We are anonymous, we are legion

Namaste, Mr. Eric Schmidt

praskrishna — 2013-03-21T08:48:48Z

An article by R. Jai Krishna published in the Wall Street Journal on March 20, 2013 quotes Sunil Abraham.

Read the original published by the Wall Street Journal on March 20, 2013.

Sandwiched between a January visit to North Korea and a stop in Myanmar at the end of this week Google Inc.'s GOOG +0.42% executive chairman, Eric Schmidt, is visiting India until Thursday.

The world’s largest democracy might seem to have little in common with the two authoritarian states.

But free speech advocates say recent developments in India are troubling and observers are waiting to see whether Mr. Schmidt addresses them during two events over the next couple of days.

At issue is a debate in India over the limits to free speech. In 2011, India’s government, angered at the spread of inflammatory material online, passed a law that allows it to hold Internet companies liable for “offensive” material posted by users. Parts of the law are being challenged in India’s Supreme Court, which has yet to rule.

In December 2011, India’s then-telecoms minister, Kapil Sibal, urged Google Facebook Inc. FB -2.67% and other Internet companies to screen derogatory material from their sites. The requests came amid official anger over content that parodied Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Sonia Gandhi, president of the ruling Congress party, as well as other leading politicians.

A journalist, Vinay Rai, subsequently filed criminal cases in a Delhi court against Internet firms including Google, alleging material they hosted was defamatory, obscene and promoted enmity among different religious and ethnic groups. The companies are challenging the validity of the case in a higher court. The lower court is expected to begin hearings next month.

Google and the others deny wrongdoing. Google has said it makes unavailable to Indian users any content that violates its terms of services or local laws.

Mr. Schmidt is unlikely to address the ongoing lawsuits. But he might take the opportunity to push India to reconsider its position on free speech, say activists.

“He will obviously make a case..but the government is unlikely to take it seriously,” said Sunil Abraham, executive director at the Bangalore-based Centre for Internet and Society. “It’s much more complicated.”

Mr. Schmidt is set to speak at two technology conferences – one organized by the country’s software industry body, the National Association of Software and Services Companies, or Nasscom, on Wednesday, and another by Google on Thursday.

Paroma Roy Chowdhury, a spokeswoman for Google India said: “The Google India team is very happy to host him here.”

Mr. Schmidt’s India visit follows his private visit to North Korea in January where he urged its officials to drop barriers to global Internet access if they hope to develop their economy. He is likely to travel to Myanmar on March 22, after his India trip.

Google is facing other legal challenges in India. They include a federal anti-trust probe on alleged anticompetitive practices by Google’s online advertising business. Google says it has done nothing wrong.

For Google, India is an important market for its Internet services as well as mobile-devices software Android.

Market research firm ComScore Inc. SCOR -0.41% said in June that Google reached 95% of online users in India. “Visitors spent 2.5 hours on Google sites, with YouTube accounting for a major share,” it said.

More and more Indians have started taking to the Internet to express their views. India has about 62 million people in urban areas using social media platforms, according to a recent study by the Internet and Mobile Association of India, a trade body, and market-research agency, IMRB. That is expected to rise to 66 million by June.

Demographically, the report said, the “highest proportion’ of social media usage was among young men and college students, representing 84% and 82% of the total internet users, respectively.

Last year, New Delhi issued a series of guidelines on how government departments should use social media to reach out to people and to ensure public participation in policy framing.

The ruling Congress-led coalition government has now started embracing these networks.

For example, Finance Minister P. Chidambaram earlier this month interacted with citizens during the annual budget proposal using social media platform Google+.

For many, this was seen as a move to counter Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi’s use of online platforms during his successful re-election campaign late last year. Mr. Modi, widely expected to be named the prime ministerial candidate for the main opposition Bharatiya Janata Party in 2014, is scheduled to attend Google’s event Thursday.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/wsj-r-jai-krishna-march-20-2013-namaste-mr-eric-schmidt

Myanmar Digital Rights Forum proposes a path away from 66(d)

praskrishna — 2017-01-10T15:09:21Z

This was published by Coconuts Yangon on December 14, 2016. Sunil Abraham was quoted.

Nica Dumlao from the Philippine Internet Freedom Alliance speaks at the forum. Photo: Phandeeyar

Over the last two years, Myanmar has experienced a connectivity revolution; tens of millions of people have hopped onto the web all at once. However, recent events have highlighted how vulnerable people in Myanmar are when communicating and sharing information online.

Daw Ei Myat Noe Khin, a Phandeeyar associate and co-organizer of the event, explained: “Myanmar’s laws and regulations were changed to enable millions of people to get connected. However, not nearly enough has been done to protect the rights of these users. Urgent legislative action is needed to ensure that the rights and freedoms that the Myanmar people now enjoy offline are also protected when they are using the internet.”

Rights groups and media organizations have noted the threats to freedom of speech posed by the arrest under Article 66(d) of Myanmar’s Telecommunications Law of journalists and ordinary citizens for Facebook posts.

Nay Phone Latt, the former political prisoner and free speech activist who now serves in the Yangon Region parliament, called for changes to Myanmar’s laws, which are now being used to sue people for as actions as little as leaving a comment on social media.

“Even though I am now an MP, my opinion on free speech has not changed,” he said.

He also called on Union-level lawmakers to attend similar forums and ultimately improve the laws relating to digital rights.

However, Article 66(d) is only one of many issues that need to be addressed. According to speakers at the forum, other critical issues include information privacy, the right to information, online hate speech, cyberbullying, revenge porn and phishing scams.

Vicky Bowman, director of Myanmar Center for Responsible Business, recounted the story from a few years ago of an NGO leader who gave away $80,000 of his organization’s money when he was duped by a phishing scam online.

“Are Myanmar people aware of digital rights? I don’t think so. They’re excited about SIM cards and gadgets, but they’re probably not reading the terms and conditions.”

There is still a lot to worry about in the realm of digital rights in Myanmar, she said.

In this challenging environment, the forum’s attendees are working to develop specific policy recommendations, strategies and campaigns to ensure digital rights to the people of Myanmar.

“The benefits of connectivity won’t be realized if people are scared to use the internet. The objective of the Myanmar Digital Rights Forum is to raise awareness about the importance of these issues and to develop concrete plans to address them,” said Daw Htaike Htaike Aung, executive director of Myanmar ICT for Development Organization (MIDO).

Some speakers offered the experiences of other countries as models for what Myanmar might be able to do to protect internet users. Sunil Abraham, the executive director of the Bangalore-based Center for Internet and Society, urged against thinking of companies and governments as monoliths. There are people in government, he said, who do have the rights of citizens in mind. He also advised digital rights campaigners to pursue change on all sides of the political spectrum, just as free-software activists found support in India’s communist and nationalist parties.

Ms Cheekay Cinco, a program manager for Engage Media, said: “This is not a Myanmar problem. Hyper-connectivity in the region has led to greater criminalization of online activities. Over the years, spaces in Southeast Asia have been created to talk about these issues. We can only spark development and change when these spaces continue to flourish and have participation from different sectors.”

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/coconuts-yangon-december-14-2016-myanmar-digital-rights-forum-proposes-a-path-away-from-66d

Myanmar Digital Rights Forum

praskrishna — 2016-12-17T00:44:25Z

Sunil Abraham was a speaker at the Myanmar Digital Rights Forum in Myanmar on December 14 and 15, 2016. The two day event was organized by Phandeeyar, You Can Do IT, Engage Media and Myanmar Centre for Responsible Business with support form the Embassy of Sweden.

More than 55 representatives from technology companies, government, media and civil society organizations gathered at the innovation lab Phandeeyar to participate in the Myanmar Digital Rights Forum. The event was organized to address critical digital rights challenges in Myanmar. Participants discussed the issues raised by the increasing access, in recent years, of large numbers of Myanmar citizens to the internet, social media and mobile phones. For more info see here.

Click to read the agenda

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/myanmar-digital-rights-forum

My Experiment with Scam Baiting

sahana — 2012-03-13T10:43:28Z

Today, as I am sure many of you have experienced, Internet scams are widespread and very deceptive. As part of my research into privacy and the Internet, I decided to follow a scam and attempt to fully understand how Internet scams work, and what privacy implications they have for Internet users. Though there are many different types of scams that take place over the Internet —identity scams, housing scams, banking scams— just to name a few. I decided to look in depth at the lottery scam.

Day 1: July 4, 2011

On July 4, I received a spam mail from Shell BP Manchester England (lamarc65@cs.com). The e-mail informed me that my e-mail address had won a sum of $550,000 which was held on July 3, 2011 in England. In order to claim my prize the e-mail instructed me to confirm the receipt of the mail by submitting a few of my personal details to one Dr. Mohammed Al Maliki. This is an extract from the letter asking for my information:

Information Requested:

Your full Name:
Contact address:
Your Telephone:
Your Age:
Your occupation:
Your country of origin:

Congratulations.
Yours Sincerely,
Mrs Roseline Lott
Shell Prize announcer, England.

Deciding to reply to the email and see what happened, I responded to Dr. Mohammed Al Maliki (dr.mohamedmalik@gmail.com) with the information that the e-mail had asked, only I substituted my real information with the following fake information:

Shaiza Sarkar
B-196, CR Park, New Delhi - 110019
09916000603
23 yrs old
India

To my surprise he replied to my mail the same day at 4:59pm. In this mail he informed me that he had sent my details to Lloyds Bank who would be responsible for the payment of my prize. He asked me to inform him after I receive a mail from the bank. The e-mail contained a phone number for me to call. I tried to call the number mentioned in the mail but there was no reply.

Again to my surprise, I received a mail from Lloyds Bank at 6:58 p.m. the same day with a list of documents and details that I was supposed to send them to claim the prize money. Lloyds Bank had also attached a deposit certificate to ‘prove’ that Shell Petroleum Development Company had deposited the prize money in the bank. Below is an extraction of the e-mail I received from Lloyds Bank.

"FROM THE DESK OF DR. MOHAMED MALIK
REGIONAL CLAIMS AGENT,
SHELL PETROLEUM INTERNATIONAL LOTTERY PROGRAM.
Regional Office:
St James Court, Great Park Road,
Almondsbury Park, Bradley Stoke,
Bristol BS32 4QJ, England
Contact: +447035974608
“LLOYDS BANK PLC
ADMINISTRATIVE HEADQUARTERS.
LONDON, ENGLAND, UNITED KINGDOM.
REF...FILENOS2345/LTB
ATTENTION: SARKAR SHAIZA
*REGARDING YOUR PRIZE FROM SHELL PETROLEUM DEVELOPMENT COMPANY*
PLEASE SEND US THE DOCUMENTS BELOW;
1. A CERTIFICATE OF AWARD FROM SHELL PETROLEUM CONTACT DR MOHAMED MALIK
2. A SCANNED COPY OF EITHER YOUR DRIVERS LICENSE OR YOUR INTERNATIONAL PASSPORT OR WORK I.D CARD.
3. A SWORN AFFIDAVIT OF CLAIM FROM THE CROWN COURT HERE IN LONDON,YOU ARE REQUIRED TO CONTACT [DR MOHAMED MALIK]YOUR AGENT FOR ALL THIS.
SIR PAUL WISCONFIELD.
HEAD OF OPERATIONS.
LLOYDS TSB BANK PLC

Day 2: July 5, 2011

The next day I informed Dr. Mohammed Al Maliki of the above letter from the bank, as instructed to at 8:58 p.m. At 9:45 p.m., Dr. Mohammed Al Maliki emailed me back with the certificate of award from Shell Petroleum Development Company with my fake name printed on it.

Though the first two documents that Lloyds Bank required me to obtain were standard enough, the turning point in this entire scam was the third document that Lloyds Bank asked me to acquire. The third document asked me to present a sworn affidavit of claim from the Crown Court in London. Following the instructions given by the bank, I again emailed Dr. Mohammed Al Maliki. He replied with instructions for me to contact Barrister Wilson Burrows (ESQ) of Wilson and Co. Law Chambers for this document. I tried to search for Wilson and Co. Chambers on the Internet and found that no company with such a name exists.

This is the certificate of award provided to me by Dr. Mohammed Al Maliki:

Day 3: July 6, 2011

At 1:47 p.m. I mailed Wilson and Co. Law Chambers informing them about the sworn affidavit that I required in order to claim the lottery prize. The same day at 8:25 p.m. the Law Chambers sent me the following mail with an application form, and asked me to transfer 520 pounds through a Western Union Money Transfer to the Chamber’s Accountant Mr. Preston Doyle. I checked the address provided in the mail to see if it existed. The Google map showed that the given pin code “L14JJ”- London - was a pin code for Liverpool, Merseyside UK, which is not London , and not where Wilson and Co. Law Chambers claimed to be based. Additionally, the Law Chambers attached a form for the affidavit in this mail.

Below is an extract from the email I received from Wilson and Co. Law Chambers:
“The Principal Attorney
Wilson and co Chambers
#18 Harms Road Manchester
L14JJ - London.
Supreme Solicitors, Principal Attorneys and Property Managers
Kind Attention: Client,
As stated in the attached form, the completed form should be returned with the Court Oath Fee. For further processing, see below fees;
Court Oath Fee: 250 Pounds
Attorney Fee: 270 Pounds
------------------------------------------
Total Fee: 520 Pounds
-----------------------------------------
To send this money, go to any WESTERN UNION MONEY TRANSFER OFFICE nearest to you and make the payment to the Chamber's Accountant - Mr. Preston Doyle with the following details -
Receiver's Name: Mr. Preston Doyle
Receiver's Location: London, United Kingdom.
Receiver's Address: #18 Harms Road Manchester, L14JJ – London
Amount: £ 520.00 (Five Hundred and Twenty Pounds)
Regards,
Mrs.Wilson Burrows(ESQ)
(Registrar)
Mrs. Ivon Samuel (KBE) (Secretary)”

Day 4: July 7, 2011

After receiving the e-mail asking for a money transfer, I was curious and wished to probe more. Thus, I wrote to Wilson and Co Law Chambers and explained that a Western Union Transfer was not available in my village. The same day at 6:48 p.m. the Law Chambers sent me a mail saying that the Honourable Chamber recognizes only Western Union Transfer as the safest mode for transactions. I did not reply to this mail, as I knew I would not be able to go any further with my investigation. Though I was disappointed because this was the end to my investigation into lottery scams, and I still had questions that I wanted answered, the last e-mail the Law Chambers sent me was very interesting. In the last email sent to me by the Law Chambers requested (in a very pushy tone) that I should not tell anyone about my prize money, and that it was in fact in my best interest not to tell anyone.

Below is the extract of this mail:

“So do not discuss your winning with anybody until your prize has been transferred to you. It is for your own good. And it is at that time alone that you can be used for advert purposes by our company. So the success of this transfer lies sorely in your hands. These are the exact words from the Director this morning.”

Regards,

Mrs.Wilson Burrows (ESQ)

(Registrar)

His Lordship, Justice Ivon Samuel (KBE) (Secretary)

Day 5: July 8, 2011

Originally I wrote to the Law Chambers telling them I did not have access to a Western Union for the purpose of seeing if they use other mediums to receive money. Surprisingly, at 1:47 p.m. Wilson and Co. Law Chambers emailed me. The e-mail said that they would grant me the privilege of using a direct deposit of the 250 pounds into their correspondents account in India. In the mail they asked me to confirm that I would use this method of payment, and that once confirmed, that they would furnish me with their correspondent’s account details. Interested, I confirmed. After my e-mail confirmation at 9:47 p.m. they emailed me the details of their correspondent in India.

Below are the details of the account that I was supposed to transfer the money into:

This is the account details you will deposit the money into:
Account Name: L. MOHAN SINGH
Bank name: HDFC BANK
Branch: DELHI
Account number: 0609190004391
Ifsc Code : HDFC0000609
Pan Card: DDMPS9075M

Day 6: July 11, 2011

I did not deposit the money (obviously) and I did not e-mail the bank or the Law Chambers, I did receive a mail from Wilson and Co. Law Chambers informing me that their reputable organization would not tolerate my laxity. Unfortunately, because I could not pay the fee to their correspondent and obtain the affidavit, I was unable to follow the scam any further. Despite this dead end I was curious to know if they would provide me with the phone number of their Indian correspondent. Thus, I wrote them a mail to humbly apologise for the delay. I further asked them to provide me with the correspondent’s phone number claiming that the bank was rejecting his profile due to security protocols.

Day 7: July 12, 2011

The Law Chambers responded, informing me that they did not wish to give the correspondents number. In their e-mail they made it quite clear that for online banking all that is needed is the IFSC code. Therefore, I had to stop here.

This is the extract of the mail they sent me when I asked for the phone number:

The Principal Attorney
Wilson and co Chambers
#18 Harms Road Manchester
L14JJ - London.
Supreme Solicitors, Principal Attorneys and Property Managers

Kind Attention: Client,
This Honorable Chambers is in receipt of your mail. It is very important for you to know that laxity will not be accepted anymore. For the online transfer of this payment, you do not need any phone number, all you need is the IFSC Code already supplied to you. Once more, the IFSC Code is HDFC0000609. That is all you need to make an online transfer.

While I stopped following the scam at this point, many people might have continued with the process without any knowledge of it being a scam. Thus, one should be very sceptical about individuals or organizations who ask for personal and banking information.

Conclusions

In my experiment with scam baiting, I realized that:

They introduced me to various parties to make this entire scheme look professional. I initially assumed that I would have to carry out the process with the Shell Petroleum Development Company alone.
In the beginning of the experiment I initially thought the scam was about taking my account number and hacking into it. During my experiment I realized that the scam was not designed to make money by emptying my bank account, but instead was designed to profit off of the various admission fees such as the Sworn Affidavit.
Due to the speed by which they were able to respond to my emails, I realized that they had pre-prepared fake documents – ready to send to anyone who emailed them regarding claiming the offered lottery prize.
Throughout all of our e-mail exchanges I noticed that the individuals behind the scam only used a G-mail account. Curious, I checked their IP address – hoping to find out more information and possibly track their location – but found that Google does not reveal senders IP address information (which is in fact a very good thing in terms of privacy protection!)

For a detailed understanding of different types of scams visit here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/privacy/scam-baiting

MWC19 Shanghai AI and Trust in APAC and China

Admin — 2019-06-05T07:10:50Z

Sunil Abraham will be making a presentation at the summit on AI and Trust in APAC and China at MWC19 Shanghai on June 27, 2019. Sunil has been invited as a speaker on panel ‘Framing AI for Digital Upstarts’.

MWC Shanghai is a three-day conference and exhibition bringing together over 200 AI business leaders, 65,000 attendees, and 550 companies from across different industries and perspectives to address business and technical concerns in the Intelligent Connectivity era and debate tough problems for today and tomorrow. More info here. For event details see this page.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/mwc19-shanghai-ai-and-trust-in-apac-and-china

Muzzling the Internet

praskrishna — 2011-04-01T15:14:44Z

It is strange suddenly to be confronted with the provisions of a law passed way back in 2008. But why should the Information Technology Amendment Act, 2008, pushed through in the weeks following the 26/11 attacks in Mumbai be making news now? This news item by Sundeep Dougal was posted in Outlook on March 17, 2011.

The Economic Times, with a report headlined Government can switch off your internet if necessary breathlessly reported yesterday:

The Indian government has armed itself with powers to 'switch off' or kill the internet during times of national emergencies, becoming one of the first few countries to assume such far reaching authority. Even as the US and other western nations debate the judiciousness of giving the government's complete control to shut down cyber traffic, India has moved a step ahead and incorporated a provision under the IT Act of 2008, giving the Central government, or any of its officers specially authorised by it, to block the internet if necessary. The shutdown can happen in the interest of sovereignty and integrity of India, its defense, security of its states, friendly relations with foreign states or for public order. Failure to comply will result in imprisonment of up to seven

But perhaps the report can be excused for the simple reason that because the act was pretty much hustled through Parliament at a time when the national mindspace was preoccupied with other concerns, there was not much analysis or criticism in the mainstream media, though specialised blogs did raise an alarm even then. [See one critique dating back to December 2008 here April 2010 here -- and for the record, the bill was endorsed by the President in Feb 2009, and then only notified in October 2009.]

Read the ET report further and you realise that the reference was perhaps occasioned by the following development that the news report went on to provide:

Not satisfied with this provision, India is now moving ahead to develop alternate plans in case the 'switch' does not work. The draft plan by the Cabinet Committee on Security and Ministry of Home Affairs along with Ministry of IT & Communications to 'choke' the internet at will, which ET reported last year, is also learnt to be in its final stages.

Choking refers to handicapping the servers by subjecting it to multiple requests and attacks and preventing it from functioning effectively

But more dangerous to the issue of freedom of the internet were the recent reports, earlier in the month, of the blocking of Typepad, Mobango, Clickatell by some ISPs, though only one of them provided a message saying, "This site has been blocked as per request from the Department of Telecom". It was 2006 all over again.

As usual, the real problem was the total arbitrariness of the process and the confusion was confounded further when an unnamed Airtel spokesperson told the Hindu that there was no directive from the government, and this was “just a temporary network problem”.

The crux of the matter can be summed up in this one quote from Nikhil Pahwa of Medianama in the Hoot: "what gets me angry is that we wouldn't even have got to know of the blocking. There are never any indications of which websites are blocked and why. We have got to have more transparency on these issues."

Medianama also compiled and reported the following:

Tech2 wrote about a blogspot blackout on Feb 12th.
CuttingtheChai wrote about Kirtu.com, where the not-safe-for-work comic Savita Bhabhi was hosted, Mobango, Typepad and Clickatell being blocked on Feb 22nd.
Kafila reports, and this is something that we’ve also been told about as well, that Zone-H.org has been blocked as well. This is strange, but there is a suggestion that a company called E2 Labs got Zone-H blocked, because they did a post criticizing E2′s proposal to start a cyber security educational institution, alleging that there was falsification of information. A pdf of the post here, via Naavi.org. Again, we need clarity on why these blocks have been ordered. Also read Apar Gupta’s post
the utilitarian critique of E2 Labs v. Zone-H

Medianama further reported that on the sidelines of the Gov 2.0 conference last Friday, Communications & IT Minister Kapil Sibal passed the buck on the issue of lack of transparency in the way the Indian government blocks access to websites. Sibal told MediaNama that we should “Ask the Home Ministry, because this is a security issue.”

As Shivam Vij of Kafila asked:

All I want to ask Kapil Sibal is: How is Savita Bhabhi a threat to India’s national security? Wait, I have another question: why should I ask the Home Ministry when the orders for blocking come from your own Ministry, Mr Sibal, and the committee that decides on blocking has only one Home Ministry representative and two from your Ministry, sir?

In theory a lot of people will say that the internet can not be free of regulation, that the government must block some sites. But this is the problem in practice: the government will block a soft porn comic - only because it was talked about openly, discussed in the papers, and so on. Only because it came in the way of some bureaucrat’s antiquated sense of morality. Why, there are countless hard core Indian porn sites that are not blocked! (Oops, I shouldn’t be giving ideas.)

And when you wonder why the Government of India thinks Savita Bhabhi is too obscene for you, they will say national security!

If you don’t know about the Savita Bhabhi blocking issue, see this Huffington Post article.

All of this of course assumes ominous overtones when one considers the government's attitude on Wikileaks and offers an inkling of the shape of things to come when we look at the recent release of the long awaited draft rules for important sections of the Information Technology Act 2000, objections to which were sought from the public by February 28, 2011.

So far, the following draft rules have been formalised:

The Draft rule under section 43A- Reasonable security practices and procedures and sensitive personal information

Privacy India and Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore have offered a detailed para-wise commentary here.

The Draft rule under section 79-Due diligence observed by intermediaries guidelines

A detailed, para-wise, criticism is available by the Centre for Internet and Society which pointed out, inter-alia:

they vest an extraordinary power of censorship in the hands of the intermediary, which could easily lead to the stifling of the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech online. Analogous restrictions do not exist in other fields, e.g., against the press in India or against courier companies, and there is no justification to impose them on content posted online. Taken together, these provisions make it impossible to publish critical views about anything without the risk of being summarily censored.

The rules are so loosely worded as to cover almost anything. For example, consider Section 3 of the proposed rules, particularly point (g):

"causes annoyance or inconvenience or deceives or misleads the addressee about the origin of such messages or communicates any information which is grossly offensive or menacing in nature;"

Imagine the number of sensitive souls out there who could be claiming "inconvenience" because of "annoyance" having been caused.

The Draft rule under section 79-Guidelines for Cyber Cafe

A critique by PRS blog | Medianama | Centre for Internet and Society points out, inter alia, that

if enforced it will end up choking public access Internet in the country, whether through Cybercafes or at Wifi hotspots, which would cover all regular cafes that offer Internet access, the airport, where some telcos allow access, or even on-campus connectivity.

While the comments for the above rules were invited only till 28.02.2011, perhaps it would still be useful to let the authorities know what one thinks about these rules by sending an email to: grai AT mit.gov.in

Read the original post in the Outlook here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/muzzling-internet

Mumbai no longer ‘meri jaan’

radha — 2011-04-04T06:52:29Z

Why online (and offline) activism after 26/11 never took off; what should have been done to mobilize people - an article in the Livemint by Seema Chowdhry and Samanth Subramanian - 20th November, 2009

On “One Million Strong for Bombay” (23,601 members), a 9 October post concerned the activist Hansel D’Souza, chairman of the Juhu Citizens’ Welfare Group, the Citizens’ Consensus candidate for the Andheri (West) assembly constituency; an earlier post involved the schedule of the Jazz Yatra. On “The Black Badge for Bombay” (853 members), the last post, from 31 August, wonders if Pakistan is a pawn being used by China against India.

“The idea behind ‘Black Badge for Bombay’ initially was to keep the pressure on so that the reaction to the attacks in terms of government preparedness results in concrete action,” says Somasekhar Sundaresan, the group’s creator. “The government has now set up a combat force in Mumbai, which was the stated immediate objective of this movement and
pressure group. After that, we needed to move on.”

Sundaresan admits that the posts have not been updated more frequently because he hasn’t worked hard enough to get people interested in newer issues. “Most of my discussions about civil rights movements are restricted to five or six friends who are members of this Facebook group too,” he says. “It is easier to talk to them because I meet them
professionally and personally often.” “The Black Badge for Mumbai” has also been unable to organize offline meetings.

What these groups lacked, according to Sunil Abraham, executive director of the Centre for Internet and Society in Bangalore, was a dedicated team to keep the momentum going. “They don’t have intelligently incremental action points that keep their audiences increasingly engaged,” he says in an email interview. “The creators often underestimate the importance of offline activities that will keep their audiences motivated. Finally, many of them take their membership for
granted and don’t bother sending regular updates or even an occasional thank you.”

It was perhaps the need to sustain momentum that drove some of the offline citizens’ groups into the political sphere. Anil Bahl allied his Let’s Rebuild India with the Professionals Party of India. A group called Jago Mumbai turned into the Jago Party, which fielded a candidate in the Lok Sabha election from north-west Mumbai. (He lost.) “We decided that we couldn’t do anything alone,” says Bhuresh Barot, a working member of the Jago Party. “You need to be in power to do anything.”

As his party’s south Mumbai coordinator, Barot witnessed a rapid dissolution of voter outrage back into voter apathy; in the Lok Sabha election, the turnout stood at 43.3%. “The main reason seemed to be that voters thought they already knew the ideology of every party,” Barot theorizes. “And they decided they simply didn’t have faith in the candidates.”

Link to original article

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/mumbai-no-longer-2018meri-jaan2019

Multistakeholders Consultation on International Public Policy Issues

praskrishna — 2014-02-03T10:07:54Z

The Department of Electronics & Information Technology has called for a meeting on January 21 in New Delhi to discuss international public policy issues. Snehashish Ghosh will participate in the meeting.

MAG Meeting Notice issued by the Department of Electronics & Information Technology on January 13 can be accessed here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/multi-stakeholders-consultation-on-intl-public-policy-issues-january-21-2014

Multistakeholder Consultation on Encryption

praskrishna — 2016-12-17T01:22:35Z

The Centre for Internet & Society (CIS) in collaboration with ORF and Takshashila Institution is organizing a Multi-Stakeholder Consultation on Encryption on December 17, 2016 at TERI in Bengaluru.

The consultation is intended to help shape the discussions around the new draft encryption policy slated to be released sometime early next year. The consultation will be divided into two segments: an open house and a panel discussion with high-level government representatives, including Dr. Gulshan Rai, the National Cyber Security Coordinator. The sessions start at 10.30 a.m. on December 17, 2016 and will go on for until approximately 4.30 p.m.

The discussions themselves will highlight inputs from the three main constituents affected by an encryption policy: civil society and end users, the private sector and government. The range of civil liberties and constitutional rights implicated by encryption, as well as the needs of businesses to secure data flows will be discussed. Government officials too are expected to join the consultation and will provide perspectives on encryption and legitimate access to data for law enforcement purpose.

For more info reach out to Udbhav Tiwari (udbhav@cisindia.org) or Bedavyasa Mohanty (bedavyasam@orfonline.org)

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/events/multistakeholder-consultation-on-encryption

Multiple Aspects Need to be Addressed as the Clamour Grows for Network Neutrality

sunil — 2015-04-16T13:33:03Z

In the global debate there are four violations of Network Neutrality that are considered particularly egregious.

The article was published in DNA on April 16, 2015.

One — blocking of destinations or services in order to force the consumer to pay extra charges for access, two — not charging or zero-rating of certain destinations and services with or without extraction of payment from the sender or destination, and three — throttling or prioritisation of traffic between competing destinations or services and four — specialised services wherein the very same Internet infrastructure is used to provide non-Internet but IP based services such as IP-TV.

The main harms of network neutrality violations are as follows: one, censorship by private parties without legal basis; two, innovation harms because the economic threshold for new entrants is raised significantly; three, competition harms as monopolies become more entrenched and then are able to abuse their dominant position; four, harms to diversity because of the nudge effect that free access to certain services and destinations has on consumers reducing the infinite plurality of the Internet to a set of menu options. The first and fourth harm could result in the Internet being reduced to a walled garden.

It is insufficient to try and address this with networking rules for engineers such as “all packets should be treated equally.” But a set of principles could be developed that can help us grow access without violating network neutrality. Wikimedia Foundation has already developed their principles which they call “Wikipedia Zero Operating Principles”. In India our principles could include the following. One, no blocking without legal basis. Two, transparency — all technical and commercial arrangements are to be disclosed to the public. Three, non-exclusivity — all arrangements should be available to all parties, no special deals for those you favour. Four, non-discrimination between equals — technologies and entities that are alike should be treated alike. Five, necessity — whilst some measure may be required occasionally when there is network congestion they should be rolled back in a time-bound fashion.

Once these principles are enforced through a network neutrality regulation, ISPs and telecom operators will be allowed to innovate with business and payment models. Steve Song, inventor of Village Telco says “My preferred take on zero-rating would be to zero-rate gprs/edge data in general so that there is a minimum basic access for all.” My colleague Pranesh Prakash says “One possibility, of many, is to create a single marketplace or exchange for zero-rating, through which one can zero-rate on all telecom networks for standard tiered rates that they publish, and terms that are known to the regulator. Banning is akin to a brahmastra in a regulator's arsenal: it should not be used lightly” Jochai Ben-Avie of Mozilla told me yesterday of experiments in Bangladesh where consumers watch an advertisement everyday in exchange for 5Mb of data. My own suggestion to address the harms caused by walled gardens would be to make them leak – mandate that unfettered access to the Internet be provided every other hour.

There is many other ways in which the Internet has been transformed in India and other countries but these are not commonly considered network neutrality violations. Here are some examples. One, blocking of port 25 — a port that is commonly used to relay email spam. Two, blocking of port 80 – so that domestic connections cannot be used to host web servers. Three, the use of private IP addresses, ISPs who are delaying migration to IPv6 infrastructure because of cost implications leverage their IPv4 address inventory by using Carrier Grade — Network Address Translators [CG-NATs]. Four, asymmetric connections where download speeds for consumers are faster than upload speeds. With the exception of the first example — all of them affect end users negatively but do not usually impact corporations and therefore have been unfortunately sidelined in the global debate.

The TRAI consultation paper reveals many of the concerns of the telecom operators that go beyond the scope of network neutrality. Many of these concerns are very legitimate. There is a scarcity of spectrum — this could partially be addressed by auctioning more spectrum, scientific management of spectrum, promotion of shared spectrum and unlicensed spectrum. Their profit margins are thinning – this could be addressed by dismantling the Universal Service Obligation Fund, it is after all as Rohan Samarajiva puts it “a tax on the poor.” Internet companies don't pay taxes – this could be addressed by the Indian government, by adopting the best practices from the OECD around preventing tax avoidance. But some of their concerns cannot be addressed because of the technological differences between telecom and Internet networks. While it is relatively easy to require telecom companies to provide personal information and allow for interception of communications, those Internet companies that use end-to-end encryption cannot divulge personal information or facilitate interception because it is technologically impossible. While the first two concerns could be addressed by TRAI, the last two should be addressed by other ministries and departments in the Indian government.

There are other concerns that are much more difficult to address without the deep understanding of latest advancements in radio communication, signal processing and congestion control techniques in packet switched networks. A telecom expert who did not wish to be identified told me that “even 2G TDM voice is 10 to 15 times more efficient when compared to VOIP. IP was developed to carry data, and is therefore not an efficient mode to carry voice as overhead requirement for packets destroys the efficiency on voice. Voice is best carried close to the physical layer where the overheads are lowest.” He claims that since “VOIP calls are spectrally inefficient they should be discouraged” through differential pricing. We need accessible scientific literature and monitoring infrastructure so that an evidence base around concerns like this can be created so as to address them effectively through regulatory interventions.

You know you have reached a policy solution when all concerned stakeholders are equally unhappy. Unfortunately, the TRAI consultation paper assumes that Internet companies operate in a regulatory vacuum and therefore places much unnecessary focus on the licensing of these companies. This is a disastrous proposal since the Internet today is the result of “permission-less innovation”. The real issue is network neutrality and one hopes that after rigorous debate informed by scientific evidence TRAI finds a way to spread unhappiness around equally.

The author works for the Centre for Internet and Society which receives funds from Wikimedia Foundation which has zero-rating alliances with telecom operators in many countries across the world.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/dna-april-16-2015-sunil-abraham-multiple-aspects-need-to-be-addressed-as-the-clamour-grows-for-network-neutrality

Multinational Cyber Security Forum at University of Haifa

Admin — 2017-11-27T14:34:59Z

Sunil Abraham participated in a meeting in Israel on Multinational Cyber Security Forum hosted by Center for Cyber, Law and Policy and University of Haifa in collaboration with the Hewlett Foundation Cyber Initiative.

The workshop was held from November 5 to 7, 2017. The objective of the workshop was to facilitate a free and open exchange among participants under the Chatham House Rules. The workshop sought to identify areas of agreement and dissent pertaining to cyber security regulation and to explore issues that require further research, clarification and development.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/multinational-cyber-security-forum-at-university-of-haifa

Multi-stakeholder Models of Internet Governance within States: Why, Who & How?

geetha — 2014-06-16T14:27:38Z

Internet governance, for long a global exercise, has found new awareness within national frameworks in recent times. Especially relevant for developing countries, effective national IG mechanisms are important to raise awareness and ensure multi-stakeholder participation at technical, infrastructural and public policy levels.

This post is a surface-level overview of national IG bodies, and is intended to inform introductory thoughts on national IG mechanisms.

A Short Introduction

The previous decade has seen a proliferation of regional, sub-regional and national initiatives for Internet governance (IG). Built primarily on the multi-stakeholder model, these initiatives aim at creating dialogue on issues of regional, local or municipal importance. In Asia, Bangladesh has instituted a national IGF, the Bangladesh IGF, with the stated objective of creating a national multi-stakeholder forum that is specialized in Internet governance issues, and to facilitate informed dialogue on IG policy issues among stakeholders. India, too, is currently in the process of instituting such a forum. At this juncture, it is useful to consider the rationale and modalities of national IG bodies.

The Internet has long been considered a sphere of non-governmental, multi-stakeholder, decentralized, bottom-up governance space. The Declaration of Independence of Cyberspace, John Perry Barlow’s defiant articulation of the Internet’s freedom from governmental control, is a classic instance of this. The Internet is a “vast ocean”, we claimed; “no one owns it”.[1] Even today, members of the technical community insist that everyone ought to “let techies do their job”: a plea, if you will, of the complexity of cyber-walls and –borders (or of their lack).

But as Prof. Milton Mueller argues in Ruling the Root, the Internet has always been a contentious resource: battles over its governance (or specifically, the governance of the DNS root, both the root-zone file and the root servers) have leapt from the naïveté of the Declaration of Independence to a private-sector-led, contract-based exploitation of Internet resources. The creation of ICANN was a crucial step in this direction, following arbitrary policy choices by Verizon and entities managing the naming and numbering resources of the Internet.

The mushrooming of parallel tracks of Internet governance is further evidence of the malleability of the space. As of today, various institutions – inter-governmental and multi-stakeholder – extend their claims of governance. ICANN, the World Summit of Information Society, the World Conference on International Telecommunications, the Internet Governance Forum and the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation under the ECOSOC Committee for Science, Technology and Development are a few prominent tracks. As of today, the WSIS process has absorbed various UN special bodies (the ITU, UNESCO, UNCTAD, UNDP are but a few), with the UNESCO instituting a separate study on Internet-related issues. A proposal for a multilateral Committee on Internet-Related Policies remains stillborn.

Amongst these, the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) remains a strong contender for a truly multi-stakeholder process facilitating dialogue on IG. The IGF was set up following the recommendation of the Working Group of Internet Governance (WGIG), constituted after the Geneva phase of the WSIS.

Rationale: Why Have National IG bodies?

The issue of national multi-stakeholder cooperation/collaboration in IG is not new; it has been alive since the early 2000s. The Tunis Agenda, in paragraph 80, encourages the “development of multi-stakeholder processes at the national, regional and international levels to discuss and collaborate on the expansion and diffusion of the Internet as a means to support development efforts to achieve internationally agreed development goals and objectives, including the Millennium Development Goals” (emphasis supplied).

In its June 2005 Report, the Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) emphasizes that “global Internet governance can only be effective if there is coherence with regional, subregional and national-level policies”. Towards this end it recommends that “coordination be established among all stakeholders at the national level and a multi-stakeholder national Internet governance steering committee or similar body be set up” (emphasis supplied). The IGF, whose creation the WGIG recommended, has since been commended for its impact on the proliferation of national IGFs.

The rationale, then, was that multi-stakeholder steering committees at the national level would help to create a cohesive body to coordinate positions on Internet governance. In Reforming Internet Governance, WGIG member Waudo Siganga writes of the Internet Steering Committee of Brazil as a model, highlighting lessons that states (especially developing countries) may learn from CGI.br.

The Brazilian Internet Steering Committee (CGI.br) was set up in 1995 and is responsible, inter alia, for the management of the .br domain, distribution of Internet addresses and administration of metropolitan Internet exchange points. CERT.br ensures network security and extends support to network administrators. Siganga writes that CGI.br is a “well-structured multistakeholder entity, having representation from government and democratically chosen representatives of the business sector, scientific and technological community and an Internet expert”.

Why is CGI.br a model for other states? First, CGI.br exemplifies how countries can structure in an effective manner, a body that is involved in creating awareness about IG issues at the national level. Moreover, the multi-stakeholder nature of CGI.br shows how participation can be harnessed effectively to build capacity across domestic players. This also reflects the multi-stakeholder aspects of Internet governance at the global level, clarifying and implementing the WSIS standards (for instance). Especially in developing countries, where awareness and coordination for Internet governance is lacking at the national level, national IG committees can bridge the gap between awareness and participation. Such awareness can translate into local solutions for local issues, as well as contributing to an informed, cohesive stance at the global level.

Stakeholders: Populating a national IG body

A national IG body – be in steering committee, IGF or other forum – should ideally involve all relevant stakeholders. As noted before, since inception, the Internet has not been subject to exclusive governmental regulation. The World Summit on Information Society recognized this, but negotiations amongst stakeholders resulted in the delegation of roles and responsibilities: the controversial and much-debated paragraph 35 of the Tunis Agenda reads:

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

This position remains endorsed by the WSIS process; the recent WSIS+10 High Level Event endorsed by acclamation the WSIS+10 Vision for WSIS Beyond 2015, which “respect mandates given by Tunis Agenda and respect for the multi-stakeholder principles”. In addition to government, the private sector and civil society, the technical community is identified as a distinct stakeholder group. Academia has also found a voice, as demonstrated by stakeholder-representation at NETmundial 2014.

A study of the Internet Society (ISOC) on Assessing National Internet Governance Arrangements, authored by David Souter, maps IG stakeholders at the global, regional and national levels. At the global level, primary stakeholders include ICANN (not-for-profit, private sector corporation involved in governance and technical coordination of the DNS), the IETF, IAB and W3C (technical standards), governments and civil society organizations, all of which participate with different levels of involvements at the IGF, ICANN, ITU, etc.

At the national/municipal level, the list of stakeholders is as comprehensive. Governmental stakeholders include: (1) relevant Ministries (in India, these are the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, and the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology – the Department of Electronics and Information Technology under the MCIT is particularly relevant), and (2) regulators, statutory and independent (the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, for example). At the national level, these typically seek inputs from other stakeholders while making recommendations to governments, which then enact laws or make policy. In India, for instance, the TRAI conducts consultations prior to making recommendations to the government.

Within the private sector, there may be companies (1) on the supply-side, such as infrastructure networks, telecommunications service companies, Internet Service Providers, search engines, social networks, cybercafés, etc., and (2) on the demand-side, online businesses, advertising/media, financial service providers, etc. who use the Internet. There may also be national registries managing ccTLDs, such as the Registro.br or the National Internet Exchange of India (NIXI). There may also the press and news corporations representing both corporate and public interest under specific circumstances (media ownership and freedom of expression, for distinct examples).

Civil society organisations, including consumer organisations, think-tanks and grassroots organisations, participate at various levels of policy-making in the formal institutional structure, and are crucial in representing users and public interest. The complexity of stakeholders may be seen from Souter’s report, and this enumeration is but a superficial view of the national stakeholder-population.

Processes: Creating effective national IG bodies

National IG bodies – be they steering committees, IGFs, consultative/working groups or other forums – may be limited by formal institutional governmental settings. While limited by the responsibility-gradient in paragraph 35 of the Tunis Agenda, an effective national IG body requires robust multi-stakeholder participation, as Souter notes, in technical governance, infrastructure and public policy issues. Its effectiveness also lies in governmental acquiescence of its expertise and recommendations; in short, in the translation of the IG body’s decisions into policy.

How do these stakeholders interact at the national level? In addition to the Brazilian example (CGI.br), an ISOC study by Souter and Monica Kerretts-Makau, Internet Governance in Kenya: An Assessment, provides a detailed answer. At the technical level, the registry KENIC manages the .ke domain, while the Kenya Computer Incident Response Team Coordination Centre coordinates national responses to incidents and collaborates internationally on cyber-security issues. A specific IPv6 Force to promote Kenya’s transition to IPv6 was also created.

At the infrastructural level, both the government and the private sector play important roles. Directly, ministries and government departments consult with infrastructure providers in creating policy. In India, for instance, the TRAI conducts multi-stakeholder consultations on issues such as telecom tariffs, colocation tariffs for submarine cable stations and mobile towers, etc. The government may also take a lead in creating infrastructure, such as the national optic fibre networks in India and Kenya, as also creating investment opportunities such as liberalizing FDI. At the public policy level, there may exist consultations initiated by government bodies (such as the TRAI or the Law Commission), in which other stakeholders participate.

As one can see, government-initiated consultations by ministries, regulators, law commissions or specially constituted committees. Several countries have also set up national IGFs, which typically involve all major stakeholders in voluntary participation, and form a discussion forum for existing and emerging IG issues. National IGFs have been considered particularly useful to create awareness within the country, and may best address IG issues at the domestic policy level. However, Prof. Mueller writes that what is necessary is a “reliable mechanism reliable mechanisms for consistently feeding the preferences expressed in these forums to actual global policy-making institutions like ICANN, RIRs, WIPO, and WTO which impact distributional outcomes”.

[1] M. Mueller, Ruling the Root: Internet Governance and the Taming of Cyberspace 57 (2002).

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/multi-stakeholder-models-of-internet-governance-within-states-why-who-how

Multi-stakeholder Internet Governance: The Way Ahead

praskrishna — 2014-07-29T07:08:04Z

The Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) in partnership with Software Freedom Law Centre (SFLC.in) is organizing a workshop "Multi-stakeholder Internet Governance: The Way Ahead" on August 6, 2014, 10.30 a.m. to 12.00 p.m., at during the APrIGF event to be held at Crown Plaza, Greater Noida.

Thematic Area of Interest

Enhanced Cooperation & the Multi-stakeholder model

Introduction:
Today, multi-stakeholderism is the catchphrase in Internet governance. With the display of a multi-stakeholder model at NETmundial, controversies and opinions regarding the meaning, substance and benefits of multi-stakeholderism have deepened. As the recent meeting of the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation of the United Nations Commission on Science, Technology and Development demonstrates, questions and concerns regarding meaning of multi-stakeholderism, the

legitimacy and desirability of its processes, and the successes and disappointments of its outcomes now dominate the discussion. At this juncture, clarity and consensus are imperative to determine the future of multi-stakeholderism in Internet governance.

Roles and responsibilities of stakeholders:
The debates surrounding stakeholder-roles in Internet governance began with ¶ 49 of the Geneva Declaration of Principles and ¶ 35 of the Tunis Agenda, which delineated clear roles and responsibilities. It created a ‘contributory’ multi-stakeholder model, where states held sovereign authority over public policy issues, while business and civil society were contributed to ‘important roles’ at the ‘technical and economic fields’ and the ‘community level’, respectively. At the same time, it set forth an agenda for enhanced cooperation.

As the WGEC meeting (April 30-May 2, 2014) demonstrated, there is as yet no consensus on stakeholder-roles. Certain governments remain strongly opposed to equal roles of other stakeholders, emphasizing their lack of accountability and responsibility. Civil society is similarly splintered, with a majority opposing the Tunis Agenda delineation of stakeholder-roles, while others remain dubious of permitting the private sector an equal footing in public policy-making. Still others question the wisdom of seeking a ‘fix’ when ‘nothing is broken’. In this session, we aim to interrogate the benefits and disadvantages of an ‘equal footing’ model, as opposed to a ‘contributory’ model.

Specific Issues of Discussions & Description

Who are the stakeholders? Should a multi-stakeholder model of Internet governance grant all stakeholders ‘equal footing’? Should such ‘equal footing’ be relegated to issues other than substantive public policy-making? On the other hand, is a ‘contributory’ model safer? Are states better equipped to represent interests inclusively? How can governments and businesses best perform their role as trustees of the public interest of interest users?

In view of the formidable consolidation by the private sector at NETmundial, while civil society splintered on issues of intellectual property and intermediary liability, can a ‘participative model’ better prevent detrimental outcomes?

Multi-stakeholderism beyond NETmundial:
As important as the meaning of multi-stakeholderism is the process of its execution. The need to fashion safe and sustainable processes for multi-stakeholder participation was highlighted by the successes and failures of private sector and civil society at NETmundial. From the ICANN and IGF models to stakeholder coalitions, premeeting coordination and governmental policy participation, this session shall expand on the quest for effective and beneficial stakeholder participation and representation in both the ‘equal footing’ and ‘contributory’ models, with a focus on enhancing developing country participation.

Particularly, lessons that Internet governance may draw from multi-stakeholder governance processes across areas shall be discussed. For instance, deliberative democracy, enterprise associations or unions (such as in the International Labour Organisation) may all be of value. Similarly, multi-stakeholder processes in environmental and corporate governance and the development sector may benefit Internet governance. In determining the value of these processes to Internet governance, public interest of users is an important consideration. The capability and initiative of governments to implement an effective bottom-up model of Internet governance is equally important and will be considered.

We aim to conduct a 90-minute workshop (2 panels of 45 minutes each), inclusive of 15-30 minutes in all for Q&A from audience, panellists and moderators.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/events/multi-stakeholder-internet-governance-the-way-ahead

Multi-Stakeholder Consultation on ‘Internet Rights, Accessibility, Regulation & Ethics’

praskrishna — 2012-07-25T10:22:48Z

Digital Empowerment Foundation, Association for Progressive Communications, Department of Information Technology and National Internet Exchange of India came together to organize an event on "Internet Rights, Accessibility, Regulation & Ethics". This was held at Mirza Ghalib Hall, SCOPE Complex, New Delhi from 9.00 a.m. to 2.30 p.m. on May 3, 2012. Pranesh Prakash was a speaker.

The core aim of the dedicated half-day consultation programme was to discuss, deliberate and debate over the internet related concerns, covering the larger theme of internet and outlining India’s progress towards ‘Internet Access for All’, and specific areas of concern – right to information, internet & information access, internet governance, Internet regulation, content specifications, cyber law, and appropriate policy framework.

The consultation was an effort to encourage stakeholders to adopt relevant, appropriate and time bound measures to accelerate the availability, affordability and accessibility of the internet and address issues around it.*

Video

External Links

*See the original info published at Digital Empowerment Foundation, Multi-Stakeholder Consultation on ‘Internet Rights, Accessibility, Regulation & Ethics’ : Digital Empowerment Foundation, http://bit.ly/OGyYeg, last accessed on June 29, 2012.
Click here for the Event Agenda
See the video on YouTube

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/internet-rights-accessibility-regulation-ethics

Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group Analysis

jyoti — 2016-04-12T10:02:31Z

This analysis has been done to see the trend in the selection and rotation of the members of the Multistakeholder advisory group (MAG) in the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). The MAG has been functional for nine years from 2006-2015. The analysis is based on data procured, collated and organised by Pranesh Prakash and Jyoti Panday. Shambhavi Singh, Law Student, NLU Delhi who was interning with CIS at the time also assisted with the organisation and analysis of the data.

The researcher has collected the data from the lists of members available in the public domain from 2010-2015. The lists prior to 2010 have been procured by the Centre for Internet and society from the UN Secretariat of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF).

This research is based solely upon the members and the nature of their stake holding has been analysed in the light of MAG terms of reference. No data has been made available regarding the nomination process and the criteria on which a particular member has been re-elected to the MAG (The IGF Secretariat does not share this data).

According to the analysis, in these six years, the MAG has had around 182 members from various stakeholder groups.

We have divided it into five stakeholder groups, Government, Civil Society, Industry, Technical Community and Academia. Any overlap between two or more of these groups has also been taken into account, for example- A member of the Internet Society (ISOC) being both in the Civil Society and Technical Community.

According to the MAG Terms of Reference[1], it is the prerogative of the UN Secretary General to select MAG Members. The general policy is that the MAG members are appointed for a period of one year, which is automatically renewed for 2 more years consecutively depending on their engagement in MAG activities.

There is also a policy of rotating off 1/3^rd members of MAG every year for diversity and taking new viewpoints in consideration. There is also an exceptional circumstance where a person might continue beyond three years in case there is a lack of candidates fitting the desired area.

However, it seems like the exception has become the norm as a whopping number of members have continued beyond 3 years, ranging from 4 years up to as long as 8 years, this figure rounds up to around 49. No doubt some of them are exceptional talents and difficult to replace. However, the lack of transparency in the nomination system makes it difficult to determine the basis on which these people continued beyond the usual term.

S. No.	Stakeholder	Number of years	Total Members continuing beyond 3 years
1	Civil Society	8, 6, 6, 4, 4,	5
2	Government/Industry	4, 5	2
3	Technical community/ Civil society	8, 8, 8, 6, 6, 4, 4, 4, 4,4	10
4	Industry/ Civil society	8, 6,	2
5	Industry	8, 7, 7, 6, 6, 4,	6
6	Industry/Tech Community/ Civil Society	8,	1
7	Government	7, 7, 7, 6, 6, 6, 6, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4,	19
8	Academia	6, 6, 5,	3
9	Industry/ Tech community	6,	1

The stakeholders that have continued beyond 8 years have around 39% members from Government and related agencies. The next being Technical Community/Civil Society with around 20% representation, followed by Industry at 12%, 10% from the Civil Society, 6% from Academia, 4% from Government/Industry, 4% from Industry/Civil Society and 2% each from Industry/Technical Community and Industry/Technical Community/Civil Society respectively.

Table with overlapping interests merged

S. No.	Stakeholder	Total Members continuing beyond 3 years
1	Civil Society	7 + 9 + 1+1 = 18
2	Government	19
3	Tech Community	9 + 1 + 1+1 = 12
4	Industry	6 + 2 + 1 + 1+2 = 13
5	Academia	3

When the overlap is grouped separately, as in if a Technical Community/Civil Society person is placed both in Technical Community and Civil Society groups individually, then the representation of stakeholder representation is as follows(approximate values)-

Government- 29%

Civil Society- 28%

Industry- 20%

Technical Community-17%

Academia-5%

This clearly shows us that stakeholders from academia generally did not stay on MAG beyond 3 years. Even when all members that have ever been on MAG are taken into consideration, only around 8% representation has been from the academic community. This needs to be taken into account when new MAG members are selected in 2016.

The researcher has also looked at the MAG Representation based on gender and UN Regional Groups. The results of the analysis were as follows-

The ratio of male members is to female members is approximately 16:9 in the MAG and the approximate value in percentage being 64% and 36% respectively.

Now coming to the UN Regional Groups, the results that the analysis yielded were as follows-

The Western European and Others Group (WEOG) has the highest representation in MAG, a large number of members being from Switzerland, USA and UK. This is followed by the Asia Pacific Group which has 20% representation. The third largest is the African group with 19% representation followed by Latin American and Caribbean Group (GRULAC) and Eastern European Group with 13% and 12% representation respectively.

The representation of developed, developing and Least Developed Countries is as follows-

Developed countries have approximately 42% representation, developing countries having 53% and LDCs having a mere 5% representation. There should be some effort to strive for better LDC representation as they are the most backward when it comes to Global ICT Penetration. [2]

[1] Intgovforum.org, 'MAG Terms Of Reference' (2015) <http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/175-igf-2015/2041-mag-terms-of-reference> accessed 13 July 2015.

[2] ICT Facts And Figures (1st edn, International Telecommunication Union 2015) <http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Documents/facts/ICTFactsFigures2015.pdf> accessed 11 July 2015.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/mag-analysis