We are anonymous, we are legion

IEEE-SA InDITA Conference 2018

Admin — 2018-08-01T23:04:18Z

Gurshabad Grover participated in the IEEE-SA InDITA Conference 2018 organized by IEEE Standards Association held IIIT-Bangalore on July 10 and 11, 2018.

Gurshabad gave a brief presentation on how we could apply or reject 'Trust Through Technology' principles in the design of public biometric authentication. The agenda for the event can be accessed here. More details on event website here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/ieee-sa-indita-conference-2018

IDEX Impact Assessment Workshop

praskrishna — 2013-11-14T05:48:51Z

The Centre for Internet and Society is hosting a workshop organised by IDEX at its office in Bangalore on Saturday, November 16, 2013 from 11.30 a.m. to 6.30 p.m.

The IDEX Impact Assessment Workshop will provide a comprehensive and interactive intro and overview of all facets of Impact Assessment, with a specific focus on the Social Enterprise sector. The workshop will be conducted by Andy Bhanot of WeStat (bio below) and will be divided into two portions:

11.30 - 14.30: Impact Assessment Crash Course (Intro to IA, Types of IA, Designing IA, etc)

15.30 - 18.30: Interactive Group Projects + Presentations (Applying IA to Specific Sectors / Projects)*

*The focus of this group work will be based upon projects that the IDEX fellows have been working on over the past few months, across various sectors (Water, Livelihoods, Youth, etc)

Andy Bhanot, MBA

Andy Bhanot is a communications and marketing research expert with extensive experience in both the private and development sectors. Mr. Bhanot's areas of expertise include market research analysis and strategy formulation, business development, and leadership and team management.

Mr. Bhanot is an expert in conducting knowledge, attitude, and practice surveys, formative research, pretesting studies, and monitoring and impact evaluation studies. These studies have ranged from HIV/AIDS prevention and care, condom promotion, maternal and child health and governance to gender empowerment, water and environmental sanitation, education, and disaster risk reduction.

He is well versed in both quantitative and qualitative research methods having directed large national surveys, telephonic interviews, rapid feedback studies, focus group discussions, in-depth and key informant interviews, observations, participatory rural appraisals, and ethnographic immersions with urban and rural audiences. Studies included many difficult-to-reach populations: commercial sex workers, men having sex with men, hijras/ transgenders, injecting drug users, truck drivers, migrant workers, gate keepers in the commercial sex trade, employers of bonded labourers, and people living with HIV/AIDS.

Mr. Bhanot has conducted numerous usage and attitude studies, brand health trackers, and concept and new product tests. He also has expertise in segmentation and positioning studies, advertising and media studies, customer satisfaction studies, and distribution studies for a wide range of clients (Pfizer, Colgate, Unilever, Coca-Cola, Barclays Bank, Shell, BAT, Wrigley's, Glaxo Smithkline, Cadburys, Nestle, Delmonte, East Africa Breweries, and Tetra Pac).

Mr. Bhanot has worked and travelled extensively across India, Bangladesh, Nepal, Afghanistan, Myanmar, Cambodia, Vietnam, Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Djibouti, Somaliland, and South Africa. He has presented and published research papers, and has contributed marketing research case studies to books by prominent authors.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/events/idex-impact-assessment-workshop

Identity of the Aadhaar Act: Supreme Court and the Money Bill Question

Vanya Rakesh and Sumandro Chattapadhyay — 2016-05-09T11:52:44Z

A writ petition has been filed by former Union minister Jairam Ramesh on April 6 challenging the constitutionality and legality of the treatment of this Act as a money bill. The Supreme Court heard the matter on April 25 and invited the Union government to present its view. It is our view that the Supreme Court can not only review the Lok Sabha speaker’s decision, but should also ask the government to draft the Aadhaar Bill again, this time with greater parliamentary and public deliberation. Vanya Rakesh and Sumandro Chattapadhyay wrote this article on The Wire.

Published by and cross-posted from The Wire.

The Aadhaar Act 2016, passed in the Lok Sabha on March 16, 2016, faced opposition ever since it was tabled in parliament. In particular, the move to introduce it as a money bill has been vehemently challenged on grounds of this being an attempt to bypass the Rajya Sabha completely. A writ petition has been filed by former Union minister Jairam Ramesh on April 6 challenging the constitutionality and legality of the treatment of this Act as a money bill. The Supreme Court heard the matter on April 25 and invited the Union government to present its view.

It is our view that the Supreme Court can not only review the Lok Sabha speaker’s decision, but should also ask the government to draft the Aadhaar Bill again, this time with greater parliamentary and public deliberation.

The money bill question

M.R. Madhavan has argued that the Aadhaar Act contains matters other than “only” those incidental to expenditure from the consolidated fund, as it establishes a biometrics-based unique identification number for beneficiaries of government services and benefits, but also allows the number to be used for other purposes beyond service delivery. While Pratap Bhanu Mehta calls this a subversion of “the spirit of the constitution”, P.D.T. Achary, former secretary general of the Lok Sabha, expressed concern about the attempts to pass off financial bills like Aadhaar as money bills as a means to circumvent and erode the supervisory role of the Rajya Sabha. Arvind Datar has further emphasised that when the primary purpose of a bill is not governed by Article 110(1), then certifying it as a money bill is an unconstitutional act.

Article 110(1) of the Constitution identifies a bill as a money bill if it contains “only” provisions dealing with the following matters, or those incidental to them:

imposition and regulation of any tax,
financial obligations undertaken by Indian Government,
payment into or withdrawal from the Consolidated Fund of India (CFI) or Contingent Fund of India,
appropriation of money and expenditure charged on the CFI or receipt, and
custody, issue or audit of money into CFI or public account of India.

However, the link of the Act with the Consolidated Fund of India is rather tenuous, since it depends on the Union or state governments declaring a certain subsidy to be available upon verification of the Aadhaar number. The objectives and validity of the Act would not actually change if the Aadhaar number no longer was directly connected to the delivery of services. The use of the word “if” in section 7 explicitly leaves scope for a situation where the government does not declare an Aadhaar verification as necessary for accessing a subsidy. In such a scenario, the Act will still be valid but without any formal connection with any charges on the Consolidated Fund of India.

A case of procedural irregularity?

The constitution of India borrows the idea of providing the speaker with the authority to certify a bill as money bill from British law, but operationalises it differently. In the UK, though the speaker’s certificate on a money bill is conclusive for all purposes under section 3 of the Parliament Act 1911, the speaker is required to consult two senior members, usually one from either side of the house, appointed by the committee from amongst those senior MPs who chair general committees. In India, the speaker makes the decision on her own.

Although article 110 (3) of the Indian constitution states that the decision of the speaker of the Lok Sabha shall be final in case a question arises regarding whether a bill is a money bill or not, this does not restrict the Supreme Court from entertaining and hearing a petition contesting the speaker’s decision. As the Aadhaar Act was introduced in the Lok Sabha as a money bill even though it does not meet the necessary criteria for such a classification, this treatment of the bill may be considered as an instance of procedural irregularity.

There is ample jurisprudence on what happens when the Supreme Court’s power of judicial review comes up against Article 122 – which states that the validity of any proceeding in the parliament can (only) be called into question on the grounds of procedural irregularities. In the crucial judgment of Raja Ram Pal vs Hon’ble Speaker, Lok Sabha and Others (2007), the court evaluated the scope of judicial review and observed that although parliament is supreme, unlike Britain, proceedings which are found to suffer from substantive illegality or unconstitutionality, cannot be held protected from judicial scrutiny by article 122, as opposed to mere irregularity. Deciding upon the scope for judicial intervention in respect of exercise of power by the speaker, in Kihoto Hollohan vs Zachillhu and Ors. (1992), the Supreme Court held that though the speaker of the house holds a pivotal position in a parliamentary democracy, the decision of the speaker (while adjudicating on disputed disqualification) is subject to judicial review that may look into the correctness of the decision.

Several past decisions of the Supreme Court discuss how the tests of legality and constitutionality help decide whether parliamentary proceedings are immune from judicial review or not. In Ramdas Athawale vs Union of India (2010), the case of Keshav Singh vs Speaker, Legislative Assembly (1964) was referred to, in which the judges had unequivocally upheld the judiciary’s power to scrutinise the actions of the speaker and the houses. It was observed that if the parliamentary procedure is illegal and unconstitutional, it would be open to scrutiny in a court of law and could be a ground for interference by courts under Article 32, though the immunity from judicial interference under this article is confined to matters of irregularity of procedure. These observations were reiterated in Mohd. Saeed Siddiqui vs State of Uttar Pradesh (2014) and Yogendra Kumar Jaiswal vs State of Bihar (2016).

Thus, the decision of the Lok Sabha speaker to pass and certify a bill as a money bill is definitely not immune from judicial review. Additionally, the Supreme Court has the power to issue directions, orders or writs for enforcement of rights under Article 32 of the constitution, therefore, allowing the judiciary to decide upon the manner of introducing the Aadhaar Act in parliament.

National implications demand public deliberation

As the provisions of the Aadhaar Act have far reaching implications for the fundamental and constitutional rights of Indian citizens, the Supreme Court should look into the matter of its identification and treatment as a money bill and whether such decisions lead to the thwarting of legislative and procedural justice.

The Supreme Court may also take this opportunity to reflect on the very decision making process for classification of bills in general. As Smarika Kumar argues, experience with the Aadhaar Act reveals a structural concern regarding this classification process, which may have substantial implications in terms of undermining public and parliamentary deliberative processes. This “trend,” as Arvind Datar notes, of limiting legislative discussions and decisions of national importance within the space of the Lok Sabha must be swiftly curtailed.

Apart from deciding upon the legality of the nature of the bill, it is vital that the apex court ask the government to categorically respond to the concerns red-flagged by the Standing Committee on Finance, which had taken great exception to the continued collection of data and issuance of Aadhaar numbers in its report, and to the recommendations passed in the Rajya Sabha recently. Further, the repeated violation of the Supreme Court’s interim orders – that the Aadhaar number cannot be made mandatory for availing benefits and services – in contexts ranging from marriages to the guaranteed work programme should also be addressed and responses sought from the Union government.

Evidently, the substantial implications of the Aadhaar Act for national security and fundamental rights of citizens, primarily privacy and data security, make it imperative to conduct a duly balanced public deliberation process, both within and outside the houses of parliament, before enacting such a legislation.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/identity-of-the-aadhaar-act-supreme-court-and-the-money-bill-question

Identity and Databases

praskrishna — 2014-08-07T08:32:16Z

The Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) and the Say No to UID Campaign invite you to a discussion identity, databases and facilitating technologies that explores the use of personal identifiers across databases and the potential violations of privacy on August 9, 2014 (10.30 a.m. to 1.00 p.m.) at the CIS office in Bangalore.

The discussions will specifically focus on the UID and the NPR and seek to answer:

What information is being collected and databased by each scheme?
What type of technology is needed to collect and database this information?
How and where is this information being databased?
What are the potential risks to the databasing of this information?
Are there legal safeguards protecting against misuse of this information, and if not, what safeguards are needed?
Is there a difference between the state collecting, storing, and using this information and a private entity?

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/events/identity-and-databases

Identities Research

praskrishna — 2017-04-12T13:54:53Z

Caribou Digital organized an identity research event in Bengaluru at TERI on April 6, 2017. A total of 16 participants attended the event. Sunil Abraham and Pranesh Prakash represented CIS at the event.

The Identities research project explores user experiences of identity technology, brought to you by Caribou Digital, Omidyar Network and the International Institute of Information Technology, Bangalore (IIITB). The need for user-centered research in “digital identity” arose out of concerns around top-down identity systems and lack of insights on how these are being understood and used, particularly amongst lower income populations. For more information on the event and viewing the episode videos click here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/identities-research

Identifying Aspects of Privacy in Islamic Law

Vidushi Marda and Bhairav Acharya — 2015-01-01T14:04:44Z

This white paper seeks to identify aspects of privacy in Islamic Law and demonstrate that the notion of privacy was recognized and protected in traditional Islamic law.

I. Introduction

The nuances of privacy have been deliberated by numerous scholars till date, without arriving at a definite answer. It has been perceived as a right to be left alone, as mere secrecy, as the right to a legitimate area of seclusion and solitude. Privacy is a particularly nebulous concept, with a tendency of resting on intuitionist arguments. However, finding refuge in intuitionist arguments has not lent to a clear understanding of the term itself. This presents a peculiar predicament; while privacy is demanded, nobody seems to have a clear understanding of what it truly means. Daniel Solove opines that privacy is a concept in disarray, it is about everything and hence it seems to be about nothing. Solove finds agreement in a variety of literature, where privacy has been described as a "chameleon-like word", a term suffering from an "embarrassment of meanings", a "powerful rhetorical battle cry".

Traditional notions such as bodily privacy, privacy within one's home, or privacy resulting out of private property are received with far less scepticism than more recent aspects of privacy. With the burgeoning increase in information exchange, the ambit of privacy concerns is widened but not always understood. While earlier notions of privacy confined themselves to physical intrusions, it is now possible to invade a person's privacy without physically intruding on their space. As capabilities to intrude on privacy increase, the demand for respecting privacy grows stronger. In their historic article, Warren and Brandeis referred to privacy as an incorporeal notion, referring to cases of defamation, proprietary harms, contractual harms, breach of confidence to conclude that all such cases belonged to an umbrella principle of the right to privacy.

I.II Aspects of Privacy

William Prosser, a torts scholar, in 1860 attempted to classify privacy comprehensively. He contemplated four kinds of activities as impinging on a person's privacy. They were
1. Intrusion upon the plaintiff's seclusion or solitude, or into his private affairs.
2. Public disclosure of embarrassing private facts about the plaintiff.
3. Publicity which places the plaintiff in a false light in the public eye.
4. Appropriation, for the defendant's advantage, of the plaintiff's name or likeness.
While this classification lent some structure to the understanding of privacy, it restricted itself to only tort law.

A wider taxonomy was offered by Daniel Solove, imbibing concerns of digital privacy and information technology. Focussing on activities that invade privacy, Solove argued that information collection, aggregation of information, dissemination of such aggregated information and invasion into people's private affairs are the aspects integral to understanding the privacy concerns of a data subject.

In its policy paper on privacy in India, the Data Security Council of India (DSCI) recognised privacy issues in the context of e-commerce, transactional privacy, cyber crime, national security, and cross border data flows. Similarly the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) in 2011 focussed on understanding privacy in the context of data protection and surveillance. Subsequently, in 2012, the Planning Commission of India set up the A.P. Shah Committee to look into issues of data protection. This Committee classified the dimensions of privacy into four main categories; interception and access, audio and video recording, access and use of personal identifiers, and bodily and genetic material.

The classification of privacy for the purpose of this paper is under the heads of bodily privacy, informational and communications privacy, and territorial and locational privacy. Bodily privacy stems from the notion of personal autonomy and inviolate personality. Battery, rape, voyeurism are all examples of the recognition of the need to protect the privacy of one's body. Communications and informational privacy refers to the protection of sensitive personal information, specific communications and private conversations. Interception of messages, spying, hacking or tapping phone lines are all activities that impinge on privacy under this head. India's ambitious biometric project, Aadhar, has brought to the fore concerns surrounding personal information. Territorial privacy is developed from the notion of private property, the tort of trespass being ample recognition of the same.

I.III Is India a Private Nation?

In October, 2010, the government published an approach paper for legislation on privacy. In explaining the need for privacy legislation in India, the paper states,

"India is not a particularly private nation. Personal information is often shared freely and without thinking twice. Public life is organized without much thought to safeguarding personal data. In fact, the public dissemination of personal information has over time, become a way of demonstrating the transparent functioning of the government."

The notion of privacy being a foreign construct carves the argument that legislation on privacy would mean subjecting India to an alien cultural value. However, this ignores the possibility of privacy being culturally subjective. Cultures have exhibited different measurements by which they measure public and private realms. This paper aims to demonstrate that while the word "privacy" does not find explicit reference in traditional Indian law, the essence of privacy as we understand it today has existed in traditional Indian culture, specifically Indian Islamic culture, pre-dating colonialism in India and modernity in India's legal system.

I.IV Displacement of traditional Indian Law

Contemporary Indian law functions within a rubric that was constructed after the "expropriation" of traditional law. India's colonial legacy rendered the displacement of traditional Indian law with a unified modern legal system abounding in European ideas of modernity and legal systems, leaving it is a state of "fractured modernity". Before the British rule, Indians were governed by their personal laws and these laws did not aim to unify the nation in ways that Western legal systems did.. The decision to establish a modern legal system stemmed from the desire to administer the law as a function of the state, which would have been impractical at best in the absence of a unified legal system.

Edward Said eloquently states that the colonial experience does not end when the last European flag comes down or when the last white policeman leaves. One cannot help but agree with Said, as the understanding of law in contemporary India is constructed on the principles of the English common law and on ideas of a modern legal system. While the word "privacy" does not arise in traditional law, this paper argues that the notions of privacy as we perceive it today did exist hitherto the modernization of India's legal system.

I.V Structure of the paper

While Part I has laid down the foundation of this paper and the arguments it endeavours to make, Part II explains the sources of Islamic law and attempts at locating privacy in them. It also explains certain pervasive concepts that will enhance an understanding of privacy in Islamic law. This paper restricts itself to Sunni Islamic law. Part III gives an indication of privacy rights in India's neighbouring Islamic countries (both predominantly Sunni), Pakistan and Bangladesh; and highlights the legal framework for privacy in these countries.

II. Privacy in Islamic Law

II.I Sources of Islamic Law

Before locating aspects of privacy in Islamic Law, an understanding of its structure and sources will be helpful. Islamic Law is composed of Shariah, and fiqh. Shariah indicates the path a faithful Muslim must undertake to attain guidance in the present world and deliverance to the next. Fiqh, the jurisprudence of Islam, refers to the rational understanding of Shariah and human reasoning to appreciate the practical implications of Islam. While Shariah is divine revelation, fiqh is the human inference of Shariah.

The principle tenet of Islam is unwavering obedience to the teachings of God. According to Muslim belief, the Quran is the divine communication from Allah to the Prophet of Islam. It is the foremost record of the word of God, and for this reason is considered the apex source of Islamic law. It is in the Quran that basic norms of Shariah are found, and it embodies the exact words of God as was revealed to the Prophet over a period of 23 years. Fiqh, or the understanding of Shariah, also finds its origins in the holy Quran.

The Sunnah or Prophetic traditions are the ingredients for the model behaviour of a Muslim as demonstrated by the Prophet. It is a "way, course, rule, mode, or manner, of acting or conduct of life." The Sunnah were compiled through the communications of Prophet Muhammad in the form of Hadiths which are communications, stories or conversations; and may be religious or secular; historical or recent. The narrators of the Hadith are known as "isnad" who convey the "matn" or the substance of the Prophet's actions or words as narrated through oral communications through the years. Due to its very nature, the accuracy of the Sunnah came under considerable scrutiny, with concerns as to its possible fabrication and dilution. However, with a well devised system of recording and verifying sources, the Sunnah accompanies the imperative source of Islamic law, the Quran.

The other sources of Islam are found in human reasoning, or ijtihad. Ijtihad assumes a variety of secondary sources such as analogical reasoning (Qiyas), unanimous consensus (Ijma), decisions in favour of public interest (isthihsan), and presumption of continuity (istishab).
Ijtihad entails a resilient effort; an exertion in interpreting the primary sources in order to understand Shariah, to infer the law which is not explicit or evident. The legitimacy of Ijma is found in the Prophetic tradition, which states that the followers of Islam would never agree on an error, and will never unite on misguidance.

The Quran and Sunnah lie at the pinnacle of Islamic jurisprudence and their authoritativeness lends a ready inference of legal principles derived from them. In exploring the concept of Privacy in Islamic Law, this paper will focus mainly on the material available in the Quran and Sunnah.

II.II The Public and Private in Islam

According to the doctrine of Shariah, every aspect of life is deemed to be private unless shown otherwise. The public sphere is that in which governmental authority operates, making it both transparent and open to scrutiny and observation. Since its inception, Islam has considered the idea of governance with reasonable scepticism, ascribing to the view that there is no concept of a human ruler beyond reproach. This perhaps gave impetus to the idea of a private sphere as one that is inhabited exclusively by an individual and the divine, excluding any interference of the State; except with permission from religious law. In Islamic belief, a pious individual had submitted himself to God, and not the worldly State. Hence, all aspects of his life will align with the tenets of Islamic law and in pursuance with the will of God. Any failure to perform religious duties on the part of a Muslim is beyond the scope of another; it is only a consideration between him and the divine. It is believed that the Prophet said, "Those, who acknowledge God in words, and not at heart, do not find fault with their fellow Muslims. The wrongdoing of those who do so become the subject of God's scrutiny, and when God looks into someone's wrongdoing then all shall be truly exposed" The individual is bestowed with complete freedom of action in the private sphere, subject only to the will of the divine. To govern another is wholly beyond the capacity of any individual, and this forms a pervasive theme in Islamic jurisprudence.

Islamic Law recognizes that it is inevitable for every society to impose certain requirements on individuals both by the law and by societal norms. In respect of a public domain, Islam prescribes an amalgam of requirements of a Muslim community and the teachings of Islam. While committing sins in private is beyond the scope of public or governmental scrutiny, committing a sin in public amounts to a crime, meriting worldly punishment.

Islamic law provides for an individual's obligations to the divine at all times, and to the state in matters within the public domain. This is the most striking difference between Islamic law and modern law, as the function of enforcement of the law and punishment are forfeited to the state in a modern legal system, by virtue of the social contract. However, in Islamic societies, the concept of social contract does not exist. Instead, an individual's obligations lie to the state only if acts meriting worldly punishment occur in the public sphere. It is this distinction in the obligations of individuals that leads to conflicts between the application of Islamic law and modern law.

The Quran is replete with rules for all believers to ordain good and forbid evil (al-amrbi al-Ma'rufwa al-nahy 'an al-munkar'). This divine injunction is a restriction of freedom in the private sphere. The notion of privacy in the public sphere was tested through the office of the muhtasib, or compliance officer. These officers were appointed to ensure that the quality of life is preserved in Islamic societies. Personal or private matters which were visible in the public realm were liable to scrutiny from the muhtasib as well. However, this does not extend to matters such as surveillance and spying even on the authority of the state. The Prophet, according to the hadith of Amir Mu'awiyah remarked, " If you try to find out the secrets of the people, then you will definitely spoil them or at least you will bring them to the verge of ruin." In fact, modern jurists admonish the idea of surveillance as "exactly what Islam has called as the root cause of mischief in politics."

II.III. Privacy in Islamic Law

Bodily Privacy

The sanctity of one's bodily privacy is well recognised in Islamic Law. The Quran (24:58) demarcates certain periods in a day which are times of privacy for an individual, and indicates the need for prior permission before one may enter the private sphere of another. These periods are before the prayer at dawn, during the afternoon where one rests, and after the night prayer. This verse also calls upon children who have not yet reached the age of puberty to get accustomed to asking for permission before entering rooms apart from their own.

As far as bodily seizure of individuals accused of crimes goes, the Traditions indicate a general disinclination towards pre-adjudication restraint of individuals. The very occurrence of it appears to be a cause of discomfort as recorded in the Traditions. One of the Prophet's closest companions, Umar, is believed to have encourages officials to speed up adjudication processes so that the accused could not be deprived of the comfort of their homes and families.

bodily privacy and modesty

Although the Quran stipulates gender equality, the norms of bodily privacy and modesty applicable to men are far less rigorous than the rules of modesty that apply to women. While staring is not contemplated as a crime in modern jurisdictions, the Quran directs "believing men to lower their gaze and be modest." At the same time, it directs women to adhere to strict rules of clothing and conduct, with directions on how to conduct oneself both in private as well as public. Interestingly, with the use of full-body scanners at airports around the world, the bodily privacy of Muslims came to the forefront with several Muslim scholars opining that such use of scanners was in direct violation of the tenets of Islam. According to the Quran, the modesty of a Muslim woman is an indication of her faith.

Communication and Informational Privacy

Privacy is, in many ways, inextricably linked to the notions of personal autonomy, and inviolate personality. Privacy in matters apart from those concerned with proprietary interests was only developed as a legal idea around the ninth century, although the Quran made ample references to it. Whilst the term "privacy" is not directly alluded to in the Quran, it contains verses emphasizing the importance of respecting personal autonomy. The Quran (49:12) rebukes those who wish to pry into matters which do not concern them, or harbour suspicions in respect of others, conceding that some suspicions can even be considered crimes. This implies an injunction against investigation; which complements the prohibition of circulation of information pertaining to an individual's private sphere (24:19). According to this verse, publication of immorality is desirous of punishment. A reasonable conclusion from the reading of these verses is that the Quran mandates respect for the private sphere, guaranteeing that a faithful believer will not violate it. The Prophet is reported to have said that non interference of individuals in matters that do not concern them is a sign of their good faith. Interestingly, the injunction against unwarranted search is for all members of a Muslim community, not just followers of Islam. An extension of the concept of informational privacy is the privacy of one's opinion, which is believed to be beyond reproach regardless of its contents. Deeds in the public sphere can be subject to worldly punishment, but thoughts and opinions everywhere, are not subject to it.

The Sunnah have also emphasized on privacy in communications. The Prophet once said, "He, who looks into a letter belonging to his brother, looks into the Hellfire" , indicating that private communications shall enjoy their privacy even in the public domain. This is evident from another saying of the Prophet,"Private encounters result in entrustment", which entails a restriction on communications arising out of private meetings.

Territorial Privacy

Domestic privacy is considered an important facet of Islamic life and this idea pervades different aspects of Shariah. Privacy in regard to proprietary interests was in fact the first legal conception of privacy recognised by Muslim jurists. The Quran (24:27-8) forbids entering another's house in lieu of permission to do the same. It seeks to ensure that a person visiting another's house is welcome in that house; reminding individuals of their rights during such visits. Further, the Quran (2:189) envisions visits made to other's houses only through the front door, indicating respect and transparency in visiting another's dwelling place. Muslim scholars are of the opinion that such rules were laid down in order to safeguard one's private sphere; to allow people to modify their behaviour to accommodate a visitor in a private domain. Clarifying the reasons for such rules, a jurist offered the following explanation, "The first greeting is for the residents to hear the visitor, the second is for the residents to be cautious( fa-ya khudhu hidhrahum),and the third is for them to either welcome the visitor or send him away."

Privacy in the domestic sphere extends to both physical privacy as well as intangible privacy. The Prophet opined that if one's gaze has entered into a private home before his body does, permission to enter the home would be redundant. This follows from the idea that if a person curiously peeps into another's home, it is equivalent to him entering it himself. The right to privacy is extended to absolve the home owner of any guilt in the event of attack on the intruder. Curiously, the right to privacy within one's home is extended to privacy in respect of sinful behaviour within his private sphere; the accountability of a Muslim to his fellow humans is only to be discerned in respect of his public actions. This is illustrated by an interesting story in the Hadith of Umar ibn al-Khattab. Khattab climbed the wall of a house on the suspicion of wine being consumed within the premises. On his suspicion being confirmed, he chided them for their conduct. They then reminded him that while he pointed out their sins, he himself was guilty of three sins; spying on them, failing to greet them and also not approaching their house through the front door. He agreed with them and walked away.

The rationale behind recognising privacy in the domestic sphere is not just illegal intrusion into one's physical space; it is also intrusion into matters of sensitivity which widens the scope for privacy in Islamic Law.

III Privacy in Shariah Based States

Locating aspects of privacy is Shariah-based states is particularly challenging due to the duality of obligations that exists in their legal framework. While Islamic law focuses on obligations of individuals to the divine in all affairs and the state only in public matters, legal obligations in modern states are understood vis-à-vis the state only. The incorporation of Islam into these modern legal systems represents the attempt at reconciling two distinct sources of law. This Part will consider the legal frameworks for privacy in Pakistan and Bangladesh.

III.I Pakistan

Islamic law has had a profound impact on the legal system of Pakistan. This Islamic Republic integrates Shariah law into its common law system, as is evident from Article 227(1) of the 1973 Constitution of Pakistan ("the 1973 Constitution"). It reads, " All existing laws shall be brought in conformity with the Injunctions of Islam as laid down in the Holy Quran and Sunnah, in this Part referred to as the Injunctions of Islam, and no law shall be enacted which is repugnant to such injunction". In addition to the Constitutional safeguards, General Zia-ul-Haq, between 1977 and 1988 provided great impetus to Pakistan's process of incorporating Islam into its common law system through the establishment of appellate religious courts and also enactment of the Hudood criminal law, which was consequently criticized for being discriminatory and arbitrary.

Constitutional Provisions

Enshrined in the 1973 Constitution is the fundamental right of persons not to be subject to any action detrimental to the life, liberty, body, reputation or property. While referring to the rights of individuals, Article 4(1) lays down, "To enjoy the protection of law and to be treated in accordance with law in the inalienable right of every citizen. Wherever he may be, and of every other person for the time being within Pakistan." While aspects of privacy can be read into this Article quite emphatically, the 1973 Constitution explicitly recognises the right to privacy, dignity and the inviolability of persons in Article 14(1),"The dignity of man, subject to law, the privacy of home, shall be inviolable". The sanctity of these rights is vigorously upheld as laws inconsistent with fundamental rights are declared to be void to the extent of their inconsistency.

Bodily Privacy

The 1973 Constitution recognises the fundamental right of persons not to be subject to any action detrimental to the life, liberty, body, reputation or property. The Pakistan Penal Code (Act XLV of 1860) refers to the protection of privacy of women in Section 509, upholding the modesty of women.

Communications and Informational Privacy

The Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-organisation) Act 1996 enables investigating authorities under the Act to take cognizance of illegalities in communications. These authorities submit their reports to the courts, ensuring the accountability of such events, as well as legitimising search and seizure in pursuance of intercepted communications. The Act also makes arrangements for authorised interception of communications in cases of national security, although the wide and sweeping powers bestowed under this Section are a cause for concern. Moreover, any person causing annoyance to another through a telephone is liable to criminal punishment under the Telegraph Act, 1885.

Medicaland Financial information is recognised as a unit of privacy in the legal system of Pakistan. The delicate balance between transparency of government action and extent of privacy of information is struck in the Freedom of Information Ordinance, which exempts divulging information regarding personal privacy of individuals, private documents and financial privacy.

As far as digital privacy is concerned, the law in Pakistan is still at a nascent stage. In 2000, Pakistan implemented the National Information Technology Policy and Action Plan, which provided for confidentiality of transactional information. In 2002, an Electronic Transactions Ordinance was passed with a view to recognise and protect electronic transactions, setting up a framework within which privacy of information can be guaranteed and authenticity can be verified. There is no devoted law on data protection yet, although a Draft Electronic Data Protection Bill was published by the Ministry of Information in 2005.

Territorial and Locational Privacy

Akin to notions of privacy of the home in Islamic law, criminal trespass is a punishable offence under the Pakistan Penal Code. Pakistan has an unfortunately intimate relationship with terrorism. The Anti Terrorism Act of 1997 incorporates some provisions which raise concerns as to the sanctity of individual privacy. The Act allows an officer of police, armed forces or civil armed forces to enter and search any premise, and to seize any property they suspect to be connected to a terrorist act, without a warrant. Perhaps what is more worrying is that the entry of an officer is not subject to review, unlike in other Islamic countries like the United Arab Emirates. The trade off between personal liberties and national security is acutely felt in Pakistan, with intelligence agencies carrying on mass surveillance, without any legal framework providing for the same.

III.II Privacy in Bangladesh

Bangladesh identifies itself as a secular nation, although Islam is the state religion. The Constitution of Bangladesh uses the word privacy in the context of both territorial and communications privacy.

Bodily Privacy

The Bangladesh Penal Code, similar to Pakistan's, contains a section guaranteeing the bodily privacy of a woman and prohibiting any form of outraging her modesty. It criminalises assault, and also provides for private defence in case of assault.

Communications Privacy

The privacy of communications is subject to interception for the purpose of public safety, as envisaged in the Telegraph Act, 1885. It also contains provisions regarding unlawful interception of messages, as well as tampering or damaging communications. The Telecommunications (Amendment) Act 2006 gives the police sweeping powers to intercept mobile communications as well. However, a notice was issued to the government after this amendment to demonstrate its legality. Bangladesh also has the Right to Information Act, 2009 to promote transparency in governance, although it has a considerable number of agencies exempt from the Act as well. Provisions for cyber crime are enshrined in the Information and Communication Technology Act, 2006.

Territorial Privacy

In the context of territorial privacy, the Bangladesh Penal Code recognises criminal trespass, house trespass, lurking house trespass and house breaking as offences under Bangladeshi law.

IV. Conclusion

Privacy is a comprehensive term that entails a plethora of claims, making an exact definition of the term difficult to come by. In the absence of an explicit reference to privacy in the Indian Constitution, the Supreme Court has brought the right to privacy within the penumbra of Article 21 through various case laws. In 2010, the Government in its approach paper on privacy claimed that India is not a particularly private nation. In order to comprehensively understand India's modern legal framework, it is imperative to analyze the concepts of traditional law as they existed hitherto the colonial era. Although the term "privacy" is a modern construct, this paper has sought to demonstrate that the notion of privacy was well recognized and protected in traditional Islamic law.

From the discussion above, it is evident that the concept of privacy in Shariah law rests convincingly within the taxonomy adopted in this paper. The Quran and Hadith accommodate concerns surrounding private property, personal autonomy, protection of private communications, domestic life, modesty and the modern idea of surveillance. In addition to this, Islamic jurisprudence ascribes to the idea of a public and private sphere. The public sphere is occupied by society and governmental action, being liable to scrutiny and observation. On the other hand, the private sphere is occupied by the individual and the divine alone, free from any interference except in accordance with Shariah law. Inspite of the term "privacy" not finding explicit mention in the Quran or Hadith, a closer analysis of Shariah reveals privacy as a pervasive theme in Islamic jurisprudence.

Daniel Solove, A Taxonomy of Privacy, Vol. 154, No.3 University of Pennsylvania Law Journal, 477 (2006).

Samuel D. Warren & Louis D. Brandeis, The Right to Privacy, 4 Harvard Law Review 193, 193 (1890).

Richard A. Posner, Privacy, Surveillance and the Law, Vol. 75 No. 1 The University of Chicago Law Review 245, 245 (2008).

Blanca Rodríguez Ruiz, Privacy in Telecommunications: A European and an American Approach 39 (1st ed. 1997).

James Q. Whitman, The Two Western Cultures of Privacy : Dignity versus Liberty, 113 Yale Law Journal 1152, 1153 (2004).

Whitman, supra note 5, at 1153.

Solove, supra note 1, at 479.

Ibid. Referencing Lillian r. BeVier, Information About Individuals in the Hands of Government: Some Reflections on Mechanisms for Privacy Protection, 4 WM. & MARY BILL RTS. J. 455, 458 (1995) .

Ibid. Referencing KIM LANE SCHEPPELE, LEGAL SECRETS 184-85 (1988).

Ibid. Referencing 1 J. THOMAS MCCARTHY, THE RIGHTS OF PUBLICITY AND PRIVACY § 5.59 (2d ed. 2005).

Solove, supra note 1, at 560.

Samuel D. Warren & Louis D. Brandeis, supra note 2, at 193.

William L Prosser, Privacy, 48 California Law Review 383,389 (1960).

Solove, supra note 1, at 488.

Data Security Council of India, Policy Paper: Privacy in India. Available at https://www.dsci.in/sites/default/files/Policy%20Paper%20-%20Privacy%20in%20India.pdf.

Department of Personnel and Training, (DoPT) Approach Paper for a Legislation on Privacy. Report available at http://ccis.nic.in/WriteReadData/CircularPortal/D2/D02rti/aproach_paper.pdf.

Justice Ajit.P.Shah Committee, Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy, 60. Available at - http://planningcommission.nic.in/reports/genrep/rep_privacy.pdf.

Bhairav Acharya, at http://freespeechhub.thehoot.org/freetracker/storynew.php?storyid=565&sectionId=10.

DoPT, Approach Paper. supra note 16.

Whitman, supra note 5, at 1154.

Chandran Kukathas, Cultural Privacy, Vol. 91, No. 1 The Monist 68, 69 (2008).

Marc Galanter, Displacement of Traditional Law in Modern India, Vol XXIV, No. 4 Journal of Social Issues 65, 67 (1968).

Stuart Corbridge & John Harriss, Reinventing India: Liberalization, Hindu Nationalism and Popular Democracy 238 (Reprint, 2006).

Galanter, supra note 22, at 66.

Ibid. at 67.

Edward Said, Representing the Colonized: Anthropology's Interlocutors, Vol. 15 No.2 Critical Inquiry 205, 207 (1989).

Mohammad Hashim Kamali, Shari'ah Law, An Introduction 19 (2009)

M Mustafa Al Azami, Studies in Hadith Methodology and Literature 7 (2002).

Id. at 3.

NJ Coulson, A History of Islamic Law 22 (1964)

Kamali, supra note 27, at 19.

Sunan Ibn Majah , Book of Tribulations (Kitab al-Fitan) , #3950, available at http://sunnah.com/ibnmajah/36.

Mohsen Kadivar, An Introduction to the Private and Public Debate in Islam, Vol.70 , No. 3 Social Research 659, 663 (2003).

Lara Aryani, Privacy Rights in Shariah and Shariah-based States, Vol. 3, Iss.2, Journal of Islamic State Practices in International Law, 3 (2007)

Kadivar, supra note 33, at 664.

Ibid. at 665.

Ibid. at 667. Referencing Koleini, Mohammad. Al-Kaafi. Qom, Vol. 2: 353 1388.

Ibid. at 671.

Ibid. at 664.

Social Contract Theory of John Locke(1932-1704) in the Contemporary World , SelectedWorks of Daudi Mwita, Nyamaka (2011) Available at http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1009&context=dmnyamaka.

Kadivar, supra note 33, at 664.

Ibid. at 673.

Abul a'la Mawdudi, Human Rights in Islam 24 (1995). Also available online, at http://books.google.co.in/books?id=RUJWdCOmmxoC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false.

Aryani, supra note 34, at 13.

This indicates Sura 24 : verse 58.

Holy Quran, 24:58 - O you who have believed, let those whom your right hands possess and those who have not [yet] reached puberty among you ask permission of you [before entering] at three times: before the dawn prayer and when you put aside your clothing [for rest] at noon and after the night prayer. [These are] three times of privacy for you. There is no blame upon you nor upon them beyond these [periods], for they continually circulate among you - some of you, among others. Thus does Allah make clear to you the verses; and Allah is Knowing and Wise. (Translation from Sahih International available at http://quran.com/24/58)

Reza Sadiq, Islam's Fourth Amendment : Search and Seizure in Islamic Doctrine and Muslim Practice, Vol. 40 Georgetown Journal of International Law 703, 730 (2008 - 2009).

Ibid. at 733. Referencing IBRAHIM ABDULLA AL-MARZOUQI, Human Rights in Islamic Law 392 (2000).

Rohen Peterson, The Emperor's New Scanner :Muslim Women at the Intersection of the First Amendment and Full Body Scanners, 22 Hastings Women's Law Journal 339, 343 (2011).

Holy Quran, 24:30 - Tell the believing men to reduce [some] of their vision and guard their private parts. That is purer for them. Indeed, Allah is Acquainted with what they do. (Translation from Sahih International available at http://quran.com/24/30-31).

Holy Quran, 24:31- And tell the believing women to reduce [some] of their vision and guard their private parts and not expose their adornment except that which [necessarily] appears thereof and to wrap [a portion of] their headcovers over their chests and not expose their adornment except to their husbands, their fathers, their husbands' fathers, their sons, their husbands' sons, their brothers, their brothers' sons, their sisters' sons, their women, that which their right hands possess, or those male attendants having no physical desire, or children who are not yet aware of the private aspects of women. And let them not stamp their feet to make known what they conceal of their adornment. And turn to Allah in repentance, all of you, O believers, that you might succeed. (Translation from Sahih Internation, available at http://quran.com/24/30-31).

David Garner, Muslims warned not to go through airport body scanners because they violate Islamic rules on nudity, The daily mail, (Feb 12, 2010). http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250616/Muslims-warned-airport-body-scanners-violate-Islamic-rules-nudity.html#ixzz3KF8hS6q3 .

Holy Quran, 33:59 - O Prophet, tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to bring down over themselves [part] of their outer garments. That is more suitable that they will be known and not be abused. And ever is Allah Forgiving and Merciful. (Translation from Sahih International, available at http://quran.com/33/59.)

Eli Alshech, "Do Not Enter Houses Other than Your Own": The Evolution of the Notion of a Private Domestic Sphere in Early Sunnī Islamic Thought Vol. 11, No. 3, Islamic Law and Society 291, 304 (2004).

Holy Quran, 49:12 - O you who have believed, avoid much [negative] assumption. Indeed, some assumption is sin. And do not spy or backbite each other. Would one of you like to eat the flesh of his brother when dead? You would detest it. And fear Allah ; indeed, Allah is Accepting of repentance and Merciful. ( Translation from Sahih International, available at http://quran.com/49/12)

Holy Quran, 24:19 - Indeed, those who like that immorality should be spread [or publicized] among those who have believed will have a painful punishment in this world and the Hereafter. And Allah knows and you do not know. ( Translation from Sahih International, available at http://quran.com/24/19)

Kadivar, supra note 33, at 666.

Ahmad Atif Ahmad, Islam Modernity violence and everyday life 176 (1^st ed. 2009)

Kadivar, supra note 33, at 667.

Ibid , at 178.

Ibid.

Alshech, supra note 54, at 291.

Holy Quran, 24:27-8 - O you who have believed, do not enter houses other than your own houses until you ascertain welcome and greet their inhabitants. That is best for you; perhaps you will be reminded. And if you do not find anyone therein, do not enter them until permission has been given you. And if it is said to you, "Go back," then go back; it is purer for you. And Allah is Knowing of what you do. ( Translation from Sahih International, available at http://quran.com/24)

Holy Quran, 2:189 - They ask you, [O Muhammad], about the new moons. Say, "They are measurements of time for the people and for Hajj." And it is not righteousness to enter houses from the back, but righteousness is [in] one who fears Allah. And enter houses from their doors. And fear Allah that you may succeed. (Translation from Sahih International, available at http://quran.com/2)

Alshech, supra note 54, at 308.

Ibid. at 306. Referencing Ibn Abi Hatim, 8 TAF5IRAL-QUR'ANAL-'ADHIM 2566 (Makiabat Nlilr Mustaffi 1999).

Ahmad, supra note 58, at 177.

Alshech, supra note 54, at 324.

Aryani, supra note 34, at 4. Also see Ahmad, supra note 24, at 178.

Alshech, supra note 54, at 310.

Kadivar, supra note 33, at 664.

Moeen Cheema, Beyond Beliefs: Deconstructing the Dominant Narratives of the Islamization of Pakistan's Law, 60 American Journal of Comparative Law 875 (2012).

The Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Available at http://www.na.gov.pk/publications/constitution.pdf.

Cheema, supra note 72, at 879.

The Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, supra note 73.

Ibid.

Ibid. Article 8 - "(1) Any law, or any custom or usage having the force of law, in so far as it is inconsistent with the rights conferred by this Chapter, shall, to the extent of such inconsistency, be void. (2) The State shall not make any law which takes away or abridges the right so conferred and any law made in contravention of this clause shall, to the extent of such contravention, be void

Ibid. Article 4(2)(a) - "no action detrimental to the life, liberty, body, reputation or property of any person shall be taken except in accordance with law."

Section 509, Pakistan Penal Code (Act XLV of 1860), Available at http://www.oecd.org/site/adboecdanti-corruptioninitiative/46816797.pdf.

Section 32, Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-Organisation) Act, 1996. Available at http://www.pta.gov.pk/media/pta_act_140508.pdf.

Ibid. Section 54.

Section 25-D, Pakistan Telegraph Act, 1885. Available at http://www.fia.gov.pk/law/Offences/26.pdf.

Section 12, Pakistan Medical and Dental Council Code of Ethics. Available at http://www.pmdc.org.pk/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=v5WmQYMvhz4%3D&tabid=292&mid=845.

http://www.sbp.org.pk/publications/prudential/ordinance_62.pdf

Section 8, Freedom of Information Ordinance, 2002. Available at http://infopak.gov.pk/Downloads/Ordenances/Freedom_of_%20Information_Ordinance2002.pdf.

Pakistan IT Policy and Action Plan, available at http://www.unapcict.org/ecohub/resources/pakistan-information-technology-policy.

Electronic Transactions Ordinance, available at http://www.pakistanlaw.com/eto.pdf.

For a more detailed account, see http://www.supremecourt.gov.pk/ijc/articles/10/1.pdf. Second draft available at http://media.mofo.com/docs/mofoprivacy/PAKISTAN%20Draft%20Law%202nd%20Revision%20.pdf.

Sections 441 - 462, Pakistan Penal Code (XLV of 1860) Chapter XVII, "Offences against Property".

Section 5, Anti Terrorism Act, 1997. Available at http://www.fia.gov.pk/law/ata1997.pdf.

Ibid. Section 10.

Lara Aryani, supra note 34, at 21.

Julhas Alam, Bangladesh moves to retain Islam as state religion, Cns News, http://cnsnews.com/news/article/bangladesh-moves-retain-islam-state-religion.

Article 43, Constitution of Bangladesh. Available at http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/research/bangladesh-constitution.pdf.

Section 509, Bangladesh Penal Code,1860. Available at http://bdlaws.minlaw.gov.bd/print_sections_all.php?id=11.

Ibid. Sections 351- 358.

Ibid . Section 100.

Section 5, Bangladesh Telegraph Act, 1885. Available at http://bdlaws.minlaw.gov.bd/print_sections_all.php?id=55.

Ibid . Section 24.

Ibid. Section 25.

Bangladesh Penal Code, 1860. supra note 95. Section 441.

Ibid. Section 442.

Ibid. Section 443.

Ibid. Section 445.

See, Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1963 SC 1295 : (1964) 1 SCR 332; Govind v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1975 SC 1378; Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1995 SC 264; People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 568; X v. Hospital Z, AIR 1999 SC 495.

DoPT, Approach Paper. supra note 16.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/identifying-aspects-of-privacy-in-islamic-law

ID programme faces first challenge over privacy, data

praskrishna — 2011-04-02T12:20:28Z

The government is looking to the ID programme to help ensure that various welfare programmes reach the poor

In the first significant challenge to the government’s ambitious programme to give more than one billion Indians a unique identification number, a group of NGOs (non-governmental organizations) are planning to take the government to court over a range of issues, including concerns over privacy and the safety of information.

About 100 NGOs, including Alternative Law Forum, Centre for Internet and Society, People’s Union for Civil Liberty and Slum Jagathu, have come together to oppose the implementation of the project in its current form, Mathew Thomas, general secretary of Citizens’ Action Forum, said in Bangalore on Wednesday.

The Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) “is not a statutory body, not having been created by any Act or under any law, but by executive fiat”, he said. “It is set up as an appendage to the Planning Commission. It cannot be scrutinized either by Parliament or the Comptroller and Auditor General.”

In what had been expected to become a hurdle to the project, those against it are citing data protection and privacy, factors that led to the failure of a similar initiative in the UK.

“The government could not prevent recent cyber attacks by Chinese hackers on its own websites. What guarantee is there that a centralized database would be safe?” said Sunil Abraham, executive director of Centre for Internet and Society, one of the groups opposed to the ID programme, which has been named Aadhaar. “Also, data collected might be misused to discriminate against minorities and other vulnerable sections of society.”

R.S. Sharma, UIDAI director general, declined to comment in detail.

“Everything is transparent. Whatever we have been doing, we have been putting it on our website,” he said. “As to their specific complaints, I will not be able to respond over the telephone.”

The NGOs are also questioning the cost of the project and why no feasibility study was conducted. UIDAI is headed by Nandan Nilekani, co-founder and former chief executive of Infosys Technologies Ltd, India’s second largest software firm.

“First, the government has to respond how the chairman was chosen and appointed,” Thomas said. “Would the same person in his earlier organization authorize a project involving thousands of crores without a preliminary project report on feasibility? Public money is being spent without accountability.”

Nilekani wasn’t reachable for comment.

The government is looking to the ID programme to help ensure that various welfare programmes reach the poor. This objective would be difficult to achieve, the NGOs said.

“In a country with 48% illiteracy, a 12-digit card might prove to be a handicap instead of help,” they said in a release. “The project in its present form must be scrapped.”

The NGOs also said that projected savings from the stemming of leakages owing to the ID programme were not authenticated or backed by independent data. “It’s surprising that the project is being implemented with no discussion in Parliament nor consultation with other political parties,” they said.

Follow the original story in Livemint

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/id-programe-faces-challenge

ICTs for Improving Agriculture and Rural Livelihoods

radha — 2011-10-21T06:48:23Z

CIS is co-hosting a talk by Mr. Michael Riggs (FAO) covering the topic on Information and Communication Technology and e-Agriculutre and how Rural Livelihoods and Agriculture can benefit from ICTs.

CIS is co-hosting a lecture on ICT for improving Agriculture and Livelihood in the Rural areas, by Mr. Michael Riggs, who is currently an Officer (Knowledge and Information Management) with the FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations), Rome.

Brief Introduction of Mr. Michael Riggs:
As FAO's Information and Knowledge Management Officer, Mr. Riggs is resposible for initiating and managing collaborations with partners around the Asia-Pacific region to improve sustainable development through the application of modern information and technology. Mr. Riggs has championed the regional e-Agriculture community (www.e-agriculture.org) and also manages the regional implementation of FAO's internal knowledge and information exchange strategies, particularly preserving institutional memory and adopting standards for digital information exchange.

Prior to his current post with the FAO, Mr. Riggs has held the following positions:

Information Management Specialist with FAO
Information Dissemination and Management consultant at APHCA
Director, New Business Development at Green Cross Corporation.

Mr. Riggs has advanced degrees in both economics and organizational management and specialises in:

Knowledge sharing methods and tools
Catalyzing communities of practice and international collaboration
Conceptualizing and communicating new ideas
Information surveys
Building individual and organizational capacity in ICT4D

VIDEO

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/events/icts-for-improving-agriculture-and-rural-livelihoods

ICT Awareness Program for Myanmar Parliamentarians in Yangon

praskrishna — 2014-07-29T09:37:26Z

Myanmar ICT for Development Organization-MIDO conducted ICT policy training for multi- party parliamentarian representatives in Yangon on July 26 and 27, 2014. Sunil Abraham presented on Innovation Ecosystem and Thinking about Internet Regulation.

Sunil's Presentations

Schedule

Day 1	Topic	Resource Person
0930-1030	What is the significance of ICTs to legislators?	Rohan Samarajiva (RS)
1030-1115	Stories from the field: What do poor people do with ICTs?	Helani Galpaya (HG)
1115-1145	Break
1145-1245	Legislation, policies, plans, strategies, regulation	RS
1245-1330	Modalities of making and implementing ICT policy	RS and HG
1330-1430	Lunch	Videos
1430-1530	What is independent regulation? Why is it needed for sector growth	RS
1530-1600	Break
1600-1700	Panel discussion: How social media can be used in public life	Sunil Abraham (SA), RS & Charitha Herath (CH)
Day 2
930-1030	Regulation of online speech	Nay Phone Latt (NPL)
1030-1100	Break
1100-1200	How to think about Internet policy	SA; counterpoint by CH
1200-1300	Hope in the heart and money in the pocket: Results of effective policy	RS
1300-1400	Lunch	Videos

We plan to have simultaneous interpretation. There will be time for discussion within each session.

Brief descriptions of sessions

What is the significance of ICTs to legislators?

Rohan Samarajiva

This is the introduction, wherein we bring out the economic, social and political significance of ICTs. Why legislators should pay attention to the subject.

Stories from the field: What do poor people do with ICTs?

Helani Galpaya

Here we present the findings of how the poor use ICTs, using demand-side data (both quant and quality) from Myanmar and countries in similar circumstances.

Legislation, policies, plans, strategies, regulation

In this session, a former policy advisor/regulator will present a perspective on the important distinctions between legislation, policies, plans, strategies, and regulation.

Modalities of making and implementing ICT policy

RS and HG

Here we will delve into the practical details of making policy and of implementing policy, using examples.

What is independent regulation? Why is it needed for sector growth

Progress in electronic connectivity is the foundation that will reduce the frictions in the Myanmar economy, create jobs and exports and enable social, political and economic innovations. This requires massive investments, most of which will be private and most of which will come from outside the country. What legislators need to know about creating an environment that will attract and retain foreign investment in a globalized economy will be discussed.

How social media can be used in public life

Sunil Abraham, RS and Charitha Herath

In the panel discussion, SA will pose questions to a policy advisor who has used social media in a political campaign and a social media savvy current government official.

How to think about Internet policy

SA; counterpoint by CH

A leading advocate of enlightened Internet policy, Sunil Abraham of the Center for Internet and Society in Bangalore, India, will present his ideas, highlighting the international dimension of Internet policy. CH will share his perspectives as a serving government official.

Regulation of online speech

Nay Phone Latt

Here, Myanmar’s leading blogger and founder of MIDO will discuss the current concerns with legislation that seeks to control online speech.

Hope in the heart and money in the pocket: Results of effective policy

Results of effective policy implementation will be discussed with reference to specific country experiences.

Resource persons

Rohan Samarajiva, PhD, (program director) is founding Chair of LIRNEasia, an ICT policy and regulation think tank active across emerging Asian and Pacific economies. He was Team Leader at the Sri Lanka Ministry for Economic Reform, Science and Technology (2002-04) responsible for infrastructure reforms, including participation in the design of the USD 83 million e-Sri Lanka Initiative. He was Director General of Telecommunications in Sri Lanka (1998-99). In this capacity, he established the Telecom Regulatory Commission of Sri Lanka; conducted the first public hearing and public notice proceedings; successfully concluded a license-violation proceeding; and laid the foundation for a competitive market. He was also a founder director of the ICT Agency of Sri Lanka (2003-05), Honorary Professor at the University of Moratuwa in Sri Lanka (2003-04), Visiting Professor of Economics of Infrastructures at the Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands (2000-03) and Associate Professor of Communication and Public Policy at the Ohio State University in the US (1987-2000). Dr. Samarajiva was also Policy Advisor to the Ministry of Post and Telecom in Bangladesh (2007-09).

Sunil Abraham is the Executive Director of Bangalore based research organization, the Centre for Internet and Society. He founded Mahiti in 1998, a company committed to creating high impact technology and communications solutions. Today, Mahiti employs more than 50 engineers. Sunil continues to serve on the board. Sunil was elected an Ashoka fellow in 1999 to 'explore the democratic potential of the Internet' and was also granted a Sarai FLOSS fellowship in 2003. Between June 2004 and June 2007, Sunil also managed the International Open Source Network, a project of United Nations Development Programme's Asia-Pacific Development Information Programme serving 42 countries in the Asia-Pacific region.

Helani Galpaya is LIRNEasia’s Chief Executive Officer. Helani leads LIRNEasia’s 2012-2014 IDRC funded research on improving customer life cycle management practices in the delivery of electricity and e-government services using ICTs. She recently completed an assessment of how the poor in Bangladesh and Sri Lanka use telecenters to access government services. For UNCTAD and GTZ she authored a report on how government procurement practices can be used to promote a country’s ICT sector and for the World Bank/InfoDev Broadband Toolkit, a report on broadband strategies in Sri Lanka. She has been an invited speaker at various international forums on topics ranging from m-Government to ICT indicators to communicating research to policy makers. Prior to LIRNEasia, Helani worked at the ICT Agency of Sri Lanka, implementing the World-Bank funded e-Sri Lanka initiative. Prior to her return to Sri Lanka, she worked in the United States at Booz & Co., Marengo Research, Citibank, and Merrill Lynch. Helani holds a Masters in Technology and Policy from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and a Bachelor’s in Computer Science from Mount Holyoke College, USA.

Charitha Herath has served as Secretary, Ministry of Mass Media and Information in the Government of Sri Lanka since 2012. Prior to his present appointment, he was the Chairman of the Central Environment Authority. Currently on secondment for national services from his permanent academic position as a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Philosophy and Psychology at the University of Peradeniya in Sri Lanka, he continues to work on his academic research, specializing in governments and politics in Asia, ethnic studies, cultural psychology, social and political philosophy, with his main focus on political psychology. More detail at http://charithaherath.wordpress.com/about-2/

Nay Phone Latt is the Co-founder and Executive Director of Myanmar ICT Development Organization (MIDO). He graduated from Yangon Technological University with a civil engineering degree in 2004. He co-founded the Myanmar Blogger Society in 2007. Award winner of PEN Barbara Goldsmith Award and RFS’s Cyber Dissidents Award. Former Political Prisoner. CEC Member of Myanmar Journalists Association(MJA) Chief Editor of ThanLwinAinMat Online Magazine (www.thanlwin.com). Member of Board of Directors of House of Media & Entertainment (HOME).

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/ict-awareness-program-for-myanmar-parliamentarians-yangon

Iceland’s proposed porn ban ‘like repression in Iran, N. Korea’ – activists

praskrishna — 2013-03-21T03:56:30Z

A group of 40 human rights activists from around the world fear that Iceland could become “a role model for Internet censorship” if it introduces Internet filters blocking online content deemed pornographic.

This blog post was published in RT on March 1, 2013. Sunil Abraham is quoted.

“The act of censoring pornography in Iceland differs in no way from repression of speech in Iran, China or North Korea,” human rights advocates wrote in an open letter to Icelandic Interior Minister Ögmundur Jónasson.

Activists from nearly 20 countries, including the UK, America, Austria and Finland, said that Iceland’s moral reasons for the push to censor Internet pornography is “justifying rather than condemning the actions of totalitarian regimes.”

Critics – including Jillian C. York, Director for International Freedom of Expression, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Sunil Abraham, Executive Director for India’s Internet and Society Center, and Ot van Daalen, head of the Dutch Bits of Freedom Center – have described the controversial measure as “an affront to basic principles of the society.”

They also argued that those advocating the Web porn ban have offered “no definition, no evidence, and suggested no technology.”

The authors of the letter warned that the prohibition of pornographic content could create demand for an underground porn industry, unregulated and most certainly affiliated with other illegal activities, “as we have seen in the case of drugs or alcohol prohibition. Hiding the problem is not a solution and may in fact make things worse.”

The solution, according to the activists, could be better sex education at home and schools: “Sex education that deals not only with conception, contraception and sexually transmitted diseases, but also relationships, communication and respect.”

Iceland, known for its feminist policies, could become the first Western country to censor online pornography, despite concerns over who will be given the authority to choose what is banned.

“It is tempting to regard filtering the Internet as a quick and easy way to restrict unwanted speech, opinions, or media, which the government regards as harmful for either them or the people,” the letter said. “The right to see the world as it is, is critical to the very tenets and functions of a democracy and must be protected at all costs.”

The activists claimed that it is technically impossible to censor the Internet without monitoring all telecommunications with automated machines: “This level of government surveillance directly conflicts with the idea of a free society.”

Iceland is not the only European country that has tried to implement such a ban. In December, the UK proposed blocking access to all pornographic websites, but UK ministers rejected the idea over a lack of public support.

According to supporters of the Icelandic ban, pornography has unquestionably damaging effects on both children and women.

"We have to be able to discuss a ban on violent pornography, which we all agree has a very harmful effects on young people and can have a clear link to incidences of violent crime," Interior Minister Jonasson, the author of the proposed ban, was quoted as saying.

While Iceland has already passed a law banning the distribution and printing of pornography, the proposed ban would eventually restrict access to pornographic websites in the country, and make it impossible to use Icelandic credit cards on X-rated sites.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/rt-march-1-2013-icelands-proposed-porn-ban

ICANN’s Problems with Accountability and the .WEB Controversy

Padma Venkataraman — 2017-10-28T15:49:38Z

The Post-Transition IANA promised enhanced transparency and accountability to the global multistakeholder community. The series of events surrounding the .WEB auction earlier this year has stirred up issues relating to the lack of transparency and accountability of ICANN. This post examines the .WEB auction as a case study to better understand exact gaps in accountability.

Chronological Background of the .WEB Auction

In June 2012, ICANN launched a new phase for the creation and operation of Generic Top-Level Domains (gTLDs). After confirming the eligibility of seven applicants for the rights of the .WEB domain name, ICANN placed them in a string contention set (a group of applications with similar or identical applied for gTLDs).^[1]

[Quick Note: ICANN procedure encourages the resolving of this contention set by voluntary settlement amongst the contending applicants (also referred to as a private auction), wherein individual participation fees of US $185,000 go to ICANN and the auction proceeds are distributed among the bidders. If a private auction fails, the provision for a last resort auction conducted by ICANN is invoked - here the total auction proceeds go to ICANN along with the participation fees.^[2]]

In June 2016, NuDotCo LLC, a bidder that had previously participated in nine private auctions without any objection, withdrew its consent to the voluntary settlement. Ruby Glen LLC, another bidder, contacted NDC to ask if it would reconsider its withdrawal, and was made aware of changes in NDC’s Board membership, financial position, management and a potential change in ownership, by NDC’s Chief Financial Officer.^[3] Concerned about the transparency of the auction process, Ruby Glen requested ICANN to postpone the auction on June 22, in order to investigate the discrepancies between NDC’s official application and its representation to Ruby Glen.^[4] The Vice President of ICANN’s gTLD Operations and the independent ICANN Ombudsman led separate investigations, both of which were limited to few e-mails seeking NDC’s confirmation of status quo. On the basis of NDC’s denial of any material changes, ICANN announced that the auction would proceed as planned, as no grounds had been found for its postponement.^[5]

On July 27, NDC’s winning bid – USD 135 million – beat the previous record by $90 million, doubling ICANN’s total net proceeds from the past fifteen auctions it had conducted.^[6] Soon after NDC’s win, Verisign, Inc., the market giant that owns the .com and .net domain names, issued a public statement that it had used NDC as a front for the auction, and that it had been involved in its funding from the very beginning. Verisign agreed to transfer USD 130 million to NDC, allowing the latter to retain a $5 million stake in .WEB.^[7]

Ruby Glen LLC filed for an injunction against the transfer of .WEB rights to NDC, and sought expedited discovery^[8] against ICANN and NDC in order to gather evidentiary support for the temporary restraining order.^[9] Donuts Inc., the parent company of Ruby Glen, simultaneously filed for recovery of economic loss due to negligence, fraud and breach of bylaws among other grounds, and Affilias, the second highest bidder, demanded that the .WEB rights be handed over by ICANN.^[10] Furthermore, at ICANN57, Affilias publicly brought up the issue in front of ICANN’s Board, and Verisign followed with a rebuttal. However, ICANN’s Board refused to comment on the issue at that point as the matter was still engaged in ongoing litigation.^[11]

Issues Regarding ICANN’s Assurance of Accountability

The Post-Transition IANA promised enhanced transparency and accountability to the global multistakeholder community. The series of events surrounding the .WEB auction has stirred up issues relating to the lack of transparency and accountability of ICANN. ICANN’s arbitrary enforcement of policies that should have been mandatory, with regard to internal accountability mechanisms, fiduciary responsibilities and the promotion of competition, has violated Bylaws that obligate it to operate ‘consistently, neutrally, objectively, and fairly, without singling out any particular party for discriminatory treatment’.^[12]

Though the US court ruled in favour of ICANN, the discrepancies that were made visible with regard to ICANN’s differing emphasis on procedural and substantive compliance with its rules and regulations, have forced the community to acknowledge that corporate strategies, latent interests and financial advantages undermine ICANN’s commitment to accountability. The approval of NDC’s ridiculously high bid with minimal investigation or hesitation, even after Verisign’s takeover, signifies pressing concerns that stand in the way of a convincing commitment to accountability, such as:

The Lack of Substantive Fairness and Accountability at ICANN (A Superficial Investigation)
ICANN’s Sketchy Tryst with Legal Conformity
The Financial Accountability of ICANN’s Auction Proceeds

The Lack of Substantive Fairness and Accountability in its Screening Processes:

Ruby Glen’s claim that ICANN conducted a cursory investigation of NDC’s misleading and unethical behaviour brought to light the ease and arbitrariness with which applications are deemed valid and eligible.

Disclosure of Significant Details Unique to Applicant Profiles: In the initial stage, applications for the gTLD auctions require disclosure of background information such as proof of legal establishment, financial statements, primary and secondary contacts to represent the company, officers, directors, partners, major shareholders, etc. At this stage, TAS User Registration IDs, which require VAT/tax/business IDs, principal business address, phone, fax, etc. of the applicants, are created to build unique profiles for different parties in an auction.^[13] Any important change in an applicant’s details would thus significantly alter the unique profile, leading to uncertainty regarding the parties involved and the validity of transactions undertaken. NDC’s application clearly didn’t meet the requirements here, as its financial statements, secondary contact, board members and ownership all changed at some point before the auction took place (either prior to or post submission of the application).^[14]

Mandatory Declaration of Third Party Funding: Applications presupposing a future joint venture or any organisational unpredictability are not deemed eligible by ICANN, and if any third party is involved in the funding of the applicant, the latter is to provide evidence of such commitment to funding at the time of submission of its financial documents.^[15] Verisign’s public announcement that it was involved in NDC’s funding from the very beginning (well before the auction) and its management later, proves that NDC’s failure to notify ICANN made its application ineligible, or irregular at the very least.^[16]

Vague Consequences of Failure to Notify ICANN of Changes: If in any situation, certain material changes occur in the composition of the management, ownership or financial position of the applicant, ICANN is liable to be notified of the changes by the submission of updated documents. Here, however, the applicant may be subjected to re-evaluation if a material change is concerned, at ICANN’s will (there is no mention of what a material change might be). In the event of failure to notify ICANN of changes that would lead the previous information submitted to be false or misleading, ICANN may reject or deny the application concerned.^[17] NDC’s absolute and repeated denial of any changes, during the extremely brief e-mail ‘investigation’ conducted by ICANN and the Ombudsman, show that at no point was NDC planning on revealing its intimacy with Verisign. No extended evaluation was conducted by ICANN at any point.^[18] Note: The arbitrary power allowed here and the vague use of the term ‘material’ obstruct any real accountability on ICANN’s part to ensure that checks are carried out to discourage dishonest behaviour, at all stages.

Arbitrary Enforcement of Background Checks: In order to confirm the eligibility of all applicants, ICANN conducts background screening during its initial evaluation process to verify the information disclosed, at the individual and entity levels.^[19] The applicants may be asked to produce any and all documents/evidence to help ICANN complete this successfully, and any relevant information received from ‘any source’ may be taken into account here. However, this screening is conducted only with regard to two criteria: general business diligence and criminal history, and any record of cybersquatting behaviour.^[20] In this case, ICANN’s background screening was clearly not thorough, in light of Verisign’s confirmed involvement since the beginning, and at no point was NDC asked to submit any extra documents (apart from the exchange of e-mails between NDC and ICANN and its Ombudsman) to enable ICANN’s inquiry into its business diligence.^[21] Further, ICANN also said that it was not required to conduct background checks or a screening process, as the provisions only mention that ICANN is allowed to do so, when it feels the need.^[22] This ludicrous loophole hinders transparency efforts by giving ICANN the authority to ignore any questionable details in applications it desires to deem eligible, based on its own strategic leanings, advantageous circumstances or any other beneficial interests.

ICANN’s deliberate avoidance of discussing or investigating the ‘allegations’ against NDC (that were eventually proved true), as well as a visible compromise in fairness and equity of the application process point to the conclusion it desired.

ICANN’s Sketchy Tryst with Legal Conformity:

ICANN’s lack of substantive compliance, with California’s laws and its own rules and regulations, leave us with the realisation that efforts towards transparency, enforcement and compliance (even with emphasis on the IANA Stewardship and Accountability Process) barely meet the procedural minimum.

Rejection of Request for Postponement of Auction: ICANN’s intent to ‘initiate the Auction process once the composition of the set is stabilised’ implies that there must be no pending accountability mechanisms with regard to any applicant.^[23] When ICANN itself determines the opening and closing of investigations or reviews concerning applicants, arbitrariness on ICANN’s part in deciding on which date the mechanisms are to be deemed as pending, may affect an applicant’s claim about procedural irregularity. In this case, ICANN had already scheduled the auction for July 27, 2016, before Ruby Glen sent in a request for postponement of the auction and inquiry into NDC’s eligibility on June 22, 2016.^[24] Even though the ongoing accountability mechanisms had begun after initiation of the auction process, ICANN confirmed the continuance of the process without assurance about the stability of the contention set as required by procedure. Ruby Glen’s claim about this violation in auction rules was dismissed by ICANN on the basis that there must be no pending accountability mechanisms at the time of scheduling of the auction.^[25] This means that if any objection is raised or any dispute resolution or accountability mechanism is initiated with regard to an applicant, at any point after fixing the date of the auction, the auction process continues even though the contention set may not be stabilised. This line of defence made by ICANN is not in conformity with the purpose behind the wording of its auction procedure as discussed above.

Lack of Adequate Participation in the Discovery Planning Process: In order to gather evidentiary support and start the discovery process for the passing of the injunction, ICANN was required to engage with Ruby Glen in a conference, under Federal law. However, due to a disagreement as to the extent of participation required from both parties involved in the process, ICANN recorded only a single appearance at court, after which it refused to engage with Ruby Glen.^[26] ICANN should have conducted a thorough investigation, based on both NDC’s and Verisign’s public statements, and engaged more cooperatively in the conference, to comply substantively with its internal procedure as well jurisdictional obligations. Under ICANN’s Bylaws, it is to ensure that an applicant does not assign its rights or obligations in connection with the application to another party, as NDC did, in order to promote a competitive market and ensure certainty in transactions.^[27] However, due to its lack of substantive compliance with due procedure, such bylaws have been rendered weak.

Demand to Dismiss Ruby Glen’s Complaint: ICANN demanded the dismissal of Ruby Glen’s complaint on the basis that the complaint was vague and unsubstantiated.^[28] After the auction, Ruby Glen’s allegations and suspicions about NDC’s dishonest behaviour were confirmed publicly by Verisign, making the above demand for dismissal of the complaint ridiculous.

Inapplicability of ICANN’s Bylaws to its Contractual Relationships: ICANN maintained that its bylaws are not part of application documents or contracts with applicants (as it is a not-for-profit public benefit corporation), and that ICANN’s liability, with respect to a breach of ICANN’s foundational documents, extends only to officers, directors, members, etc.^[29] In addition, it said that Ruby Glen had not included any facts that suggested a duty of care arose from the contractual relationship with Ruby Glen and Donuts Inc.^[30] Its dismissal of and considerable disregard for fiduciary obligations like duty of care and duty of inquiry in contractual relationships, prove the contravention of promised commitments and core values (integral to its entire accountability process), which are to ‘apply in the broadest possible range of circumstances’.^[31]

ICANN’s Legal Waiver and Public Policy: Ruby Glen had submitted that, under the California Civil Code 1668, a covenant not to sue was against policy, and that the legal waiver all applicants were made to sign in the application was unenforceable.^[32] This waiver releases ICANN from ‘any claims arising out of, or related to, any action or failure to act’, and the complaint claimed that such an agreement ‘not to challenge ICANN in court, irrevocably waiving the right to sue on basis of any legal claim’ was unconscionable.^[33] However, ICANN defended the enforceability of the legal waiver, saying that only a covenant not to sue that is specifically designed to avoid responsibility for own fraud or willful injury is invalidated under the provisions of the California Civil Code.^[34] A waiver, incorporating the availability of accountability mechanisms ‘within ICANN’s bylaws to challenge any final decision of ICANN’s with respect to an application’, was argued as completely valid under California’s laws. It must be kept in mind that challenges to ICANN’s final decisions can make headway only through its own accountability mechanisms (including the Reconsideration Requests Process, the Independent Review Panel and the Ombudsman), which are mostly conducted by, accountable to and applicable at the discretion of the Board.^[35] This means that the only recourse for dissatisfied applicants is through processes managed by ICANN, leaving no scope for independence and impartiality in the review or inquiry concerned, as the .WEB case has shown.

Note: ICANN has also previously argued that its waivers are not restricted by S. 1668 because the parties involved are sophisticated - without an element of oppression, and that these transactions don’t involve public interest as ICANN doesn’t provide necessary services such as health, transportation, etc.^[36] Such line of argument shows its continuous refusal to acknowledge responsibility for ensuring access to an essential good, in a diverse community, justifying concerns about ICANN’s commitment to accessibility and human rights.

Required to remain accountable to the stakeholders of the community through mechanisms listed in its Bylaws, ICANN’s repeated difficulty in ensuring these mechanisms adhere to the purpose behind jurisdictional regulations confirm hindrances to impartiality, independence and effectiveness.

The Financial Accountability of ICANN’s Auction Proceeds:

The use and distribution of significant auction proceeds accruing to ICANN have been identified by the internet community as issues central to financial transparency, especially in a future of increasing instances of contention sets.

Private Inurement Prohibition and Legal Requirements of Tax-Exempted Organisations: Subject to California’s state laws as well as federal laws, tax exemptions and tax-deductible charitable donations (available to not-for-profit public benefit corporations) are dependent on the fulfillment of jurisdictional obligations by ICANN, including avoiding contracts that may result in excessive economic benefit to a party involved, or lead to any deviation from purely charitable and scientific purposes.^[37] ICANN’s Articles require that it ‘shall pursue the charitable and public purposes of lessening the burdens of government and promoting the global public interest in the operational stability of the Internet’.^[38] Due to this, ICANN’s accumulation of around USD 60 million (the total net proceeds from over 14 contention sets) since 2014 has been treated with unease, making it impossible to ignore the exponential increase in the same after the .WEB controversy.^[39] With its dedication to a bottom-up, multi-stakeholder policy development process, the use of a single and ambiguous footnote, in ICANN’s Guidebook, to tackle the complications involving significant funds that accrue from last resort auctions (without even mentioning the arbiters of their ‘appropriate’ use) is grossly insufficient.^[40]

Need for Careful and Inclusive Deliberation Over the Use of Auction Proceeds: At the end of the fiscal year 2016, ICANN’s balance sheet showed a total of USD 399.6 million. However, the .WEB sale amount was not included in this figure, as the auction happened after the last date (June 30, 2016).^[41] Around seven times the average winning bid, a USD 135 million hike in ICANN’s accounts shows the need for greater scrutiny on ICANN’s process of allocation and distribution of these auction proceeds.^[42] While finding an ‘appropriate purpose’ for these funds, it is important that ICANN’s legal nature under US jurisdiction as well as its vision, mission and commitments be adhered to, in order to help increase public confidence and financial transparency.

The CCWG Charter on New gTLD Auction Proceeds: ICANN has always maintained that it recognised the concern of ‘significant funds accruing as a result of several auctions’ at the outset.^[43] In March 2015, the GNSO brought up issues relating to the distribution of auction proceeds at ICANN52, to address growing concerns of the community.^[44] A Charter was then drafted, proposing the formation of a Cross-Community Working Group on New gTLD Auction Proceeds, to help ICANN’s Board in allocating these funds.^[45] After being discussed in detail at ICANN56, the draft charter was forwarded to the various supporting organisations for comments.^[46] The Charter received no objections from 2 organisations and was adopted by the ALAC, ASO, ccNSO and GNSO, following which members and co-chairs were identified from the organisations to constitute the CCWG.^[47] It was decided that while ICANN’s Board will have final responsibility in disbursement of the proceeds, the CCWG will be responsible for the submission of proposals regarding the mechanism for the allocation of funds, keeping ICANN’s fiduciary and legal obligations in mind.^[48] While creating proposals, the CCWG must recommend how to avoid possible conflicts of interest, maintain ICANN’s tax-exempt status, and ensure diversity and inclusivity in the entire process.^[49] It is important to note that the CCWG cannot make recommendations ‘regarding which organisations are to be funded or not’, but is to merely submit a proposal for the process by which allocation is undertaken.^[50] ICANN’s Guidebook mentions possible uses for proceeds, such as ‘grants to support new gTLD applications or registry operators from communities’, the creation of a fund for ‘specific projects for the benefit of the Internet community’, the ‘establishment of a security fund to expand use of secure protocols’, among others, to be decided by the Board.^[51]

A Slow Process and the Need for More Official Updates: The lack of sufficient communication/updates about any allocation or the process behind such, in light of ICANN’s current total net auction proceeds of USD 233,455,563, speaks of an urgent need for a decision by the Board (based on a recommendation by CCWG), regarding a timeframe for the allocation of such proceeds.^[52] However, the entire process has been very slow, with the first CCWG meeting on auction proceeds scheduled for 26 January 2016, and the lists of members and observers being made public only recently.^[53] Here, even parties interested in applying for the same funds at a later stage are allowed to participate in meetings, as long as they include such information in a Statement of Interest and Declaration of Intention, to satisfy CCWG’s efforts towards transparency and accountability.^[54]

The worrying consequences of ICANN’s lack of financial as well as legal accountability (especially in light of its controversies), reminds us of the need for constant reassessment of its commitment to substantive transparency, enforcement and compliance with its rules and regulations. Its current obsessive courtship with only procedural regularity must not be mistaken for a greater commitment to accountability, as assured by the post-transition IANA.

^[1] DECLARATION OF CHRISTINE WILLETT IN SUPPORT OF ICANN’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, 2. (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/litigation-ruby-glen-declaration-willett-25jul16-en.p df)

^[2] 4.3, gTLD Applicant Guidebook ICANN, 4-19. (https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb)

^[3] NOTICE OF AND EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF, 15. (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/litigation-ruby-glen-ex-parte-application-tro-memo-points-authorities-22jul16-en.pdf)

^[4] NOTICE OF AND EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF, 15. (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/litigation-ruby-glen-ex-parte-application-tro-memo-points-authorities-22jul16-en.pdf)

^[5] DECLARATION OF CHRISTINE WILLETT IN SUPPORT OF ICANN’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, 4-7. (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/litigation-ruby-glen-declaration-willett-25jul16-en.pdf)

^[6] PLAINTIFF RUBY GLEN, LLC’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO TAKE THIRD PARTY DISCOVERY OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION FOR THE COURT TO ISSUE A SCHEDULING ORDER, 3.

(https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/litigation-ruby-glen-motion-court-issue-scheduling-order-26oct16-en.pdf)

^[7](https://www.verisign.com/en_US/internet-technology-news/verisign-press-releases/articles/index.xhtml?artLink=aHR0cDovL3ZlcmlzaWduLm5ld3NocS5idXNpbmVzc3dpcmUuY29tL3ByZXNzLXJlbGVhc2UvdmVyaXNpZ24tc3RhdGVtZW50LXJlZ2FyZGluZy13ZWItYXVjdGlvbi1yZXN1bHRz)

^[8] An expedited discovery request can provide the required evidentiary support needed to meet the Plaintiff’s burden to obtain a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order. (http://apps.americanbar.org/litigation/committees/businesstorts/articles/winter2014-0227-using-expedited-discovery-with-preliminary-injunction-motions.html)

^[9] NOTICE OF AND EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF, 2. (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/litigation-ruby-glen-ex-parte-application-tro-memo-points-authorities-22jul16-en.pdf)

^[10] (http://domainincite.com/20789-donuts-files-10-million-lawsuit-to-stop-web-auction); (https://www.thedomains.com/2016/08/15/afilias-asks-icann-to-disqualify-nu-dot-cos-135-million-winning-bid-for-web/)

^[11] (http://www.domainmondo.com/2016/11/news-review-icann57-hyderabad-india.html)

^[12] Art III, Bylaws of Public Technical Identifiers, ICANN. (https://pti.icann.org/bylaws)

^[13] 1.4.1.1, gTLD Applicant Guidebook ICANN, 1-39.(https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb)

^[14] NOTICE OF AND EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF, 15. (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/litigation-ruby-glen-ex-parte-application-tro-memo-points-authorities-22jul16-en.pdf)

^[15] 1.2.1; 1.2.2, gTLD Applicant Guidebook ICANN, 1-21. (https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb)

^[16](https://www.verisign.com/en_US/internet-technology-news/verisign-press-releases/articles/index.xhtml?artLink=aHR0cDovL3ZlcmlzaWduLm5ld3NocS5idXNpbmVzc3dpcmUuY29tL3ByZXNzLXJlbGVhc2UvdmVyaXNpZ24tc3RhdGVtZW50LXJlZ2FyZGluZy13ZWItYXVjdGlvbi1yZXN1bHRz)

^[17] 1.2.7, gTLD Applicant Guidebook ICANN, 1-30. (https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb)

^[18] DECLARATION OF CHRISTINE WILLETT IN SUPPORT OF ICANN’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, 4. (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/litigation-ruby-glen-declaration-willett-25jul16-en.pdf)

^[19] 1.1.2.5, gTLD Applicant Guidebook ICANN, 1-8. (https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb)

^[20] 1.2.1, gTLD Applicant Guidebook ICANN, 1-21. (https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb)

^[21] DECLARATION OF CHRISTINE WILLETT IN SUPPORT OF ICANN’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, 7. (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/litigation-ruby-glen-declaration-willett-25jul16-en.pdf)

^[22] 6.8; 6.11, gTLD Applicant Guidebook ICANN, 6-5 (https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb);

DEFENDANT INTERNET CORPORATION FOR ASSIGNED NAMES AND NUMBERS’ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT, 10. (http://domainnamewire.com/wp-content/icann-donuts-motion.pdf)

^[23] 1.1.2.10, gTLD Applicant Guidebook ICANN. (https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb)

^[24] NOTICE OF AND EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF, 15. (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/litigation-ruby-glen-ex-parte-application-tro-memo-points-authorities-22jul16-en.pdf)

^[25] DEFENDANT INTERNET CORPORATION FOR ASSIGNED NAMES AND NUMBERS’ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT, 8. (http://domainnamewire.com/wp-content/icann-donuts-motion.pdf)

^[26] 26(f); 65, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (https://www.federalrulesofcivilprocedure.org/frcp/title-viii-provisional-and-final-remedies/rule-65-injunctions-and-restraining-orders/); (https://www.federalrulesofcivilprocedure.org/frcp/title-v-disclosures-and-discovery/rule-26-duty-to-disclose-general-provisions-governing-discovery/)

^[27] 6.10, gTLD Applicant Guidebook ICANN, 6-6. (https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb); (https://www.icann.org/resources/reviews/specific-reviews/cct)

^[28] 12(b)(6), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; DEFENDANT INTERNET CORPORATION FOR ASSIGNED NAMES AND NUMBERS’ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT, 6. (http://domainnamewire.com/wp-content/icann-donuts-motion.pdf)

^[29] DEFENDANT INTERNET CORPORATION FOR ASSIGNED NAMES AND NUMBERS’ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT, 8. (http://domainnamewire.com/wp-content/icann-donuts-motion.pdf)

^[30] PLAINTIFF RUBY GLEN, LLC’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT INTERNET CORPORATION FOR ASSIGNED NAMES AND NUMBERS’ MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES, 12.

(https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/litigation-ruby-glen-opposition-motion-dismiss-first-amended-complaint-07nov16-en.pdf)

^[31] (https://archive.icann.org/en/accountability/frameworks-principles/legal-corporate.htm); Art. 1(c), Bylaws for ICANN. (https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en)

^[32] (http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=CIV&sectionNum=1668); NOTICE OF AND EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER: MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF, 24. (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/litigation-ruby-glen-ex-parte-application-tro-memo-points-authorities-22jul16-en.pdf)

^[33] 6.6, gTLD Applicant Guidebook ICANN, 6-4. (https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb)

^[34] DEFENDANT INTERNET CORPORATION FOR ASSIGNED NAMES AND NUMBERS’ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT, 18. (http://domainnamewire.com/wp-content/icann-donuts-motion.pdf)

^[35] (https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/mechanisms-2014-03-20-en)

^[36] AMENDED REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF ICANN’S MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT, 4. (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/litigation-dca-reply-memo-support-icann-motion-dismiss-first-amended-complaint-14apr16-en.pdf)

^[37] 501(c)(3), Internal Revenue Code, USA. (https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organizations/exemption-requirements-section-501-c-3-organizations)

^[38] Art. II, Public Technical Identifiers, Articles of Incorporation, ICANN. (https://pti.icann.org/articles-of-incorporation)

^[39](https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+New+gTLD+Auction+Proceeds+Discussion+Paper+Workspace)

^[40] (https://www.icann.org/policy); 4.3, gTLD Applicant Guidebook ICANN, 4-19. (https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb)

^[41]5, Internet Corporation for ASsigned Names and Numbers, Fiscal Statements As of and for the Years Ended June 30, 2016 and 2015. (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/financial-report-fye-30jun16-en.pdf);

(http://domainincite.com/21204-icann-has-400m-in-the-bank?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+DomainIncite+%28DomainIncite.com%29)

^[42] (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/07/28/someone_paid_135m_for_dot_web)

^[43](https://community.icann.org/display/CWGONGAP/Cross-Community+Working+Group+on+new+gTLD+Auction+Proceeds+Home)

^[44] (https://www.icann.org/public-comments/new-gtld-auction-proceeds-2015-09-08-en)

^[45] (https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2016-12-13-en)

^[46] (https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2016-12-13-en)

^[47](https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2016-12-13-en);

(https://community.icann.org/display/CWGONGAP/Cross-Community+Working+Group+on+new+gTLD+Auction+Proceeds+Home)

^[48] (https://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/ccwg-charter-07nov16-en.pdf); (https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2016-12-13-en)

^[49] (https://www.icann.org/public-comments/new-gtld-auction-proceeds-2015-09-08-en)

^[50] (https://community.icann.org/display/CWGONGAP/CCWG+Charter)

^[51] 4.3, gTLD Applicant Guidebook ICANN, 4-19. (https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb)

^[52] (https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/auctions/proceeds)

^[53] (https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=63150102)

^[54] (https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2016-12-13-en)

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/icann2019s-problems-with-accountability-and-the-web-controversy

ICANN’s Documentary Information Disclosure Policy – I: DIDP Basics

Vinayak Mithal — 2014-07-01T13:01:34Z

In a series of blogposts, Vinayak Mithal analyses ICANN's reactive transparency mechanism, comparing it with freedom of information best practices. In this post, he describes the DIDP and its relevance for the Internet community.

The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (“ICANN”) is a non-profit corporation incorporated in the state of California and vested with the responsibility of managing the DNS root, generic and country-code Top Level Domain name system, allocation of IP addresses and assignment of protocol identifiers. As an internationally organized corporation with its own multi-stakeholder community of Advisory Groups and Supporting Organisations, ICANN is a large and intricately woven governance structure. Necessarily, ICANN undertakes through its Bye-laws that “in performing its functions ICANN shall remain accountable to the Internet community through mechanisms that enhance ICANN’s effectiveness”. While many of its documents, such as its Annual Reports, financial statements and minutes of Board meetings, are public, ICANN has instituted the Documentary Information Disclosure Policy (“DIDP”), which like the RTI in India, is a mechanism through which public is granted access to documents with ICANN which are not otherwise available publicly. It is this policy – the DIDP – that I propose to study.

In a series of blogposts, I propose to introduce the DIDP to unfamiliar ears, and to analyse it against certain freedom of information best practices. Further, I will analyse ICANN’s responsiveness to DIDP requests to test the effectiveness of the policy. However, before I undertake such analysis, it is first good to know what the DIDP is, and how it is crucial to ICANN’s present and future accountability.

What is the DIDP?

One of the core values of the organization as enshrined under Article I Section 4.10 of the Bye-laws note that “in performing its functions ICANN shall remain accountable to the Internet community through mechanisms that enhance ICANN’s effectiveness”. Further, Article III of the ICANN Bye-laws, which sets out the transparency standard required to be maintained by the organization in the preliminary, states - “ICANN and its constituent bodies shall operate to the maximum extent feasible in an open and transparent manner and consistent with procedures designed to ensure fairness”.

Accordingly, ICANN is under an obligation to maintain a publicly accessible website with information relating to its Board meetings, pending policy matters, agendas, budget, annual audit report and other related matters. It is also required to maintain on its website, information about the availability of accountability mechanisms, including reconsideration, independent review, and Ombudsman activities, as well as information about the outcome of specific requests and complaints invoking these mechanisms.

Pursuant to Article III of the ICANN Bye-laws for Transparency, ICANN also adopted the DIDP for disclosure of publicly unavailable documents and publish them over the Internet. This becomes essential in order to safeguard the effectiveness of its international multi-stakeholder operating model and its accountability towards the Internet community. Thereby, upon request made by members of the public, ICANN undertakes to furnish documents that are in possession, custody or control of ICANN and which are not otherwise publicly available, provided it does not fall under any of the defined conditions for non-disclosure. Such information can be requested via an email to didp@icann.org.

Procedure

Upon the receipt of a DIDP request, it is reviewed by the ICANN staff.
Relevant documents are identified and interview of the appropriate staff members is conducted.
The documents so identified are then assessed whether they come under the ambit of the conditions for non-disclosure.
- Yes - A review is conducted as to whether, under the particular circumstances, the public interest in disclosing the documentary information outweighs the harm that may be caused by such disclosure.
- Documents which are considered as responsive and appropriate for public disclosure are posted on the ICANN website.
- In case of request of documents whose publication is appropriate but premature at the time of response then the same is indicated in the response and upon publication thereafter, is notified to the requester.

Time Period and Publication

The response to the DIDP request is prepared by the staff and is made available to the requestor within a period of 30 days of receipt of request via email. The Request and the Response is also posted on the DIDP page http://www.icann.org/en/about/transparency in accordance with the posting guidelines set forth at http://www.icann.org/en/about/transparency/didp.

Conditions for Non-Disclosure

There are certain circumstances under which ICANN may refuse to provide the documents requested by the public. The conditions so identified by ICANN have been categorized under 12 heads and includes internal information, third-party contracts, non-disclosure agreements, drafts of all reports, documents, etc., confidential business information, trade secrets, information protected under attorney-client privilege or any other such privilege, information which relates to the security and stability of the internet, etc.

Moreover, ICANN may refuse to provide information which is not designated under the specified conditions for non-disclosure if in its opinion the harm in disclosing the information outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information. Further, requests for information already available publicly and to create or compile summaries of any documented information may be declined by ICANN.

Grievance Redressal Mechanism

In certain circumstances the requestor might be aggrieved by the response received and so he has a right to appeal any decision of denial of information by ICANN through the Reconsideration Request procedure or the Independent Review procedure established under Section 2 and 3 of Article IV of the ICANN Bye-laws respectively. The application for review is made to the Board which has designated a Board Governance Committee for such reconsideration. The Independent Review is done by an independent third-party of Board actions, which are allegedly inconsistent with the Articles of Incorporation or Bye-laws of ICANN.

Why does the DIDP matter?

The breadth of ICANN’s work and its intimate relationship to the continued functioning of the Internet must be appreciated before our analysis of the DIDP can be of help. ICANN manages registration and operations of generic and country-code Top Level Domains (TLD) in the world. This is a TLD:

(Source: here)

Operation of many gTLDs, such as .com, .biz or .info, is under contract with ICANN and an entity to which such operation is delegated. For instance, Verisign operates the .com Registry. Any organization that wishes to allow others to register new domain names under a gTLD (sub-domains such as ‘benefithealth’ in the above example) must apply to ICANN to be an ICANN-accredited Registrar. GoDaddy, for instance, is one such ICANN-accredited Registrar. Someone like you or me, who wants to get our own website – say, vinayak.com – buys from GoDaddy, which has a contract with ICANN under which it pays periodic sums for registration and renewal of individual domain names. When I buy from an ICANN-accredited Registrar, the Registrar informs the Registry Operator (say, Verisign), who then adds the new domain name (vinayak.com) to its registry list, and then it can be accessed on the Internet.

ICANN’s reach doesn’t stop here, technically. To add a new gTLD, an entity has to apply to ICANN, after which the gTLD has to be added to the root file of the Internet. The root file, which has the list of all TLDs (or all ‘legitimate’ TLDs, some would say), is amended by Verisign under its tripartite contract with the US Government and ICANN, after which Verisign updates the file in its ‘A’ root server. The other 12 root servers use the same root file as the Verisign root server. Effectively, this means that only ICANN-approved TLDs (and all sub-domains such as ‘benefithealth’ or ‘vinayak’) are available across the Internet, on a global scale. Or at least, ICANN-approved TLDs have the most and widest reach. ICANN similarly manages country-code TLDs, such as .in for India, .pk for Pakistan or .uk for the United Kingdom.

All of this leads us to wonder whether the extent of ICANN’s voluntary and reactive transparency is sufficient for an organization of such scale and impact on the Internet, perhaps as much impact as the governments do. In the next post, I will analyse the DIDP’s conditions for non-disclosure of information with certain freedom of information best practices.

Vinayak Mithal is a final year student at the Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Punjab. His interests lie in Internet governance and other aspects of tech law, which he hopes to explore during his internship at CIS and beyond. He may be reached at vinayakmithal@gmail.com.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/icann2019s-documentary-information-disclosure-policy-2013-i-didp-basics

ICANN Workstream 2 Recommendations on Accountability

akriti — 2018-11-23T14:56:20Z

One of the most significant initiatives to improve the accountability of the Internet Corporation of Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) commenced in 2014, when the Cross Community Working Group on Accountability was created. Its role was to develop a set of proposed enhancements to ICANN’s accountability to the global Internet community. This resulted in the first Work Stream (WS1) recommendations, which were eventually approved and incorporated into the bylaws of ICANN in 2016. These included a provision expressing the need for a second WS since the first one, done on a tight deadline,did not cover all the requisite issues. Instead WS1 only focused on issues that were needed to complete the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority(IANA) transition.

At the ICANN meeting in March of 2017 in Finland, the second Work Stream (WS2) was launched. The Cross Community Working Group submitted their final report at the end of June 2018 and the purpose of this blog is to look at the main recommendations given and the steps ahead to its implementation.

The new Workstream was structured into the following 8 independent sub groups as per the topics laid down in the WS1 final report, each headed by a Rapporteur:

1. Diversity

2. Guidelines for Standards of Conduct Presumed to be in Good Faith Associated with Exercising Removal of Individual ICANN Board Directors. (Guidelines for Good Faith)

3. Human Rights Framework of Interpretation (HR-FOI)

4. Jurisdiction

5. Office of the Ombuds

6. Supporting Organization/ Advisory Committee Accountability

7. Staff Accountability

8. ICANN Transparency

1. DIVERSITY Recommendations

The sub-group on Diversity suggested ways by which ICANN can define, measure, report, support and promote diversity. They proposed 7 key factors to guide all diversity considerations: Language, Gender, Age, Physical Disability, Diverse skills, Geographical representation and stakeholder group. Each charting organization within ICANN is asked to undertake an exercise whereby they publish their diversity obligations on their website, for each level of employment including leadership either under their own charter or ICANN Bylaws. This should be followed by a diversity assessment of their existing structures and consequently used to formulate their diversity objectives/criteria and steps on how to achieve the same along with the timeline to do so. These diversity assessments should be conducted annually and at the very least, every 3 years. ICANN staff has been tasked with developing a mechanism for dealing with complaints arising out of diversity and related issues. Eventually, it is envisioned that ICANN will create a Diversity section on their website where an Annual Diversity Report will be published. All information regarding Diversity should also be published in their Annual Report.

The recommendations leave much upto the organization without establishing specific recruitment policies for equal opportunities. In their 7 parameters, race was left out as a criteria for diversity. The criteria of ‘diverse skills’ is also ambiguous; and within stakeholder group, it would have been more useful to highlight the priority for diversity of opinions within the same stakeholder group. So for example, to have two civil society organizations (CSOs) advocating for contrasting stances as opposed to having many CSO’s supporting one stance. However, these steps should be a good starting point to improve the diversity of an organization which in our earlier research we have found to be neither global nor multistakeholder. In fact, our recent diversity analysis has shown concerns such as the vast number of the end users participating and as an extension, influencing ICANN work are male. The mailing list where the majority of discussions take place are dominated by individuals from industry bodies. This coupled with the relative minority presence of the other stakeholders, especially geographically (14.7% participation from Asian countries), creates an environment where concerns emanating from other sections of the society could be overshadowed. Moreover, when we have questioned ICANN’s existing diversity of employees based on their race and citizenship, they did not give us the figures citing either lack of information or confidentiality.

2. HUMAN RIGHTS FRAMEWORK OF INTERPRETATION (HR-FOI)

A Framework of Interpretation was developed by the WS2 for ICANN Bylaws relating to Human Rights which clarified that Human Rights are not a Commitment for the organization but is a Core Value. The former being an obligation while the latter are “not necessarily intended to apply consistently and comprehensively to ICANN’s activities”.

To summarize the FOI, if the applicable law i.e. the law practiced in the jurisdiction where ICANN is operating, does not mandate certain human rights then they do not raise issues under the core value. As such, there can be no enforcement of human rights obligations by ICANN or any other party against any other party. Thus, contingent on the seat of the operations the law can vary though by in large ICANN recognizes and can be guided by significant internationally respected human rights such as those enumerated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The United Nations Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights was recognized as useful in the process of applying the core value in operations since it discusses corporate responsibility to respect human rights. Building on this, Human Right Impact Assessments (HRIA) with respect to ICANN policy development processes are currently being formulated by the Cross Community Working Group on Human Rights. Complementing this, ICANN is also undertaking an internal HRIA of the organization’s operations. It is important to remember that the international human rights instruments that are relevant here are those required by the applicable law.

Apart from its legal responsibility to uphold the HR laws of an area, the framework is worded negatively in that it says ICANN should in general avoid violating human rights. It is also said that they should take into account HR when making policies but these fall short from saying that HR considerations should be given prominent weightage and since there are many core values, at any point one of the others can be used to sidestep human rights. One core value in particular says that ICANN should duly consider the public policy advice of governments and other authorities when arriving at a decision. Thus, if governments want to promote a decision to further national interests at the expense of citizen’s human rights then that would be very much possible within this FOI.

3. JURISDICTION

A highly contentious issue in WS2 was that of Jurisdiction, and the recommendations formed to tackle it were quite disappointing. Despite initial discussion by the group on ICANN’s location, they did not address the elephant in the room in their report. Even after the transition, ICANN’s new by-laws state that it is subject to California Law since it was incorporated there. This is partly the fault of the first Workstream because when enumerating the issues for WS2 with respect to jurisdiction, they left it ambiguous by stating: :

“At this point in the CCWG Accountability’s work, the main issues that need within Work Stream 2 relate to the influence that ICANN ́s existing jurisdiction may have on the actual operation of policies and accountability mechanisms. This refers primarily to the process for the settlement of disputes within ICANN, involving the choice of jurisdiction and of the applicable laws, but not necessarily the location where ICANN is incorporated.”

Jurisdiction can often play a significant role in the laws that ICANN will have to abide by in terms of financial reporting, consumer protection, competition and labour laws, legal challenges to ICANN’s actions and finally, in resolving contractual disputes. In its present state, the operations of ICANN could, if such a situation arises, see interference from US authorities by way of legislature, tribunals, enforcement agencies and regulatory bodies.

CIS has, in the past, discussed the concept of “jurisdictional resilience”, which calls for:

Legal immunity for core technical operators of Internet functions (as opposed to policymaking venues) from legal sanctions or orders from the state in which they are legally situated.
Division of core Internet operators among multiple jurisdictions
Jurisdictional division of policymaking functions from technical implementation functions

Proposing to change ICANN’s seat of headquarters or at the very least, suggest ways for ICANN to gain partial immunity for its policy development processes under the US law would have gone a long way in making ICANN truly a global body. It would have also ensured that as an organization, ICANN would have been equally accountable to all its stakeholders as opposed to now, where by virtue of its incorporation, it has higher legal and possible political, obligations to the United States. This was (initially?) expressed by Brazil who dissented from the majority conclusions of the sub-group and drafted their own minority report, which was supported by countries like Russia. They were unhappy that all countries are still not at an equal footing in the participation of management of Internet resources, which goes against the fundamentals of the multi-stakeholder system approach.

Recommendations:

The recommendations passed were in two categories:

Office of Foreign Asset Control (OFAC)

OFAC is an office of the US Treasury administering and enforcing economic and trade sanctions based on the American foreign policy and national security objectives. It is pertinent because, for ICANN to enter into a Registration Accreditation Agreement (RAA) with an applicant from a sanctioned country, it will need an OFAC license. What happens right now is that ICANN is under no obligation to request for this license and in either case, OFAC can refuse to provide it. The sub group recommended that the terms of the RAA be modified so that ICANN is required to apply for and put their best efforts in securing the license if the applicant is qualified to be a registrar and not individually subject to sanctions. While the licensing process is underway they should also be helpful and transparent, and maintain on-going communication with the applicant. The same recommendation was made for applicants to the new gTLD program, from sanctioned countries. Other general licenses are needed from OFAC for certain ICANN transactions and hence it was proposed that ICANN pursue the same.

2. Choice of law and Choice of Venue Provisions in ICANN Agreements

In ICANN’S Registry Agreements (RA) and Registration Accreditation Agreement (RAA) the absence of a choice of law provision means that the governing law of these contracts is undetermined until later decided by a judge or arbitrator or an agreement between the parties. It was collectively seen that increased freedom of choice for the parties in the agreement could help in customizing the agreements and make it easier for registries and such to contractually engage with ICANN. Out of various options, the group decided that a Menu approach would be best whereby a host of options(decided by ICANN) can be provided and the party in case choose the most appropriate from them such as the jurisdiction of their incorporation.In RAs, the choice of venue was pre determined as Los Angeles, California but the group recommended that instead of imposing this choice on the party it would be better to offer a list of possible venues for arbitration. The registry can then choose amongst these options when entering into the contract. There were other issues discussed which did not reach fruition due to lack of unanimity such as discussions on immunity of ICANN from US jurisdiction.

4. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDS

Subsequent to the external evaluation of the ICANN Office of the Ombuds (IOO), there were a couple of recommendations to strengthen the office. They were divided into procedural aspects that the office should carry out to improve their complaint mechanism such as differentiating between categories of complaints and explaining how each type would be handled with. The issues that would not invoke actions from the IOO should also be established clearly and if and where these could be transferred to any other channel. The response from all the relevant parties of ICANN to a formal request or report from the IOO should take place within 90 days, and 120 at the maximum if an explanation for the same can be provided. An internal timeline will be defined by the office for handling of complaints and document a report on these every quarter or annually. A recommendation for the IOO to be formally trained in mediation and have such experience within its ranks was further given. Reiterating the importance of diversity, even this sub group emphasized on the IOO bearing a diverse group in terms of gender and other parameters. This ensures that a complainant has a choice in who to approach in the office making them more comfortable. To enhance the independence of the Ombuds, their employment contract should have a 5 year fixed term which only allows for one extension of maximum 3 years. An Ombuds Advisory Panel is to be constituted by ICANN comprising five members to act as advisers, supporters and counsel for the IOO with at least 2 members having Ombudsman experience and the remaining possessing extensive ICANN experience. They would be responsible for selecting the new Ombuds and conducting the IOO’s evaluation every 5 years amongst others. Lastly, the IOO should proactively document their work by publishing reports on activity, collecting and publicizing statistics, user satisfaction information a well any improvements to the process.

These proposals still do not address the opacity of how the Office of the Ombuds resolve these cases since it does not call for; a) a compilation of all the cases that have been decided by the office in the history of the organization b) the details of the parties that are involved if the parties have allowed that to be revealed and if not at the very least, the non sensitive data such as their nationality and stakeholder affiliation and c) a description of the proceedings of the case and who won in each of them. When CIS asked for the above in 2015, the information was denied on ground of confidentiality. Yet, it is vital to know these details since the Ombuds hear complaints against the Board, Staff and other constituent bodies and by not reporting on this, ICANN is rendering the process much less accountable and transparent. This conflict resolution process and its efficacy is even more essential in a multi-stakeholder environment so as to give parties the faith to engage in the process, knowing that the redressal mechanisms are strong. It is also problematic that sexual harassments complaints are dealt by the Ombuds and that ICANN does not have a specific Anti-Sexual Harassment Committee. The committee should be neutral and approachable and while it is useful for the Office of the Ombuds to be trained in sexual harassment cases, it is by no means a comprehensive and ideal approach to deal with complaints of this nature. Despite ICANN facing a sexual harassment claim in 2016, the recommendations do not specifically address the approach the Ombuds should take in tackling sexual harassment.

5. SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION/ ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACCOUNTABILITY

The sub group presented the outcomes under the main heads of Accountability, Transparency, Participation, Outreach and Updates to policies and procedures. They suggested these as good practices that can be followed by the organizations and did not recommend that implementation of the same be required. The accountability aspect had suggestions of better documentation of procedures and decision-making. Proposals of listing members of such organizations publicly, making their meetings open to public observation including minutes and transcripts along with disclosing their correspondence with ICANN were aimed at making these entities more transparent. In the same vein, rules of membership and eligibility criteria, the process of application and a process of appeal should be well defined. Newsletters should be published by the SO/AC to help non-members understand the benefit and the process of becoming a member. Policies were asked to be reviewed at regular intervals and these internal reviews should not extend beyond a year.

6. STAFF ACCOUNTABILITY

Improving the ICANN staff’s Accountability was the job of a different group who assessed it at the service delivery, departmental or organizational level not at an individual or personnel level. They did this by analysing the roles and responsibilities of the Board, staff and community members and the nexus between them. Their observations culminated in the understanding that ICANN needs to take steps such as make visible their performance management system and process, their vision for the departmental goals and how they tie in to the organization’s strategic goals and objectives. They note that several new mechanisms have already been established yet have not been used enough to ascertain their efficacy and thus, propose a regular information acquisition mechanism. Most importantly, they have asked ICANN to standardize and publish guidelines for suitable timeframes for acknowledging and responding to requests from the community.

7. ICANN TRANSPARENCY

The last group of the WS2 was one specifically looking at the transparency of the organization.

a. The Documentary Information Disclosure Policy (DIDP)

Currently the DIDP process only applies to ICANN’s “operational activities”, it was recommended to delete this caveat to cover a wider breadth of the organization’s activities. As CIS has experienced, request for information is often met with an answer that such information is not documented and to remedy the same, a documentation policy was proposed where if significant elements of a decision making process are taking place orally then the participants will be required to document the substance of the conversation. Many a times DIDP requests are refused because one aspect of the information sought is subject to confidentiality. hus one of the changes is to introduce a severability clause so that in such cases, information can still be disclosed with the sensitive aspect redacted or severed. In scenarios of redaction, the rationale should be provided citing one of the given DIDP exceptions along with the process for appeal. ICANN’s contracts should be under the purview of the DIDP except when subject to a non-disclosure agreement and further, the burden is on the other party to convince ICANN that it has a legitimate commercial reason for requested the NDA. No longer would any information pertaining to the security and stability of the Internet be outside the ambit of the DIDP but only if it is harmful to the security and stability. Finally, ICANN should review the DIDP every five years to see how it can be improved.

b. Documenting and Reporting on ICANN’s Interactions with the Government

In a prominent step towards being more transparent with their expenditure and lobbying, the group recommended that ICANN begins disclosing publicly on at least an annual basis, sums of $20,000 per year devoted to “political activities” both in the US and abroad. All expenditures should be done on an itemized basis by ICANN for both outside contractors and internal personnel along with the identities of the persons engaging in such activities and the type of engagement used for such activities amongst others.

cc. Transparency of Board Deliberations

The bylaws were recommended to be revised so that material may be removed from the minutes of the Board if subject to a DIDP exception. The exception for deliberative processes should not apply to any factual information, technical report or reports on the performance or effectiveness of a particular body or strategy. When any information is removed from the minutes of the Board meeting, they should be disclosed after a particular period of time as and when the window of harm has passed.

d. ICANN’s Anonymous Hotline (Whistle-blower Protection)

To begin with, ICANN was recommended to devise a way such that when anyone searches their website for the term “whistle-blower”, it should redirect to their Hotline policy since people are unlikely to be aware that in ICANN parlance it is referred to as the Hotline policy. Instead of only “serious crimes” that are currently reported, all issues and concerns that violate local laws should be. Complaints should not be classified as ‘urgent’ and ‘non-urgent’ but all reports should be a priority and receive a formal acknowledgment within 48 hours at the maximum. ICANN should make it clear that any retaliation against the reporter will be taken and investigated as seriously as the original alleged wrongdoing. Employees should be provided with data about the use of the Hotline, including the types of incidents reported. Few member of this group came out with a Minority Statement expressing their disapproval with one particular aspect of the recommendations that they felt was not developed enough, the one pertaining to ICANN’s attorney-client privilege. The recommendation did not delve into specifics but merely stated that ICANN should expand transparency in their legal processes including clarifying how attorney-client privilege is invoked. The dissidents thought ICANN should go farther and enumerate principles where the privilege would be waived in the interests of transparency and account for voluntary disclosure as well.

The transparency recommendations did not focus on the financial reporting aspects of ICANN which we have found ambiguities with before. Some examples are; the Registries and Registrars are the main sources of revenue though there is ambiguity as to the classifications provided by ICANN such as the difference between RYG and RYN. The mode of contribution of sponsors isn’t clear either so we do not know if this was done through travel, money, media partnerships etc. Several entities have been listed from different places in different years, sometimes depending on the role they have played such as whether they are a sponsor or registry. Moreover, the Regional Internet Registries are clubbed under one heading and as a consequence it is not possible to determine individual RIR contribution like how much did APNIC pay for the Asia and Pacific region. Thus, there is a lot more scope for ICANN to be transparent which goes beyond the proposals in the report.

It is worth noting that whereas the mandate of the WS1 included the implementation of the recommendations, this is not the case for WS2 and thus, by creating a report itself the mission of the group is concluded. This difference can be attributed to the fact that during the first WS, there was a need to see it through since the IANA transition would not happen otherwise. The change in circumstances and the corresponding lack of urgency render the process less powerful, the second time round. The final recommendations are now being discussed in the relevant charting organizations within ICANN such as the Government Advisory Council (GAC) and subsequent to their approval,, it will be sent to the Board who will decide to adopt them or not. If adopted, ICANN and its sub organizations will have to see how they can implement these recommendations. The co-chairs of the group will be the point of reference for the chartering organizations and an implementation oversight team has been formed, consisting of the Rapporteurs of the sub teams and the co-chairs. A Feasibility Assessment Report will be made public in due time which will describe the resources that would take to implement the recommendations. Since it would be a huge undertaking for ICANN to implement the above, the compliance process is expected to take a few years. .

The link to report can be found here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/icann-work-stream-2-recommendations-on-accountability

ICANN takes one step forward in its human rights and accountability commitments

Akriti Bopanna and Ephraim Percy Kenyanito — 2019-12-19T11:35:16Z

Akriti Bopanna and Ephraim Percy Kenyanito take a look at ICANN's Implementation Assessment Report for the Workstream 2 recommendations and break down the key human rights considerations in it. Akriti chairs the Cross Community Working Party on Human Rights at ICANN and Ephraim works on Human Rights and Business for Article 19, leading their ICANN engagement.

The article was first published on Article 19 on December 16, 2019

ICANN is the international non-profit organization that brings together various stakeholders to create policies aimed at coordinating the Domain Name System. Some of these stakeholders include representatives from government, civil society, academia, the private sector, and the technical community.

During the recently concluded 66th International Meeting of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) in Montreal (Canada); the ICANN board adopted by consensus the recommendations contained within the Work Stream 2 (WS2) Final Report. This report was generated as part of steps towards accountability after the September 30th 2016 U.S. government handing over of its unilateral control over ICANN, through its previous stewardship role of the Internet Assigned Names and Numbers Authority (IANA).

The Workstream 2 Recommendations on Accountability are seen as a big step ahead in the incorporation of human rights in ICANN’s various processes, with over 100 recommendations on aspects ranging from diversity to transparency. An Implementation Team has been constituted which comprises the Co-chairs and the rapporteurs from the WS2 subgroups. They will primarily help the ICANN organization in interpreting recommendations of the groups where further clarification is needed on how to implement the same. As the next step, an Implementation Assessment Report has recently been published which looks at the various resources and steps needed. The steps are categorized into actions meant for one of the 3; the ICANN Board, Community and the ICANN organization itself. These will be funded by ICANN’s General Operating Fund, the Board and the org.

The report is divided into the following 8 issues: 1) Diversity, 2) Guidelines for Good Faith, 3) Recommendations for a Framework of Interpretation for Human Rights, 4) Jurisdiction of Settlement of Dispute Issues, 5) Recommendations for Improving the ICANN Office of the Ombudsman, 6) Recommendations to increase SO/ AC Accountability, 7) Recommendations to increase Staff Accountability and 8) Recommendations to improve ICANN Transparency.

This blog will take a look at the essential human rights related considerations of the report and how the digital rights community can get involved with the effectuation of the recommendations.

Diversity

The core issues concerning the issue of diversity revolve around the need for a uniform definition of the parameters of diversity and a community discussion on the ones already identified; geographic representation, language, gender, age, physical disability, diverse skills and stakeholder constituency. An agreed upon definition of all of these is necessary before its Board approval and application consistently through the various parts of ICANN. In addition, it is also required to formulate a standard template for diversity data collection and report generation. This sub group’s recommendations are estimated to be implemented in 6-18 months. Many of the recommendations need to be analyzed for compliance with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) such as collecting of information relating to disability. For now, the GDPR is only referenced with no further details on how steps considered will either comply or contrast the law.

Good faith Guidelines

The Empowered Community (EC) which includes all the Supporting Organizations, At-Large-Advisory-Committee and Government Advisory Council, are called upon to conceptualize guidelines to be followed when individuals from the EC are participating in Board Removal Processes. Subsequent to this, the implementation will take 6-12 months.

Framework of Interpretation for Human Rights

Central to the human rights conversation and finally approved, is the Human Rights Framework of Interpretation. However the report does not give a specific timeline for its implementation, only mentioning that this process will take more than 12 months. The task within this is to establish practices of how the core value of respecting human rights will be balanced with other core values while developing ICANN policies and execution of its operations. All policy development processes, reviews, Cross Community Working Group recommendations will need a framework to consider and incorporate human rights, in tandem with the Framework of Interpretation. It will also have to be shown that policies and recommendations sent to the Board have factored in the FOI.

Transparency

The recommendations focus on the following four key areas as listed below:
1. Improving ICANN’s Documentary Information Disclosure Policy (DIDP).
2. Documenting and Reporting on ICANN’s Interactions with Governments.
3. Improving Transparency of Board Deliberations.
4. Improving ICANN’s Anonymous Hotline (Whistleblower Protection).

The bulk of the burden for implementation is put on ICANN org with the community providing oversight and ensuring ICANN lives up to its commitments under various policies and laws. Subsequent to this, the implementation will take 6-12 months.

How the ICANN community can contribute to this work

This is a defining moment on the future of ICANN and there are great opportunities for the ICANN multistakeholder community to continue shaping the future of the Internet. Some of the envisioned actions by the community include:

monitoring and assessing the performance of the various ICANN bodies, and acting on the recommendations that emerge from those accountability processes. This will only be done through collaborative formulation of processes and procedures for PDPS, CCWGs etc to incorporate HR considerations and subsequently implementation of the best practices suggested for improving SO/ACs accountability and transparency;
conducting diversity assessments to inform objectives and strategies for diversity criteria;
supporting contracted parties through legal advice for change in their agreements when it comes to choice of law and venue recommendations;
contributing to conversations where the Ombudsman can expand his/her involvement that go beyond current jurisdiction and authority

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/article-19-akriti-bopanna-and-ephraim-percy-kenyanito-december-16-2019-icann-takes-one-step-forward-in-its-human-rights-and-accountability-commitments

ICANN Sexual Harassment Case Highlights Lack of Procedure at Global Internet Body

praskrishna — 2016-04-01T15:42:49Z

Alleged perpetrator files counter-complaint with ombudsman’s office after being publicly identified.

The article was published in the Wire on March 24, 2016.

A female researcher associated with the Bangalore-based Centre for Internet and Society has alleged that she was sexually harassed at an ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) public meeting held in Morocco earlier this month, in an incident that highlights a lack of established procedure at the global body responsible for maintaining the technical backbone of the Internet.

According to the woman, who is currently a law student but was representing CIS at the meeting, she was sexually harassed by a participant from the private sector constituency on March 6th at a working session.

“I felt like my space and safety as a young woman in the ICANN community was at stake,” she said.

ICANN-organised events currently do not have a formal redressal system for these type of complaints nor does it have a specific anti-sexual harassment committee to which community members can file an official complaint.

The CIS representative, therefore, has taken up her case with ICANN’s ombudsman office, an office that does not have an explicit mandate to deal with incidents of sexual harassment.

“I currently am unclear as to the exact status of my complaint. The ombudsman office does not have a clear sexual harassment procedure, it has only a standards of behaviour. When I first went to them, they told me nobody has officially complained of sexual harassment since 1998,” she told The Wire.

“I understand the evidential burden that needs to be fulfilled for this [allegation] to be proven. I know it’s difficult to prove this. I just want an enquiry conducted properly and impartially.”

The Centre for Internet and Society released a sharp statement on Monday, pointing out that since the woman was “given no immediate remedy or formal recourse”, she had no choice but to make “the incident publicly known in the interim.”

CIS Executive Director Sunil Abraham pointed out that while the ombudsman office has been in touch with the organisation’s representative, “this administrative process is simply inadequate for rights-violation”.

To that end, CIS has called upon ICANN to “institute a formal redressal system with regard to sexual harassment and institute an anti-sexual harassment committee that is neutral and approachable”.

“Merely having an ombudsman who is a white male, however well intentioned, is inadequate and completely unhelpful to the complainant. The present situation is one where the ombudsman has no effective power and only advises the board ,” the CIS’s statement reads.

ICANN perspective

When asked for a comment, ICANN media representatives pointed The Wire to the written transcript of a public session in which this particular issue of sexual harassment was raised. In that meeting, ICANN board member Markus Kummer specifically condemns “improper conduct of any kind such as harassment” while calling for zero tolerance on such issues within the larger ICANN community.

On the issue of whether ICANN could adopt a broader policy on sexual harassment, Kummer acknowledges that while the organisation’s expected standards of behaviour “could be a bit more specific as regards harassment”, the standards are applicable to “staff and board members and we have to undergo training”.

“Now, we could also make this also available to the community but the board thought it might not be the appropriate way to go about and impose something on the community. It might be more appropriate for the community to come up with these standards…Let me once again assure the community that the board is fully cognizant of the importance of this issue and supports the community in developing standards that may be more explicit in regard of these issues,” Kummer is quoted as saying in the transcript.

Complaint, Counter-Complaint

The incident, however, took a different turn on Tuesday after the ICANN ombudsman wrote to the CIS representative informing her that the investigation had become “very difficult” because she had identified and named the alleged perpetrator in a public social media posting.

“By naming [the alleged perpetrator] before the process was completed, this has meant that the confidentiality of my office has been compromised and his privacy has been compromised. Leaving aside the issue of whether he actually made the comments and behaved as you describe [sic], he is entitled to a fair and impartial investigation,” the ombudsman office’s letter says.

The alleged perpetrator now, according to the letter, has filed a counter-complaint with the ombudsman and has asked the office to undertake an investigation into the female student’s actions in this regard.

“I remind you that his [the perpetrator] initial response on the initial discussion was that he could not recall making the remark. So I sought your comments. I would have liked to take your comments back to him and had some form of conversation. This may still be possible but the force of your complaint is diluted by the problem of procedural fairness by the premature publication of his name,” the letter adds.

Cleaning up

While the CIS representative’s complaint may be the first officially recorded incident at an ICANN meeting, sexual harassment and inappropriate gender bias at numerous technical conferences across the world (ICANN or not) has been a well-documented phenomenon.

In 2012, ICANN ombudsman Chris LaHette was forced to step in after a complaint was lodged regarding the insensitive advertising and promotion surrounding the ICANN 44 meeting in Prague.

While ICANN’s “expected standards of behaviour” – basically a code of conduct – explicitly states that all “members of the ICANN community be treated equally irrespective of nationality or gender..”, there is no official policy that states what aggrieved parties should do after an incident occurs.

Such a policy must be created, CIS points out, and must be “displayed on the ICANN website, at the venue of meetings, and made available in delegate kits”.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-wire-march-24-2016-icann-sexual-harassment-case-highlights-lack-of-procedure-at-global-internet-body