, Internet governance, and their interlinkages. He is writing a book on cybersecurity and proxy actors.

Maurer serves as a member of the Research Advisory Network of the Global Commission on Internet Governance, the Freedom Online Coalition’s cybersecurity working group “An Internet Free and Secure,” and co-chaired the Civil Society Advisory Board of the Global Conference on CyberSpace. In 2014, he developed the Global Cyber Definitions Database for the chair of the OSCE to support the implementation of the OSCE’s cyber confidence-building measures. In 2013 and 2014, Maurer spoke about cybersecurity at the United Nations in New York and Geneva and co-authored “Tipping the Scale: An Analysis of Global Swing States in the Internet Governance Debate,” published by the Global Commission on Internet Governance. His work has also been published by Jane’s Intelligence Review, TIME, Foreign Policy, CNN, Slate, and other academic and media venues.

Prior to joining Carnegie, Maurer was the director of the Global Cybersecurity Norms and Resilience Project at New America and head of research of New America’s Cybersecurity Initiative. He also gained experience with the United Nations in Rwanda, Geneva, and New York focusing on humanitarian assistance and the coordination of the UN system.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/events/cyber-security-policy-research

FOSS & a Free, Open Internet: Synergies for Development

praskrishna — 2016-06-18T17:57:53Z

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. Civil Society is organizing a workshop on FOSS and a Free, Open Internet. The workshop will be held on November 13, 2015 from 2.00 p.m. to 3.30 p.m. Sunil Abraham and Pranesh Prakash will be speaking at this event.

This was published on the IGF website.

The workshop will explore links between the Free and Open nature of the Internet and the Free and Open Source Software through a series of experience sharing among the speakers as well as audiences. The speakers have been selected on the basis of their wide exposure and geographical and occupational diversity.

As ICTs permeate lives of people around the world, code is fast emerging as an instrument that can change lives. In many parts of the world, the 4Rs of primary education are Reading, wRiting, aRithmetic and pRogramming, indicative of the role that ICTs will play in the future.

Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) is, inter alia, a mechanism whereby code, and consequently the ability to code, is being democratized. In contrast with centralized proprietary models, FOSS allows decentralized creation, distribution and maintenance of code. Such democratization enables grassroots level application of code to solve local problems, leading to more empowered communities. Free flow of code is therefore important to ensure that communities to stay 'plugged in' and current. Code also enables communities to side-step practices such as surveillance, censorship.

A Free, Open, Unfragmented Internet is of critical importance to FOSS--without a free Internet, the FOSS-based peer-production methodologies for code would be infeasible. Interestingly, the Internet also needs the innovations of FOSS to remain free & open, thus forming a positive mutual dependency.

Both FOSS and the Internet are at risk from forces that are seeking increasing control over content and fragmentation, challenging its openness. This would be inimical to the rights of present & future generations to use technology to improve their lives.

The Round-table seeks to highlight perspectives from the participants about the future co-developemnt of FOSS and a free, open Internet; the threats that are emerging; and ways for communities to surmount these.

Name, stakeholder group, and organizational affiliation of workshop proposal co-organizer(s)

Civil Society
Technical Community
Private Sector

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

yes

The link to the workshop report

http://wsms1.intgovforum.org/content/no80-steady-stepsfoss-and-mdgs

Subject matter #tags that describe the workshop

#openInternet #foss #codefordev

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

Besides specially identified resource persons, the Roundtable will invite IGF participants who are part of FOSS communities around the world (particularly Brazil, which has a vibrant FOSS community). Participation will include real-time remote participation from FOSS communities around the world, as well as Twitter and email-based submission of ideas and thoughts.

The Round-table format has been chosen for many-to-many interactions so as to generate a wealth of ideas. No speaker shall speak for more than 5 minutes. Two moderators will guide discussions, and a rapporteur will ensure that ideas are captured. The report of the Roundtable would be posted to all participating communities so as to stimulate grassroots-level action.

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

Mr.Satish Babu, Technical Community, Director, International Centre for FOSS, Trivandrum, India, who shall provide technical inputs of FOSS and its relevance, particularly to emerging economies, Confirmed

Ms. Judy Okite, Civil Society, FOSS Foundation for Africa, is an experienced activist who has been promoting the use of FOSS in Africa. Seeking funding at present.

Ms. Mishi Choudhary, Private Sector, Software Freedom Law Centre, New York, is a lawyer working with FOSS and its legal implications for over two decades. Confirmed

Mr. Fernando Botelho, Private Sector, heads F123 Systems, Brazil, a FOSS-centric company that provides accessibility solutions to visually impaired people. Confirmed

Mr. Sunil Abraham, Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), Bangalore, a civil society organization working on Internet and public policy. Confirmed

Mr. Pranesh Prakash, Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), Bangalore, a civil society organization working on Internet and public policy. Confirmed

Ms. Nnenna Nwakanma- WWW.Foundation, a Civil Society organization working in Africa on a broad range of areas including FOSS. Confirmed

Mr. Yves MIEZAN EZO, Open Source strategy consultant, Private Sector. Seeking funding for participation.

Mr. Harish Pillay, Private Sector, RedHat Asia-Pacific. Seeking funding for participation.

Corinto Meffe, Advisor to the President and Directors, SERPRO, Brazil. Confirmed

Frank Coelho de Alcantara, Professor, Universidade Positivo, Brazil, Confirmed

Ms. Caroline Burle, Institutional and International Relations, W3C Brazil Office and Center of Studies on Web Technologies - CeWeb.br (a CGI.br/NIC.br initiative). Confirmed

Name of in-person Moderator(s)

Satish Babu, Mishi Choudhary

Name of Remote Moderator(s)

Judy Okite

Name of Rapporteur(s)

Pranesh Prakash

Description of the proposer's plans for remote participation

Besides around 30 persons at the IGF, we will be providing wide publicity for the workshop through FOSS communities and networks. Besides live audio/video participation, Twitter shall be a key resource for real-time participation. There shall be a Twitter co-ordinator identified whose role will be to tweet the salient points at the Roundtable periodically for the benefit of documenting and informing interested communities.

For those that have either technical difficulties or time-zone problems, ideas and comments can be submitted by email before the workshop to the moderators.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/foss-a-free-open-internet-synergies-for-development

Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and Internet Economy

praskrishna — 2015-10-16T15:40:15Z

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. Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) is organizing a session on “Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and Internet Economy” on November 11, 2015 from 9.30 a.m. to 12.30 p.m. Sunil Abraham is participating in this session as a speaker.

The discussions at the IGF session aim to reflect the importance of Internet Economy and Internet Enablement for the fulfillment of different SDGs and also identify some best practices to inform policy makers on the ways in which Internet can serve broader and more strategic developmental objectives.

The session will include discussions on the following :

The Vision toward 2030: Sustainable Development long term opportunities and challenges
Internet Economy & Internet Role in Delivering the SDGs (Key opportunities & key Success Factors): Human Capital (a) Internet Entrepreneurship (b) Equality (c) ICT Capacity building: Applications (d) Right to Health, Education, timely Justice, environment protection, society engagement (e) Access to Information (f) Availability of Local Content Online (g) Intellectual Property Right: Access and Infrastructure - Internet Availability and Affordability: Policy and Regulatory Support and Business eco-system: To enable Access, Applications and Content development and usage, Entrepreneurship and Capacity building.
Aligning the next phase of IGF with the SDGs /Post 2015 UN Develpment Agenda: Optimizing Eco System and Multistakeholder approach

About IGF 2015

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/sustainable-development-goals-sdgs-and-internet-economy

Cyfy 2015: The India Conference on Cyber Security and Internet Governance

praskrishna — 2015-10-17T14:44:42Z

In its third year, Cyfy; South Asia’s biggest internet policy conference is being held in New Delhi, from 14-16 October, 2015. The event is organized by Observer Research Foundation at Hotel Taj Mansingh. Sunil Abraham is a panelist in the session "Protection of Intellectual Property and Business Secrets in the Knowledge Economy".

Building on its scope and scale of the previous year — over 55 speakers, from 12 countries, with 350 attendees — the conference discusses issues that affect the emerging world and developed world alike. The conversations will further and widen the debate around internet governance, security, surveillance, freedom of expression, norms of state behaviour, technology and specific societal challenges that emerging and developing countries seek to address by the effective design and deployment on these technologies. In 2015, Cyfy will bring together more experts from South Asia, in order to present new thought on the specific challenges of internet access, policy and regulation, e-governance, financial inclusion, and bottom of the pyramid solutions.

Along with its growing network of both Indian and international partners, ORF looking forward to hosting another thought-provoking and productive few days, and bridging some digital divides in contemporary internet cyber policy debates.

Protection of Intellectual Property and Business Secrets in the Knowledge Economy

Over the past decade, there has been an exponential rise in cyber-enabled theft of intellectual property, and it has been recognized as an unfair predatory practice. With the rise of the globalized knowledge economy, the stability of open trading systems increasingly depends on cross-border IP protection. What is the relevance of the protection of intellectual property and business secrets for economic development and stability of the international trading system?

Download the agenda For more info visit here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/cyfy-2015-india-conference-on-cyber-security-and-internet-governance

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

geetha — 2015-10-16T02:44:16Z

On 9 October 2015, the Zero Draft of the UN General Assembly's Overall Review of implementation of WSIS Outcomes was released. Comments were sought on the Zero Draft from diverse stakeholders. The Centre for Internet & Society's response to the call for comments is below.

These comments were prepared by Geetha Hariharan with inputs from Sumandro Chattapadhyay, Pranesh Prakash, Sunil Abraham, Japreet Grewal and Nehaa Chaudhari. Download the comments here.

The Zero Draft of the UN General Assembly’s Overall Review of the Implementation of WSIS Outcomes (“Zero Draft”) is divided into three sections: (A) ICT for Development; (B) Internet Governance; (C) Implementation and Follow-up. CIS’ comments follow the same structure.
The Zero Draft is a commendable document, covering crucial areas of growth and challenges surrounding the WSIS. The Zero Draft makes detailed references to development-related challenges, noting the persistent digital divide, the importance of universal access, innovation and investment, and of enabling legal and regulatory environments conducive to the same. It also takes note of financial mechanisms, without which principles would remain toothless. Issues surrounding Internet governance, particularly net neutrality, privacy and the continuation of the IGF are included in the Zero Draft.
However, we believe that references to these issues are inadequate to make progress on existing challenges. Issues surrounding ICT for Development and Internet Governance have scarcely changed in the past ten years. Though we may laud the progress so far achieved, universal access and connectivity, the digital divide, insufficient funding, diverse and conflicting legal systems surrounding the Internet, the gender divide and online harassment persist. Moreover, the working of the IGF and the process of Enhanced Cooperation, both laid down with great anticipation in the Tunis Agenda, have been found wanting.
These need to be addressed more clearly and strongly in the Zero Draft. In light of these shortcomings, we suggest the following changes to the Zero Draft, in the hope that they are accepted.
A. ICT for Development
Paragraphs 16-21 elaborate upon the digital divide – both the progresses made and challenges. While the Zero Draft recognizes the disparities in access to the Internet among countries, between men and women, and of the languages of Internet content, it fails to attend to two issues.
First, accessibility for persons with disabilities continues to be an immense challenge. Since the mandate of the WSIS involves universal access and the bridging of the digital divide, it is necessary that the Zero Draft take note of this continuing challenge.
We suggest the insertion of Para 20A after Para 20:
“20A. We draw attention also to the digital divide adversely affecting the accessibility of persons with disabilities. We call on all stakeholders to take immediate measures to ensure accessibility for persons with disabilities by 2020, and to enhance their capacity and access to ICTs.”
Second, while the digital divide among the consumers of ICTs has decreased since 2003-2005, the digital production divide goes unmentioned. The developing world continues to have fewer producers of technology compared to their sheer concentration in the developed world – so much so that countries like India are currently pushing for foreign investment through missions like ‘Digital India’. Of course, the Zero Draft refers to the importance of private sector investment (Para 31). But it fails to point out that currently, such investment originates from corporations in the developed world. For this digital production divide to disappear, restrictions on innovation – restrictive patent or copyright regimes, for instance – should be removed, among other measures. Equitable development is the key.
Ongoing negotiations of plurilateral agreements such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) go unmentioned in the Zero Draft. This is shocking. The TPP has been criticized for its excessive leeway and support for IP rightsholders, while incorporating non-binding commitments involving the rights of users (see Clause QQ.G.17 on copyright exceptions and limitations, QQ.H.4 on damages and QQ.C. 12 on ccTLD WHOIS, https://wikileaks.org/tpp-ip3/WikiLeaks-TPP-IP-Chapter/WikiLeaks-TPP-IP-Chapter-051015.pdf). Plaudits for progress make on the digital divide would be lip service if such agreements were not denounced.
Therefore, we propose the addition of Para 20B after Para 20:
“20B. We draw attention also to the digital production divide among countries, recognizing that domestic innovation and production are instrumental in achieving universal connectivity. Taking note of recent negotiations surrounding restrictive and unbalanced plurilateral trade agreements, we call on stakeholders to adopt policies to ensure globally equitable development, removing restrictions on innovation and conducive to fostering domestic and local production.”
Paragraph 22 of the Zero Draft acknowledges that “school curriculum requirements for ICT, open access to data and free flow of information, fostering of competition, access to finance”, etc. have “in many countries, facilitated significant gains in connectivity and sustainable development”.
This is, of course, true. However, as Para 23 also recognises, access to knowledge, data and innovation have come with large costs, particularly for developing countries like India. These costs are heightened by a lack of promotion and adoption of open standards, open access, open educational resources, open data (including open government data), and other free and open source practices. These can help alleviate costs, reduce duplication of efforts, and provide an impetus to innovation and connectivity globally.
Not only this, but 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.
As such, we suggest that following clause be inserted as Para 23A to the Zero Draft:

“23A. We recognize the importance of access to open, affordable, and reliable technologies and services, open access to knowledge, and open data, including open government data, and encourage all stakeholders to explore concrete options to facilitate the same.”

15. Paragraph 30 of the Zero Draft laments “the lack of progress on the Digital Solidarity Fund”, and calls “for a review of options for its future”.

16. The Digital Solidarity Fund was established with the objective of “transforming the digital divide into digital opportunities for the developing world” through voluntary contributions [Para 28, Tunis Agenda]. It was an innovative financial mechanism to help bridge the digital divide between developed and developing countries. This divide continues to exist, as the Zero Draft itself recognizes in Paragraphs 16-21.

17. Given the persistent digital divide, a “call for review of options” as to the future of the Digital Solidarity Fund is inadequate to enable developing countries to achieve parity with developed countries. A stronger and more definite commitment is required.

18. As such, we suggest the following language in place of the current Para 30:

“30. We express concern at the lack of progress on the Digital Solidarity Fund, welcomed in Tunis as an innovative financial mechanism of a voluntary nature, and we call for voluntary commitments from States to revive and sustain the Digital Solidarity Fund.”

19. Paragraph 31 of the Zero Draft recognizes the importance of “legal and regulatory frameworks conducive to investment and innovation”. This is eminently laudable. However, a broader vision is more compatible with paving the way for affordable and widespread access to devices and technology necessary for universal connectivity.

20. We suggest the following additions to Para 31:

“31. We recognise the critical importance of private sector investment in ICT access, content and services, and of legal and regulatory frameworks conducive to local investment and expansive, permissionless innovation.”

B. Internet Governance

21. Paragraph 32 of the Zero Draft recognizes the “general agreement that the governance of the Internet should be open, inclusive, and transparent”. Para 37 takes into account “the report of the CSTD Working Group on improvements to the IGF”. Para 37 also affirms the intention of the General Assembly to extend the life of the IGF by (at least) another 5 years, and acknowledges the “unique role of the IGF”.

22. The IGF is, of course, unique and crucial to global Internet governance. In the last 10 years, major strides have been made among diverse stakeholders in beginning and sustaining conversations on issues critical to Internet governance. These include issues such as human rights, inclusiveness and diversity, universal access to connectivity, emerging issues such as net neutrality, the right to be forgotten, and several others. Through its many arms like the Dynamic Coalitions, the Best Practices Forums, Birds-of-a-Feather meetings and Workshops, the IGF has made it possible for stakeholders to connect.

23. However, the constitution and functioning of the IGF have not been without lament and controversy. Foremost among the laments was the IGF’s evident lack of outcome-orientation; this continues to be debatable. Second, the composition and functioning of the MAG, particularly its transparency, have come under the microscope several times. One of the suggestions of the CSTD Working Group on Improvements to the IGF concerned the structure and working methods of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG). The Working Group recommended that the “process of selection of MAG members should be inclusive, predictable, transparent and fully documented” (Section II.2, Clause 21(a), Page 5 of the Report).

24. Transparency in the structure and working methods of the MAG are critical to the credibility and impact of the IGF. The functioning of the IGF depends, in a large part, on the MAG. The UN Secretary General established the MAG, and it advises the Secretary General on the programme and schedule of the IGF meetings each year (see <http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/mag/44-about-the-mag>). Under its Terms of Reference, the MAG decides the main themes and sub-themes for each IGF, sets or modifies the rules of engagement, organizes the main plenary sessions, coordinates workshop panels and speakers, and crucially, evaluates the many submissions it receives to choose from amongst them the workshops for each IGF meeting. The content of each IGF, then, is in the hands of the MAG.

25. But the MAG is not inclusive or transparent. The MAG itself has lamented its opaque ‘black box approach’ to nomination and selection. Also, CIS’ research has shown that the process of nomination and selection of the MAG continues to be opaque. When CIS sought information on the nominators of the MAG, the IGF Secretariat responded that this information would not be made public (see <http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/mag-analysis>).

26. Further, our analysis of MAG membership shows that since 2006, 26 persons have served for 6 years or more on the MAG. This is astounding, since under the MAG Terms of Reference, MAG members are nominated for a term of 1 year. This 1-year-term is “automatically renewable for 2 more consecutive years”, but such renewal is contingent on an evaluation of the engagement of MAG members in their activities (see <http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/175-igf-2015/2041-mag-terms-of-reference>). MAG members ought not serve for over 3 consecutive years, in accordance with their Terms of Reference. But out of 182 MAG members, around 62 members have served more than the 3-year terms designated by their Terms of Reference (see <http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/mag-analysis>).

27. Not only this, but our research showed 36% of all MAG members since 2006 have hailed from the Western European and Others Group (see <http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/mag-analysis>). This indicates a lack of inclusiveness, though the MAG is certainly more inclusive than the composition and functioning of other I-Star organisations such as ICANN.

28. Tackling these infirmities within the MAG would go a long way in ensuring that the IGF lives up to its purpose. Therefore, we suggest the following additions to Para 37:

“37. We acknowledge the unique role of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) as a multistakeholder platform for discussion of Internet governance issues, and take note of the report and recommendations of the CSTD Working Group on improvements to the IGF, which was approved by the General Assembly in its resolution, and ongoing work to implement the findings of that report. We reaffirm the principles of openness, inclusiveness and transparency in the constitution, organisation and functioning of the IGF, and in particular, in the nomination and selection of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG). We extend the IGF mandate for another five years with its current mandate as set out in paragraph 72 of the Tunis Agenda for the Information Society. We recognize that, at the end of this period, progress must be made on Forum outcomes and participation of relevant stakeholders from developing countries.”

29. Paragraphs 32-37 of the Zero Draft make mention of “open, inclusive, and transparent” governance of the Internet. It fails to take note of the lack of inclusiveness and diversity in Internet governance organisations – extending across representation, participation and operations of these organisations. In many cases, mention of inclusiveness and diversity becomes tokenism or formal (but not operational) principle. In substantive terms, 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 example, the ‘diversity’ mailing list of IETF has very low traffic. Within ICANN, 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. 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.

30. We propose, therefore, the addition of a Para 37A after Para 37:

“37A. We draw attention to the challenges surrounding diversity and inclusiveness in organisations involved in Internet governance, and call upon these organisations to take immediate measures to ensure diversity and inclusiveness in a substantive manner.”

31. Paragraphs 36 of the Zero Draft notes that “a number of member states have called for an international legal framework for Internet governance.” But it makes no reference to ICANN or the importance of the ongoing IANA transition to global Internet governance. ICANN and its monopoly over several critical Internet resources was one of the key drivers of the WSIS in 2003-2005. Unfortunately, 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.

32. Therefore, we suggest the following Para 37A after Para 37:

“37A. 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.”

33. Paragraph 43 of the Zero Draft encourages “all stakeholders to ensure respect for privacy and the protection of personal information and data”. But the Zero Draft inadvertently leaves out the report of the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights on digital privacy, ‘The right to privacy in the digital age’ (A/HRC/27/37). This report, adopted by the Human Rights Council in June 2014, affirms the importance of the right to privacy in our increasingly digital age, and offers crucial insight into recent erosions of privacy. It is both fitting and necessary that the General Assembly take note of and affirm the said report in the context of digital privacy.

34. We offer the following suggestion as an addition to Para 43:

“43. We emphasise that no person shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy, family, home, or correspondence, consistent with countries’ applicable obligations under international human rights law. In this regard, we acknowledge the report of the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, ‘The right to privacy in the digital age’ (A/HRC/27/37, 30 June 2014), and take note of its findings. We encourage all stakeholders to ensure respect for privacy and the protection of personal information and data.”

35. Paragraphs 40-44 of the Zero Draft state that communication is a fundamental human need, reaffirming Article 19 of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, with its attendant narrow limitations. The Zero Draft also underscores the need to respect the independence of the press. Particularly, it reaffirms the principle that the same rights that people enjoy offline must also be protected online.

36. Further, in Para 31, the Zero Draft recognizes the “critical importance of private sector investment in ICT access, content, and services”. This is true, of course, but corporations also play a crucial role in facilitating the freedom of speech and expression (and all other related rights) on the Internet. As 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. They are, in sum, intermediaries without whom the Internet cannot function.

37. Given this, it is essential that the outcome document of the WSIS+10 Overall Review recognize and affirm the role of the private sector, and crucially, its responsibilities to respect and protect human rights online.

38. We suggest, therefore, the insertion of the following paragraph Para 42A, after Para 42:

“42A. 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.”

C. Implementation and Follow-up

39. Para 57 of the Zero Draft calls for a review of the WSIS Outcomes, and leaves a black space inviting suggestions for the year of the review. How often, then, should the review of implementation of WSIS+10 Outcomes take place?

40. It is true, of course, that reviews of the implementation of WSIS Outcomes are necessary to take stock of progress and challenges. However, we caution against annual, biennal or other such closely-spaced reviews due to concerns surrounding budgetary allocations.

41. Reviews of implementation of outcomes (typically followed by an Outcome Document) come at considerable cost, which are budgeted and achieved through contributions (sometimes voluntary) from states. Were Reviews to be too closely spaced, budgets that ideally ought to be utilized to bridge digital divides and ensure universal connectivity, particularly for developing states, would be misspent in reviews. Moreover, closely-spaced reviews would only provide superficial quantitative assessments of progress, but would not throw light on longer term or qualitative impacts.

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

Peering behind the veil of ICANN's DIDP (II)

Padmini Baruah — 2015-10-15T03:14:18Z

In a previous blog post, I had introduced the concept of ICANN’s Documentary Information Disclosure Policy (“DIDP”) and their extremely vast grounds for non-disclosure. In this short post, I have made an analysis of every DIDP request that ICANN has ever responded to, to point out the flaws in their policy that need to be urgently remedied.

Read the previous blog post here. Every DIDP request that ICANN has ever responded to can be accessed here.

The table here is a comprehensive breakdown of all the different DIDP requests that ICANN has responded to. This table is to be read with this document, which has a numbered list of the different non-disclosure exceptions outlined in ICANN’s policy. What I sought to scrutinize was the number of times ICANN has provided satisfactory information, the number of times it has denied information, and the grounds for the same. What we found was alarming:

Of a total of 91 requests (as of 13/10/2015), ICANN has fully and positively responded to only 11.
It has responded partially to 47 of 91 requests, with some amount of information (usually that which is available as public records).
It has not responded at all to 33 of 91 requests.
The Non-Disclosure Clause (1)^{^[1]} has been invoked 17 times.
The Non-Disclosure Clause (2)^{^[2]} has been invoked 39 times.
The Non-Disclosure Clause (3)^{^[3]} has been invoked 31 times.
The Non-Disclosure Clause (4)^{^[4]} has been invoked 5 times.
The Non-Disclosure Clause (5)^{^[5]} has been invoked 34 times.
The Non-Disclosure Clause (6)^{^[6]} has been invoked 35 times.
The Non-Disclosure Clause (7)^{^[7]} has been invoked once.
The Non-Disclosure Clause (8)^{^[8]} has been invoked 22 times.
The Non-Disclosure Clause (9)^{^[9]} has been invoked 30 times.
The Non-Disclosure Clause (10)^{^[10]} has been invoked 10 times.
The Non-Disclosure Clause (11)^{^[11]} has been invoked 12 times.
The Non-Disclosure Clause (12)^{^[12]} has been invoked 18 times.

This data is disturbing because it reveals that ICANN has in practice been able to deflect most requests for information. It regularly utilised its internal processes and discussions with stakeholders clauses, as well as clauses on protecting financial interests of third parties (over 50% of the total non-disclosure clauses ever invoked - see chart below) to do away with having to provide information on pertinent matters such as its compliance audits and reports of abuse to registrars. We believe that even if ICANN is a private entity legally, and not at the same level as a state, it nonetheless plays the role of regulating an enormous public good, namely the Internet. Therefore, there is a great onus on ICANN to be far more open about the information that they provide.

Finally, it is extremely disturbing that they have extended full disclosure to only 12% of the requests that they receive. An astonishing 88% of the requests have been denied, partly or otherwise. Therefore, it is clear that there is a failure on part of ICANN to uphold the transparency it claims to stand for, and this needs to be remedied at the earliest.

^{^[1]} “Information provided by or to a government or international organization, or any form of recitation of such information, in the expectation that the information will be kept confidential and/or would or likely would materially prejudice ICANN's relationship with that party”

^{^[2]} “Internal information that, if disclosed, would or would be likely to compromise the integrity of ICANN's deliberative and decision-making process by inhibiting the candid exchange of ideas and communications, including internal documents, memoranda, and other similar communications to or from ICANN Directors, ICANN Directors' Advisors, ICANN staff, ICANN consultants, ICANN contractors, and ICANN agents”

^{^[3]} “Information exchanged, prepared for, or derived from the deliberative and decision-making process between ICANN, its constituents, and/or other entities with which ICANN cooperates that, if disclosed, would or would be likely to compromise the integrity of the deliberative and decision-making process between and among ICANN, its constituents, and/or other entities with which ICANN cooperates by inhibiting the candid exchange of ideas and communications”

^{^[4]} “Personnel, medical, contractual, remuneration, and similar records relating to an individual's personal information, when the disclosure of such information would or likely would constitute an invasion of personal privacy, as well as proceedings of internal appeal mechanisms and investigations”

^{^[5]} “Information provided to ICANN by a party that, if disclosed, would or would be likely to materially prejudice the commercial interests, financial interests, and/or competitive position of such party or was provided to ICANN pursuant to a nondisclosure agreement or nondisclosure provision within an agreement”

^{^[6]} “Confidential business information and/or internal policies and procedures”

^{^[7]} “Information that, if disclosed, would or would be likely to endanger the life, health, or safety of any individual or materially prejudice the administration of justice”

^{^[8]} “Information subject to the attorney– client, attorney work product privilege, or any other applicable privilege, or disclosure of which might prejudice any internal, governmental, or legal investigation”

^{^[9]} “Drafts of all correspondence, reports, documents, agreements, contracts, emails, or any other forms of communication”

^{^[10]} “Information that relates in any way to the security and stability of the Internet, including the operation of the L Root or any changes, modifications, or additions to the root zone”

^{^[11]} “Trade secrets and commercial and financial information not publicly disclosed by ICANN”

^{^[12]} “Information requests: (i) which are not reasonable; (ii) which are excessive or overly burdensome; (iii) complying with which is not feasible; or (iv) are made with an abusive or vexatious purpose or by a vexatious or querulous individual”

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/peering-behind-the-veil-of-icanns-didp-ii