We are anonymous, we are legion

CIS@IGF 2014

geetha — 2014-10-08T10:31:47Z

The ninth Internet Governance Forum (“IGF2014”) was hosted by Turkey in Istanbul from September 2 to 5, 2014.

A BestBits pre-event, which saw robust discussions on renewal of the IGF mandate, the NETmundial Initiative and other live Internet governance processes, flagged off a week of many meetings and sessions. At IGF2014, the ICANN-led processes of IANA transition and ICANN accountability found strong presence. Human rights online, access and net neutrality were also widely discussed. Centre for Internet and Society, India participated in multiple workshops and panels.

Workshops and Panel Discussions

WS206: An evidence-based framework for intermediary liability
CIS organized a workshop on developing an evidence-based framework for intermediary liability in collaboration with the Stanford Center for Internet and Society. By connecting information producers and consumers, intermediaries serve as valuable tool for growth and innovation, and also a medium for realisation of human rights. The workshop looked to a concerted approach to understanding intermediaries’ impact on human rights demands our urgent attention. Jyoti Panday of CIS was contributed to the workshop’s background paper and organisation. Elonnai Hickok of CIS was a speaker. At this workshop, a zero-draft of international principles for intermediary liability was released. The zero-draft is the interim outcome of an ongoing, global intermediary liability project, undertaken by CIS in collaboration with Article 19 and Electronic Frontier Foundation. See the video.

WS112: Implications of post-Snowden Internet localization proposals
Organised by ISOC and Center for Democracy and Technology, this panel questioned the distinctions between Internet-harmful and Internet-beneficial Internet and data localization. As a speaker at this workshop, Sunil Abraham of CIS identified state imperatives for Internet localization, such as taxation, network efficiency and security. See video.

WS63: Preserving a universal Internet: Costs of fragmentation
Internet and Jurisdiction Project organized this workshop to explore potential harms to Internet architecture, universality and openness as a result of Internet balkanisation. Sunil Abraham was one of the speakers.

WS2: Mobile, trust and privacy
Organised by GSMA, this panel discussed methods, benefits and harms of use of mobile transaction generated information and data. Sunil Abraham was a speaker. See video.

WS188: Transparency reporting as a tool for Internet governance
This GNI workshop examined transparency reporting by Internet intermediaries and companies, and sought to identify its strengths and shortcomings as a tool for Internet governance. Pranesh Prakash of CIS was a speaker. See video.

WS149: Aligning ICANN policy with the privacy rights of users
This Yale ISP panel examined ICANN’s obligations for data protection, in light of international standards and best practices. This discussion is particularly relevant as ICANN’s WHOIS policy, Registrar Accreditation Agreement, and other policies have attained the status of a global standard for the handling of personal data. Pranesh Prakash moderated this panel.

Other Participation

Launch of the GISWatch Report

Association for Progressive Communications (APC) and the Humanist Institute for Cooperation with Developing Countries (Hivos) released the Global Information Society Watch Report (GISWatch) on national and global mass surveillance. The report “explores the surveillance of citizens in today's digital age by governments with the complicity of institutions and corporations”. Elonnai Hickok of CIS contributed a thematic chapter on Intermediary Liability and Surveillance to this report.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis-at-igf-2014

CIS’ Efforts Towards Greater Financial Disclosure by ICANN

Padma Venkataraman — 2017-10-31T02:10:11Z

CIS has been working towards enhancing transparency and accountability at ICANN since 2014. While initial efforts have resulted in ICANN revealing its sources of income in a granular fashion in 2015, we are yet to see this level of transparency become a default approach within ICANN. Here, Padma Venkataraman chronologically maps CIS’ efforts at enhancing financial transparency and accountability at ICANN, while providing an outline of what remains to be done.

With the $135 million sale of .web,^[1] the much protested renewal of the .net agreement^[2] and the continued annual increase in domain name registrations,^[3] among other things, it is no surprise that there are still transparency and accountability concerns within the ICANN Community. CIS, as part of its efforts to examine the functioning of ICANN’s accountability mechanisms, has filed many DIDP requests till date, in a bid for greater transparency of the organisation’s sources of revenues.

1.Efforts towards disclosure of revenue break-up by ICANN

- 2014

- 2015

- 2017

2.The need for granularity regarding historical revenues

-----

1.Efforts towards disclosure of revenue break-up by ICANN

- 2014

In 2014, CIS’ Sunil Abraham demanded greater financial transparency of ICANN at both the Asia Pacific IGF and the ICANN Open Forum at the IGF. Later that year, CIS was provided with a list of ICANN’s sources of revenue for the financial year 2014, including payments from registries, registrars, sponsors, among others, by ICANN India Head Mr. Samiran Gupta.^[4] This was a big step for CIS and the Internet community, as before this, no details on granular income had ever been publicly divulged by ICANN on request.

However, as no details of historical revenue had been provided, CIS filed a DIDP request in December 2014, seeking financial disclosure of revenues for the years 1999 to 2014, in a detailed manner - similar to the 2014 report that had been provided.^[5] It sought a list of individuals and entities who had contributed to ICANN’s revenues over the mentioned time period.

In its response, ICANN stated that it possessed no documents in the format that CIS had requested, that is, it had no reports that broke down domain name income and revenue received by each legal entity and individual.^[6] It stated that as the data for years preceding 2012 were on a different system, compiling reports of the raw data for these years would be time-consuming and overly burdensome. ICANN denied the request citing this specific provision for non-disclosure of information under the DIDP.^[7]

- 2015

In July 2015, CIS filed a request for disclosure of raw data regarding granular income for the years 1999 to 2014.^[8] ICANN again said that it would be a huge burden ‘to access and review all the raw data for the years 1999 to 2014 in order to identify the raw data applicable to the request’.^[9] However, it mentioned its commitment to preparing detailed reports on a go-forward basis - all of which would be uploaded on its Financials page.^[10]

- 2017

To follow up on ICANN’s commitment to granularity, CIS sought a detailed report on historical data for income and revenue contributions from domain names for FY 2015 and FY 2016 in June 2017.^[11] In its reply, ICANN stated that the Revenue Detail by Source reports for the last two years would be out by end July and that the report for FY 2012 would be out by end September.^[12]

2.The need for granularity regarding historical revenues

In 2014, CIS asked for disclosure of a list of ICANN’s sources of revenue and detailed granular income for the years 1999 to 2014. ICANN published the first but cited difficulty in preparing reports of the second. In 2015, CIS again sought detailed reports of historical granular revenue for the same period, and ICANN again denied disclosure claiming that it was burdensome to handle the raw data for those years. However, as ICANN agreed to publish detailed reports for future years, CIS recently asked for publication of reports for the FYs 2012, 2015 and 2016. Reports for these three years were uploaded according to the timeline provided by ICANN.

CIS appreciates ICANN’s cooperation with its requests and is grateful for their efforts to make the reports for FYs 2012 to 2016 available (and on a continued basis). However, it is important that detailed information of historical revenue and income from domain names for the years 1999 to 2014 be made publicly available. It is also crucial that consistent accounting and disclosure practices are adopted and made known to the Community, in order to avoid omissions of statements such as Detail Revenue by Source and Lobbying Disclosures, among many others, in the annual reports - as has evidently happened for the years preceding 2012. This is necessary to maintain financial transparency and accountability, as an organisation’s sources of revenues can inform the dependant Community about why it functions the way it does.

It will also allow more informed discussions about problems that the Community has faced in the past and continues to struggle with. For example, while examining problems such as ineffective market competition or biased screening processes for TLD applicants, among others, this data can be useful in assessing the long-term interests, motives and influences of different parties involved.

^[1] https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2016-07-28-en

^[2] Report of Public Comment Proceeding on the .net Renewal. https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-comments-net-renewal-13jun17-en.pdf

^[3] https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/cct-metrics-domain-name-registration-2016-06-27-en

^[4] https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis-receives-information-on-icanns-revenues-from-domain-names-fy-2014

^[5] DIDP Request no - 20141222-1, 22 December 2014. https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-2

^[6] https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cis-response-21jan15-en.pdf

^[7] Defined Conditions for Non-Disclosure - Information requests: (i) which are not reasonable; (ii) which are excessive or overly burdensome; (iii) complying with which is not feasible; or (iv) are made with an abusive or vexatious purpose or by a vexatious or querulous individual.

https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/didp-2012-02-25-en

^[8] DIDP Request no - 20150722-2, 22 July 2015. https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-12-revenues

^[9] https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-response-20150722-2-21aug15-en.pdf

^[10] https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-response-20150722-2-21aug15-en.pdf; https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/financials-en

^[11] DIDP Request No. 20170613-1, 14 June 2017.

^[12] https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-20170613-1-marda-obo-cis-response-13jul17-en.pdf

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis2019-efforts-towards-greater-financial-disclosure-by-icann

CIS’ Comments to the Christchurch Call

Tanaya Rajwade, Elonnai Hickok, and Raouf Kundil Peedikayil — 2019-11-04T14:13:13Z

In the wake of the Christchurch terror attacks, the Prime Minister of New Zealand, Jacinda Ardern, and the President of France, Emmanuel Macron co-chaired the Christchurch Call to Action in May 2018 to “bring together countries and tech companies in an attempt to bring to an end the ability to use social media to organise and promote terrorism and violent extremism.”

Fifty one supporters, including India, and eight tech companies have jointly agreed to a set of non-binding commitments and ongoing collaboration to eliminate violent and extremist content online. Facebook, Microsoft, Twitter, Google, and Amazon are all among the online service provider signatories that released a joint statement welcoming the call and committing to a nine-point action plan.

The Call has been hailed by many as a step in the right direction, as it represents the first collaboration between governments and the private sector companies to combat the problem of extremist content online at this scale. However, the vagueness of the commitments outlined in the Call and some of the proposed mechanisms have raised concerns about the potential abuse of human rights by both governments and tech companies.

This response is divided into two parts - Part One examines the call through the lens of human rights, and Part Two thinks through the ways in which India can adhere to the commitments in the Call, and compares the current legal framework in India with the commitments outlined in the Call.

Click to read the comments here. The comments were prepared by Tanaya Rajwade, Elonnai Hickok, and Raouf Kundil Peedikayil and edited by Gurshabad Grover and Amber Sinha.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/tanaya-rajwade-elonnai-hickok-and-raouf-kundil-peedikayil-october-31-2019-comments-to-christchurch-call

CIS's Position on Net Neutrality

sunil — 2015-12-09T13:06:06Z

As researchers committed to the principle of pluralism we rarely produce institutional positions. This is also because we tend to update our positions based on research outputs. But the lack of clarity around our position on network neutrality has led some stakeholders to believe that we are advocating for forbearance. Nothing can be farther from the truth. Please see below for the current articulation of our common institutional position.

Net Neutrality violations can potentially have multiple categories of harms — competition harms, free speech harms, privacy harms, innovation and ‘generativity’ harms, harms to consumer choice and user freedoms, and diversity harms thanks to unjust discrimination and gatekeeping by Internet service providers.
Net Neutrality violations (including some those forms of zero-rating that violate net neutrality) can also have different kinds benefits — enabling the right to freedom of expression, and the freedom of association, especially when access to communication and publishing technologies is increased; increased competition [by enabling product differentiation, can potentially allow small ISPs compete against market incumbents]; increased access [usually to a subset of the Internet] by those without any access because they cannot afford it, increased access [usually to a subset of the Internet] by those who don't see any value in the Internet, reduced payments by those who already have access to the Internet especially if their usage is dominated by certain services and destinations.
Given the magnitude and variety of potential harms, complete forbearance from all regulation is not an option for regulators nor is self-regulation sufficient to address all the harms emerging from Net Neutrality violations, since incumbent telecom companies cannot be trusted to effectively self-regulate. Therefore, CIS calls for the immediate formulation of Net Neutrality regulation by the telecom regulator [TRAI] and the notification thereof by the government [Department of Telecom of the Ministry of Information and Communication Technology]. CIS also calls for the eventual enactment of statutory law on Net Neutrality. All such policy must be developed in a transparent fashion after proper consultation with all relevant stakeholders, and after giving citizens an opportunity to comment on draft regulations.
Even though some of these harms may be large, CIS believes that a government cannot apply the precautionary principle in the case of Net Neutrality violations. Banning technical innovations and business model innovations is not an appropriate policy option. The regulation must toe a careful line to solve the optimization problem: refraining from over-regulation of ISPs and harming innovation at the carrier level (and benefits of net neutrality violations mentioned above) while preventing ISPs from harming innovation and user choice. ISPs must be regulated to limit harms from unjust discrimination towards consumers as well as to limit harms from unjust discrimination towards the services they carry on their networks.
Based on regulatory theory, we believe that a regulatory framework that is technologically neutral, that factors in differences in technological context, as well as market realities and existing regulation, and which is able to respond to new evidence is what is ideal.

This means that we need a framework that has some bright-line rules based, but which allows for flexibility in determining the scope of exceptions and in the application of the rules. Candidate principles to be embodied in the regulation include: transparency, non-exclusivity, limiting unjust discrimination.
The harms emerging from walled gardens can be mitigated in a number of ways. On zero-rating the form of regulation must depend on the specific model and the potential harms that result from that model. Zero-rating can be: paid for by the end consumer or subsidized by ISPs or subsidized by content providers or subsidized by government or a combination of these; deal-based or criteria-based or government-imposed; ISP-imposed or offered by the ISP and chosen by consumers; Transparent and understood by consumers vs. non-transparent; based on content-type or agnostic to content-type; service-specific or service-class/protocol-specific or service-agnostic; available on one ISP or on all ISPs. Zero-rating by a small ISP with 2% penetration will not have the same harms as zero-rating by the largest incumbent ISP. For service-agnostic / content-type agnostic zero-rating, which Mozilla terms ‘equal rating’, CIS advocates for no regulation.
CIS believes that Net Neutrality regulation for mobile and fixed-line access must be different recognizing the fundamental differences in technologies.
On specialized services CIS believes that there should be logical separation and that all details of such specialized services and their impact on the Internet must be made transparent to consumers both individual and institutional, the general public and to the regulator. Further, such services should be available to the user only upon request, and not without their active choice, with the requirement that the service cannot be reasonably provided with ‘best efforts’ delivery guarantee that is available over the Internet, and hence requires discriminatory treatment, or that the discriminatory treatment does not unduly harm the provision of the rest of the Internet to other customers.
On incentives for telecom operators, CIS believes that the government should consider different models such as waiving contribution to the Universal Service Obligation Fund for prepaid consumers, and freeing up additional spectrum for telecom use without royalty using a shared spectrum paradigm, as well as freeing up more spectrum for use without a licence.
On reasonable network management CIS still does not have a common institutional position.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis-position-on-net-neutrality

CIS's Comments on the CCWG-Accountability Draft Proposal

pranesh — 2016-01-29T15:17:48Z

The Centre for Internet & Society (CIS) gave its comments on the failures of the CCWG-Accountability draft proposal as well as the processes that it has followed.

We from the Centre for Internet and Society wishes to express our dismay at the consistent way in which CCWG-Accountability has completely failed to take critical inputs from organizations like ours (and others, some instances of which have been highlighted in Richard Hill’s submission) into account, and has failed to even capture our concerns and misgivings about the process — as expressed in our submission to the CCWG-Accountability’s 2nd Draft Proposal on Work Stream 1 Recommendations — in any document prepared by the CCWG. We cannot support the proposal in its current form.

Time for Comments

We believe firstly that the 21 day comment period itself was too short and is going to result effectively in many groups or categories of people from not being able to meaningfully participate in the process, which flies in the face of the values that ICANN claims to uphold. This extremely short period amounts to procedural unsoundness, and restrains educated discussion on the way forward, especially given that the draft has altered quite drastically in the aftermath to ICANN55.

Capture of ICANN and CCWG Process

The participation in the accountability-cross-community mailing list clearly shows that the process is dominated by developed countries (of the top 30 non-staff posters to the list, 26 were from the ‘WEOG’ UN grouping, with 14 being from the USA, with only 1 from Asia Pacific, 2 from Africa, and 1 from Latin America), by males (27 of the 30 non-staff posters), and by industry/commercial interests (17 of the top 30 non-staff posters). If this isn’t “capture”, what is? There is no stress test that overcomes this reality of capture of ICANN by Western industry interests. The global community is only nominally multistakeholder, while actually being grossly under-representative of the developing nations, women and minority genders, and communities that are not business communities or technical communities. For instance, of the 1010 ICANN-accredited registrars, 624 are from the United States, and 7 from the 54 countries of Africa.

Culling statistics from the accountability-cross-community mailing list, we find that of the top 30 posters (excluding ICANN staff):

57% were, as far as one could ascertain from public records, from a single country: the United States of America.
87% were, as far as one could ascertain from public records, participants from countries which are part of the WEOG UN grouping (which includes Western Europe, US, Canada, Israel, Australia, and New Zealand), which only has developed countries. None of those who participated substantively were from the EEC (Eastern European) group and only 1 was from Asia-Pacific and only 1 was from GRULAC (Latin American and Caribbean Group).
90% were male and 3 were female, as far as one could ascertain from public records.
57% were identifiable as primarily being from industry or the technical community, as far as one could ascertain from public records, with only 2 (7%) being readily identifiable as representing governments.

This lack of global multistakeholder representation greatly damages the credibility of the entire process, since it gains its legitimacy by claiming to represent the global multistakeholder Internet community.

Bogey of Governmental Capture

With respect to Stress Test 18, dealing with the GAC, the report proposes that the ICANN Bylaws, specifically Article XI, Section 2, be amended to create a provision where if two-thirds of the Board so votes, they can reject a full GAC consensus advice. This amendment is not connected to the fear of government capture or the fear that ICANN will become a government-led body; given that the advice given by the GAC is non-binding that is not a possibility. Given the state of affairs described in the submission made above, it is clear that for much of the world, their governments are the only way in which they can effectively engage within the ICANN ecosystem. Therefore, nullifying the effectiveness of GAC advice is harmful to the interests of fostering a multistakeholder ecosystem, and contributes to the strengthening of the kind of industry capture described above.

Jurisdiction

All discussions on the Sole Designator Model seem predicated on the unflinching certainty of ICANN’s jurisdiction continuing to remain in California, as the legal basis of that model is drawn from Californian corporate law. To quote the draft report itself, in Annexe 12, it is stated that:

"Jurisdiction directly influences the way ICANN’s accountability processes are structured and operationalized. The fact that ICANN today operates under the legislation of the U.S. state of California grants the corporation certain rights and implies the existence of certain accountability mechanisms. It also imposes some limits with respect to the accountability mechanisms it can adopt. The topic of jurisdiction is, as a consequence, very relevant for the CCWG-Accountability. ICANN is a public benefit corporation incorporated in California and subject to California state laws, applicable U.S. federal laws and both state and federal court jurisdiction."

Jurisdiction has been placed within the mandate of WS2, to be dealt with post the transition. However, there is no analysis in the 3rd Draft on how the Sole Designator Model would continue to be upheld if future Work Stream 2 discussions led to a consensus that there needed to be a shift in the jurisdiction of ICANN. In the event that ICANN shifts to, say, Delaware or Geneva, would there be a basis to the Sole Designator Model in the law? Therefore this is an issue that needs to be addressed before this model is adopted, else there is a risk of either this model being rendered infructuous in the future, or this model foreclosing open debate and discussion in Work Stream 2.

Right of Inspection

We strongly support the incorporation of the rights of Inspection under this model as per Section 6333 of the California Corporations Code as a fundamental bylaw. As there is a severe gap between the claims that ICANN raises about its own transparency and the actual amount of transparency that it upholds, we opine that the right of inspection needs to be provided to each member of the ICANN community.

Timeline for WS2 Reforms

We support the CCWG’s commitment to the review of the DIDP Process, which they have committed to enhancing in WS2. Our research on this matter indicates that ICANN has in practice been able to deflect most requests for information. It regularly utilised its internal processes and discussions with stakeholders clauses, as well as clauses on protecting financial interests of third parties (over 50% of the total non-disclosure clauses ever invoked - see chart below) to do away with having to provide information on pertinent matters such as its compliance audits and reports of abuse to registrars. We believe that even if ICANN is a private entity legally, and not at the same level as a state, it nonetheless plays the role of regulating an enormous public good, namely the Internet. Therefore, there is a great onus on ICANN to be far more open about the information that they provide. Finally, it is extremely disturbing that they have extended full disclosure to only 12% of the requests that they receive. An astonishing 88% of the requests have been denied, partly or otherwise. See "Peering behind the veil of ICANN's DIDP (II)".

In the present format, there has been little analysis on the timeline of WS2; the report itself merely states that:

"The CCWG-Accountability expects to begin refining the scope of Work Stream 2 during the upcoming ICANN 55 Meeting in March 2016. It is intended that Work Stream 2 will be completed by the end of 2016."

Without further clarity and specification of the WS2 timeline, meaningful reform cannot be initiated. Therefore we urge the CCWG to come up with a clear timeline for transparency processes.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/ciss-comments-on-the-ccwg-accountability-draft-proposal

CIS' Statement on Sexual Harassment at ICANN55

Vidushi Marda — 2016-03-21T15:22:11Z

The Centre for Internet and Society

Statement on Sexual Harassment at ICANN55

The Centre for Internet and Society (“CIS”) strongly condemns the acts of sexual harassment that took place against one of our representatives, Ms. Padmini Baruah, during ICANN 55 in Marrakech. It is completely unacceptable that an event the scale of an ICANN meeting does not have in place a formal redressal system, a neutral point of contact or even a policy for complainants who have been put through the ordeal of sexual harassment. ICANN cannot claim to be inclusive or diverse if it does not formally recognise a specific procedure or recourse under such instances.

Ms. Baruah is by no means the first young woman to be subject to such treatment at an ICANN event, but she is the first to raise a formal complaint. Following the incident, she was given no immediate remedy or formal recourse, and that has left her with no option but to make the incident publicly known in the interim. The ombudsman’s office has been in touch with her, but this administrative process is simply inadequate for rights-violations.

Ms. Baruah has received support from various community, staff, and board members. While we are thankful for their support, we believe that this situation can be better dealt with through some positive measures. We ask that ICANN carry out the following steps in order to make its meetings a truly safe and inclusive space:

Institute a formal redressal system and policy with regard to sexual harassment within ICANN. The policy must be displayed on the ICANN website, at the venue of meetings and made available in delegate kits.
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.
Conduct periodic gender and anti sexual harassment training of the ICANN board to help them better understand, recognise and address instances of sexual harassment.
Conduct periodic gender and anti sexual harassment training for the ombudsman even if he/she will not be the exclusive point of contact for complainants as the ombudsman forms an important part of community and participant engagement
Conduct periodic gender sensitisation for the ICANN community.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis-statement-on-sexual-harrasment-at-icann55

CIS Welcomes Standing Committee Report on IT Rules

pranesh — 2013-04-03T10:54:52Z

The Centre for Internet and Society welcomes the report by the Standing Committee on Subordinate Legislation, in which it has lambasted the government and has recommended that the government amend the Rules it passed in April 2011 under section 79 of the Information Technology Act.

Click to read the Parliamentary Standing Committee Report on the IT Rules. A modified version was published in CiOL on March 27, 2013.

These rules have been noted by many, including CIS, Software Freedom Law Centre, and Society for Knowledge Commons, and many eminent lawyers, as being unconstitutional. The Standing Committee, noting this, has asked the government to make changes to the Rules to ensure that the fundamental rights to freedom of speech and privacy are safeguarded, and that the principles of natural justice are respected when a person’s freedom of speech or privacy are curtailed.

Ambiguous and Over-reaching Language

The Standing Committee has noted the inherent ambiguity of words like "blasphemy", "disparaging", etc., which are used in the Intermediary Guidelines Rules, and has pointed out that unclear language can lead to harassment of people as has happened with Section 66A of the IT Act, and can lead to legitimate speech being removed. Importantly, the Standing Committee recognizes that many categories of speech prohibited by the Intermediary Guidelines Rules are not prohibited by any statute, and hence cannot be prohibited by the government through these Rules. Accordingly, the Standing Committee has asked the government to ensure "no new category of crimes or offences is created" by these Rules.

Government Confused Whether Rules Are Mandatory or Advisory

The Standing Committee further notes that there is a discrepancy in the government’s stand that the Intermediary Guidelines Rules are not mandatory, and are only "of advisory nature and self-regulation", and that "it is not mandatory for the Intermediary to disable the information, the rule does not lead to any kind of censorship". The Standing Committee points out the flaw in this, and notes that the language used in the rules is mandatory language (“shall act” within 36 hours). Thus, it rightly notes that there is a "need for clarity on the aforesaid contradiction". Further, it also notes that there is "there should be safeguards to protect against any abuse", since this is a form of private censorship by intermediaries."

Evidence Needed Against Foreign Websites

The government has told the Standing Committee that "foreign websites repeatedly refused to honour our laws", however, it has not provided any proof for this assertion. The government should make public all evidence that foreign web services are refusing to honour Indian laws, and should encourage a public debate on how we should tackle this problem in light of the global nature of the Internet.

Cyber Cafes Rules Violate Citizens’ Privacy

The Standing Committee also pointed out that the Cyber Cafe Rules violated citizens’ right to privacy in requiring that "screens of the computers installed other than in partitions and cubicles should face open space of the cyber café". Unfortunately, the Standing Committee did not consider the privacy argument against retention of extensive and intrusive logs. Under the Cyber Cafe Rules, cyber cafes are required to retain (for a minimum of one year) extensive logs, including that of "history of websites accessed using computer resource at cyber café" in such a manner that each website accessed can be linked to a person. The Committee only considered the argument that this would impose financial burdens on small cybercafes, and rejected that argument. CIS wishes the Committee had examined the provision on log maintenance on grounds of privacy as well."

Government’s Half-Truths

In one response, the government notes that "rules under Section 79 in particular have undergone scrutiny by High Courts in the country. Based on the Rules, the courts have given reliefs to a number of individuals and organizations in the country. No provision of the Rules notified under Sections 43A and 79 of the IT Act, 2000 have been held ultra vires."

What the government says is a half-truth. So far, courts have not struck down any of the IT Rules. But that is because none of the High Court cases in which the vires of the Rules have been challenged has concluded. So it is disingenuous of the government to claim that the Rule have "undergone scrutiny by High Courts". And in those cases where relief has been granted under the Intermediary Guidelines, the cases have been ex-parte or have been cases where the vires of the Rules have not been challenged. The government, if it wants to defend the Rules, should point out to any case in which the vires of the Rules have been upheld. Not a single court till date has declared the Rules to be constitutional when that question was before it.

Lack of Representation of Stakeholders in Policy Formulation

Lastly, the Standing Committee noted that it is not clear whether the Cyber Regulatory Advisory Committee (CRAC), which is responsible for policy guidance on the IT Act, has "members representing the interests of principally affected or having special knowledge of the subject matter as expressly stipulated in Section 88(2) of the IT Act". This is a problem that we at CIS also noted in November 2012, when the CRAC was reconstituted after having been defunct for more than a decade.

CIS hopes that the government finally takes note of the view of legal experts, the Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, the Parliamentary motion against the Rules, and numerous articles and editorials in the press, and withdraws the Intermediary Guidelines Rules and the Cyber Cafe Rules, and instead replaces them with rules that do not infringe our constitutional rights.

The Centre for Internet and Society is a non-profit research organization that works on policy issues relating to freedom of expression, privacy, accessibility for persons with disabilities, access to knowledge and IPR reform, and openness, and engages in academic research on digital natives and digital humanities. It was among the organizations that submitted evidence to the Standing Committee on Subordinate Legislation on the IT Rules.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis-welcomes-standing-committee-report-on-it-rules

CIS Welcomes 52nd Report on Cyber Crime, Cyber Security, and Right to Privacy

elonnai — 2014-02-24T10:49:46Z

The “Fifty Second Report on Cyber Crime, Cyber Security, and Right to Privacy” issued by the 2013 -2014 Standing Committee on Information Technology on February 12th 2014, highlights the urgent need for reform in India’s cyber security framework and the need for the much awaited privacy legislation to be finalized and made into a law.

Read the Fifty-Second Report on Cyber Crime, Cyber Security and Right to Privacy released by the Department of Electronics and Information Technology

The Report consists of questions on the state of cyber security, cyber crime, and privacy posed by the Standing Committee and briefings and evidence provided by the Department of Electronics and Information Technology (DEITY ) in reply. The Report concludes with recommendations from the Standing Committee on the way forward.

The Report represents an important step forward in the realm of privacy and cyber security in India as the evidence provided by DEITY clarifies a number of aspects of India’s present and upcoming cyber security policies and practices. Furthermore, the recommendations by the Standing Committee highlight present gaps and inadequacies in India’s policies and practices and needed steps forward– particularly the need for a privacy legislation in India in the context of cyber security, increased transactions of sensitive data, and governmental projects like the Unique Identification Project.

Broadly, the Standing Committee sought input from DEITY on eight different aspects of cyber crime, cyber security, and privacy in India - namely: the growing incidents of cyber crime and resulting financial loss, the challenges and constraints of cyber crime, the role of relevant governmental organizations in India with respect to cyber security, preparedness and policy initiatives, cyber security and the right to privacy, monitoring and grievance redressal mechanism, and education and awareness initiatives. The evidence provided by DEITY sheds light on the present mindset of the Government at this time, upcoming policies, and capacity and infrastructure gaps in India’s cyber security framework.

The Centre for Internet and Society appreciates the Report and we would like to highlight and emphasize the following aspects:

Need for a privacy legislation and inadequacy of privacy provisions in Information Technology Act: When asked by the Standing Committee about the right to privacy and cyber security, DEITY highlighted the fact that the Information Technology Act contains sufficient safeguards for privacy, and added that the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) is in the process of developing a privacy legislation that will address the general concerns of privacy in the country, and thus the two together will be sufficient. DEITY also noted that no study on the extent of privacy breach due to cyber crime in India has been conducted. In their recommendations, the Standing Committee noted that it was unhappy that the Government has yet to institute a legal framework on privacy, as the increased transfer of sensitive data and projects like the UID leave citizens vulnerable to privacy violations . Significantly, the Standing Committee recommended that though the DoPT is currently responsible for drafting the Privacy Bill, DEITY should coordinate with the DoPT and become involved in the process.

As recognized by the Standing Committee, the Centre for Internet and Society would like to further emphasize the inadequacy of the provisions relating to privacy in the Information Technology Act, and the need for a privacy legislation in India. Inadequate aspects of the provisions have been pointed out by a number of sources. For example:

The Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy: Prepared by the committee chaired by Justice AP Shah
First Analysis of the Personal Data Protection Law in India: Prepared by the University of Namur for the Commission of the European Communities Directorate General for Justice, Freedom, and Security
Comments on the Information Technology (Reasonable Security Practices and Procedures and Sensitive Personal Data or Information) Rules, 2011: Prepared by the Centre for Internet and Society and submitted to the Committee on Subordinate Legislation of the 15th Lok Sabha
India’s U-Turns on Data Privacy: Prepared by Graham Greenleaf for the Privacy Laws & Business International Report, Issues 110 -114, 2011

Unclear Enforcement of 43A and associated rules: In evidence provided, DEITY, while discussing section 43A and the associated Rules, noted that the Data Security Council of India and empanelled security auditors through CERT-in are responsible for the ‘auditing of best practice’s (pg 24). The Standing Committee did not directly respond to this comment.

The Centre for Internet and Society would like to point out that DEITY did not clearly state that DSCI and the auditors through CERT-in were responsible for auditing organizational security practices for compliance with 43A. Furthermore, there is no publicly available information regarding audits ensuring compliance with 43A or information about the number of companies that have been found to be compliant. The Centre for Internet and Society would like to encourage that this information be made public, and compliance with 43A be enforced at the organizational level.

UIDAI not in compliance with 43A and associated Rules: In evidence provided, DEITY noted that “..Section 43A and the rules published under that Section cover the entire privacy in case of digital data. These are being followed by UIDAI also and other organisations...” (pg.46) In their recommendations the Standing Committee did not directly address this comment, but did emphasize the need for a privacy legislation in light of the UID scheme.

The Centre for Internet and Society appreciates that the Standing Committee raised concern about the privacy implications of the UID project. We would like to highlight that the UIDAI is not a Body Corporate, and is not in compliance with 43A or the subsequent Rules in the Information Technology Act. Furthermore, the UID project involves the handling and processing of data in analogue and digital formats, and thus the privacy protections found under 43A are not sufficient.

The potential harms of metadata: In evidence provided, the Department noted “...we have been assured that whatever data has been gathered by them for surveillance relates only to the metadata..but we expressed that any incursion into the content will not be tolerated and is not tolerable from the Indian stand and point of view.” (pg.47) The Standing Committee did not respond directly to this comment.

The Centre for Internet and Society would like to thank the Standing Committee for noting that the Government should have taken prior steps to preventing such an interception from taking place and for recommending the Department to take develop a policy to prevent future instances of interception from taking place. The Centre for Internet and Society would like to emphasize the importance and potential sensitive nature of metadata. Metadata can, and often does, disclose more about an individual or an activity than the actual content. For example, metadata can reveal identity, behaviour patterns, associations, and can enable the mapping of location and individual movement. As such, the Centre for Internet and Society would recommend that the Government of India treat access to all information generated by individual and governmental communications as sensitive and confidential.

Inadequacy of the Information Technology Act: When asked by the Standing Committee if the Information Technology Act provided sufficient legal safeguards for cyber security and cyber crime, DEITY highlighted the fact that the Information Technology Act 2000 addresses all aspects of cyber crime in a comprehensive manner. DEITY also pointed out that the National Cyber Security Policy 2013 has provisions to enable the development of a legal framework, and the Department of Personnel and Training is in the process of drafting a privacy legislation for India that will fill any gaps that exist. In their recommendations, the Standing Committee recognized that the Information Technology Act does contain provisions that address cyber security and cyber crime, but, especially in the recent controversy over section 66A of the Act, Standing Committee emphasized the need for periodical reviews of the IT Act.

The Centre for Internet and Society appreciates the fact that the Committee recognized the need for periodical review of the Information Technology Act, particularly in light of the controversy over 66 A. The Centre for Internet and Society would like to underscore the problems associated with 66A and would like to highlight that with regards to privacy and cyber security, the IT Act is not adequate and falls short in a number of areas. Research that the Centre for Internet and Society has conducted explaining these weaknesses can be found through the below links:

Breaking Down Section 66A of the IT Act
Short note on IT Amendment Act, 2008

Implications of domestic servers: In response to questions posed by the Standing Committee about security risks associated with the importation of electronics and IT products, as well as the hosting of servers outside the country, DEITY noted the security risk of using foreign infrastructure and pointed to the hosting of servers in India as a solution to protecting the security and privacy of Indian data. The Standing Committee supported this initiative, and encouraged DEITY to take further steps towards securing and protecting the privacy of Indian data through the hosting of servers for critical sectors within India.

The Centre for Internet and Society appreciates the fact that the Standing Committee carefully limited the recommendation of locating servers in India to those in critical sectors, but would caution the Government of potential implications on users ability to freely access content and services, and highlight the fact that localization of servers is not a security solution in itself as a comprehensive solution and hardening of critical assets against cyber attacks is essential.

Incorporation of safeguards into MOU’s for international cooperation: When asked about MOU’s for international cooperation that DEITY has engaged in with other countries, DEITY reported that currently CERT-in is entering into a number of MOU’s with other countries to facilitate cooperation for cyber security purposes. Presently there are MOUs with the US, Japan, South Korea, Mauritius, Kasakhstan, Finland, and the Canada Electronics and ICT sector. DEITY is also seeking MOUs with Malaysia, Israel, Egypt, Canada, and Brazil. The Standing Committee supported India entering into MOU’s for purposes of international cooperation, and encouraged DEITY to continue entering into MOU’s to mitigate jurisdictional complications when seeking to address issues related to cyber security.

The Centre for Internet and Society recognizes the importance of international cooperation when handling issues related to cyber security and cyber crime. To ensure that this process is in line with human rights, the Centre for Internet and Society would encourage DEITY to ensure that all MOU’s and/or Mutual Legal Assistance Agreements:

Uphold the principle of dual criminality
Apply the highest level of protection for individuals in the case where the laws of more than one state could apply to communications surveillance
Are not used by any party involved to circumvent domestic legal restrictions on communications surveillance.
Are clearly documented and publicly available
Contain provisions guaranteeing procedural fairness.[1]

Hactivism as a benefit to society: In evidence provided on page 14, DEITY, among other elements, referred to Hactivism as a societal challenge to securing cyber security and tackling cyber crime. The Standing Committee did not directly address this comment.

The Centre for Internet and Society would like to point out that hacktivism is a complex topic and consists of methods. Though some methods used by hacktivists are illegal, and some use hacktivism for censorship purposes and to target certain groups, other forms of hacktivism can benefit society and strengthen cyber security by finding and revealing vulnerabilities in a system, and bringing attention to illegal or violative practices.

This works towards ensuring that a system is adequately secure. Because of the dynamic nature of hacktivism, the Centre for Internet and Society believes that hacktivism needs to be evaluated on a case by case basis and the Government should not broadly label hacktivism as a challenge to cyber security and cyber crime.[2]

Importance of the anonymous speech: In evidence provided, DEITY noted the threat to cyber security that the anonymous nature of the internet posed. This was reiterated by the Standing Committee in their recommendations.

While recognizing the potential threat to cyber security that the anonymous nature of the internet can pose, the Centre for Internet and Society would like to highlight the importance of anonymous speech online to an individual’s right to free expression.

Conclusion

Recognizing the direct connection between a strong privacy framework and a strong cyber security framework, as security cannot be achieved without privacy, and recognizing the need for a privacy legislation in light of governmental projects like the UID, the Centre for Internet and Society welcomes the Fifty Second Report on Cyber Crime, Cyber Security, and the Right to Privacy and echoes the Standing Committees recommendation and emphasis on the need for a comprehensive privacy legislation to be passed in India.

[1]. These safeguards are reflected in the principle of “safeguards for International Cooperation” found in the International Principles on the Application of Human Rights to Communications Surveillance” https://en.necessaryandproportionate.org/text

[2]. For more information about hacktivism see: Activism, Hacktivism, and Cyberterrorism. The Internet as a Tool for Influencing Foreign Policy. By Dorothy E. Denning. Georgetown University. Available at: http://www.iwar.org.uk/cyberterror/resources/denning.htm

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis-welcomes-fifty-second-report-on-cyber-crime-cyber-security-right-to-privacy

CIS to Screen Subasri’s film “Brave New Medium”

praskrishna — 2011-04-04T07:21:09Z

The Centre for Internet & Society (CIS) will host a screening of a film “Brave New Medium,” at 6 p.m. on Monday, 10 January 2011. The film is directed by Subasri Krishnan.

"Brave New Medium" documents the complicated dynamics of Internet and censorship across different parts of South-East Asia. It looks at how human rights activists in the region use the Internet as a tool of resistance. The film also examines ways of understanding censorship beyond the lens of the banning and the banned.

Subasri Krishnan

Subasri Krishnan has been an independent film-maker for the past 6 years. She has directed a number of commissioned non-fiction films on issues ranging from Gender, Micro-Finance, Governance, Farmer’s Suicides to NREGA and the Right to Freedom of Expression. She has just completed a film on Internet Censorship in both democratic and non-democratic countries in South-East Asia. Currently she is working on a research/film project on the idea of official identity documents and the notion of personhood, especially in the context of UIDAI.

In 2008, Subasri was awarded the prestigious George Washington International Documentary Filmmaker Fellowship. Subasri graduated from the Mass Communication Research Centre at Jamia Millia Islamia.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/events/brave-new-medium

CIS Team

praskrishna — 2025-05-01T04:45:58Z

CIS undertakes policy-focused, applied, and academic research on topics at the intersection of internet and society, driven by concerns of human rights and public interest. CIS is based in Bengaluru and New Delhi.

Senior Staff

Tanveer Hasan A K

Administration and Finance

Senior Staff

Tanveer Hasan A K
	Tanveer Hasan A K is the Executive Director of the Centre for Internet and Society. Previously, Tanveer worked at the Wikimedia Foundation leading global alliances for the Free and Open knowledge movement, and resource allocation in South Asia. In the past, Tanveer was also the Program Manager for CIS's Access to Knowledge project, and an Assistant Professor at the Centre for Indian Languages in Higher Education at the Tata Institute of Social Sciences TISS.

Administration and Finance

Ajoy Kumar
	Ajoy is an Administrator at the CIS. He manages all the events organised by CIS including hotel and travel bookings, does the liasoning with government offices and Members of Parliament, etc. Ajoy also works as a part-time lawyer doing property documentation. Email: ajoy@cis-india.org Resume: Download (PDF)

Ajoy Kumar

Ajoy is an Administrator at the CIS. He manages all the events organised by CIS including hotel and travel bookings, does the liasoning with government offices and Members of Parliament, etc. Ajoy also works as a part-time lawyer doing property documentation.

Email: ajoy@cis-india.org
Resume: Download (PDF)

Nagaraj MP
	Nagaraj has a background in Advanced Accountancy with a specialisation in NGO Accounting and Practices. As Manager - Finance and Operations, he handles the preparation of accounts statements, statuary compliance, budget and monitoring, and accounts for all research projects at CIS. He has previously worked at Centre for the Study of Culture and Society (CSCS), ‘Kalike’ associate organisation of TATA Trusts, India Foundation for the Arts (IFA), Ramaiah Public Policy Centre, and CIS in its early days. Email: nagaraj@cis-india.org

Nagaraj MP

Nagaraj has a background in Advanced Accountancy with a specialisation in NGO Accounting and Practices. As Manager - Finance and Operations, he handles the preparation of accounts statements, statuary compliance, budget and monitoring, and accounts for all research projects at CIS. He has previously worked at Centre for the Study of Culture and Society (CSCS), ‘Kalike’ associate organisation of TATA Trusts, India Foundation for the Arts (IFA), Ramaiah Public Policy Centre, and CIS in its early days.

Email: nagaraj@cis-india.org

Velankanni Royson

Royson is the Office Assistant in the Bangalore office. He assists the administration department in organising events, takes videos of the events, uploads them to the CIS website, Blip TV, YouTube, etc.

Email: royson@cis-india.org

Chandra Bhushan

Chandra has been working as an Accounts Officer with CIS since 2018 with specialties in Accounts and Banking, managing accounting software like Tally, bank accounts, bookkeeping, different types of financials for projects, utilisation certificates, etc. Earlier, he was an Officer at a nationalised bank, and thereafter was associated with a Chartered Accountant.

Email: chandraa@cis-india.org

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/about/people/cis-team-members

CIS Supports the UN Resolution on “The Right to Privacy in the Digital age”.

elonnai — 2013-11-30T07:25:18Z

The United Nations adopted the resolution on the right to privacy recently. It recognised privacy as a human right, integral to the right to free expression, and also declared that mass surveillance could have negative impacts on human rights.

On November 26, 2013, the United Nations adopted a non-binding resolution on The Right to Privacy in the Digital Age. The resolution was drafted by Brazil and Germany and expressed concern over the negative impact of surveillance and interception on the exercise of human rights. The resolution was controversial as countries such as the US, the UK, and Canada opposed language that spoke to the right to privacy extending equally to citizens and non-citizens of a country. The resolution welcomed the report of the Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression that examined the implications of surveillance of communications on the human rights of privacy and freedom of expression.

The resolution made a number of important statements that India, as a member of the United Nations, and as a country in the process of implementing a number of surveillance projects, like the Central Monitoring System, should take cognizance of, including in short:

Privacy is a human right: Privacy is a human right according to which no one should be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy, family, home, or correspondence.
Privacy is integral to the right to free expression: an integral component in recognizing the right to freedom of expression.
Unlawful and arbitrary surveillance violates the right to privacy and freedom of expression: Unlawful and/or arbitrary surveillance, interception, and collection of personal data are intrusive acts that violate the right to privacy and freedom of expression.
Exceptions to privacy and freedom of expression should be in compliance with human rights law: Public security is a potential exception justifying collection and protection of information, but States must ensure that this is done fully in compliance with international human rights law.
Mass surveillance may have negative implications for human rights: Domestic and extraterritorial surveillance, interception, and the collection of personal data on a mass scale may have a negative impact on individual human rights.
Equal protection for online and offline privacy: The right to privacy must be equally protected online and offline.

The resolution further called upon states to:

Respect and protect the right to privacy, particularly in the context of digital communications.
To ensure that relevant legislation is in compliance with international human rights law
To review national procedures and practices around surveillance to ensure full and effective implementation of obligations under international human rights law.
To establish and maintain effective domestic oversight mechanisms around domestic surveillance capable of ensuring transparency and accountability.

The resolution finally calls upon the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to present a report with views and recommendations on the protection and promotion of the right to privacy in the context of surveillance to the Human Rights Council at its twenty-seventh session and to the General Assembly at its sixty-ninth session and decides to examine “Human rights questions, including alternative approaches for improving the effective enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms”.

The UN Resolution on the Right to Privacy in the Digital Age is a welcome step towards an international recognition of privacy as a human right in the context of communications and extra territorial surveillance. The Centre for Internet and Society encourages the Government of India to, as called upon in the Resolution, to review national procedures and practices around surveillance to ensure full and effective implementation of obligations under international human rights law.

Prior to the UN Resolution on “The Right to Privacy in the Digital Age”, a group of international NGO’s developed the Necessary and Proportionate principles that seek to form a backbone for a response to mass surveillance and provide a framework for governments to assess if domestic surveillance regimes are in compliance with international Human Rights Law. CIS has contributed to the process of developing these principles. The principles include legality, legitimate aim, necessity, adequacy, proportionality, competent judicial authority, due process, user notification, transparency, public oversight, integrity of communications and systems, safeguards for international cooperation, and safeguards against illegitimate access. A petition to sign onto the principles and demand an end to mass surveillance is currently underway.

Both the Government of India and public of India should take into consideration the UN Resolution and the necessary and proportionate principles to reflect on how India’s surveillance regime and practices can be brought in line with international human rights law and understand where the balance is drawn for necessary and proportionate surveillance, specific to the Indian context.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis-supports-the-un-resolution-on-201cthe-right-to-privacy-in-the-digital-age201d

CIS submitted a response to a Notice of Enquiry by the US Government on International Internet Policy Priorities

Akriti Bopanna and Swagam Dasgupta — 2018-08-24T07:05:42Z

The Centre for Internet and Society drafted a response to a Notice of Inquiry (NOI) issued by the U.S. Commerce Department's National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) on "International Internet Policy Priorities."

The notice was based on different areas and we commented on the following three areas; The Free Flow of Information and Jurisdiction, The Multi-stakeholder Approach to Internet Governance, Privacy and Security. The submission was made by Swagam Dasgupta and Akriti Bopanna. Read the submission here.

The submission broadly covered the following aspects:

The Free Flow of Information and Jurisdiction

What are the challenges to the free flow of information online?
Which foreign laws and policies restrict the free flow of information online? What is the impact on U.S companies and users in general?
Have courts in other countries issued internet-related judgments that apply national laws to the global internet? What have the effects been on users?
What are the challenges to freedom of expression online?
What should be the role of all stakeholders globally—governments, companies, technical experts, civil society and end users — in ensuring free expression online?
What role can NTIA play in helping to reduce restrictions on the free flow of information over the internet and ensuring free expression online?
In which international organizations or venues might NTIA most effectively advocate for the free flow of information and freedom of expression? What specific actions should NTIA and the U.S. Government take?

Multistakeholder Approach to Internet Governance

Does the multistakeholder approach continue to support an environment for the internet to grow and thrive? If so, why? If not, why not?
Are there public policy areas in which the multistakeholder approach works best? If yes, what are those areas and why? Are there areas in which the multistakeholder approach does not work effectively? If there are, what are those areas and why?
Should the IANA Stewardship Transition be unwound? If yes, why and how? If not, why not?
What should be NTIA’s priorities within ICANN and the GAC?
Are there barriers to engagement at the IGF? If so, how can we lower these barriers?
Are there improvements that can be made to the IGF’s structure?

Privacy and Security

In what ways are cybersecurity threats harming international commerce? In what ways are the responses to those threats harming international commerce?

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis-submitted-a-response-to-a-notice-of-enquiry-by-the-us-government-on-international-internet-policy-priorities

CIS Submission to UN High Level Panel on Digital Cooperation

Aayush Rathi, Ambika Tandon, Arindrajit Basu and Elonnai Hickok — 2019-02-07T07:26:22Z

The UN high-level panel on Digital Cooperation issued a call for inputs that called for responses to various questions. CIS responded to the call for inputs.

The high-level panel on Digital Cooperation was convened by the UN Secretary-General to advance proposals to strengthen cooperation in the digital space among Governments, the private sector, civil society, international organizations, academia, the technical community and other relevant stakeholders. The Panel issued a call for input that called for responses to various questions. CIS responded to the call for inputs.

The response can be accessed here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis-submission-to-un-high-level-panel-on-digital-cooperation

CIS Submission to UN High Level Panel on Digital Co-operation

Aayush Rathi, Ambika Tandon, Arindrajit Basu and Elonnai Hickok — 2019-02-19T01:41:35Z

The High-level Panel on Digital Cooperation was convened by the UN Secretary-General to advance proposals to strengthen cooperation in the digital space among Governments, the private sector, civil society, international organizations, academia, the technical community and other relevant stakeholders. The Panel issued a call for input that called for responses to various questions. CIS responded to the call for inputs.

Download the submission here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis-submission-to-un-high-level-panel-on-digital-co-operation

CIS Submission to TRAI Consultation on Free Data

pranesh — 2016-07-01T16:04:27Z

The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) held a consultation on Free Data, for which CIS sent in the following comments.

The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) asked for public comments on free data. Below are the comments that CIS submitted to the four questions that it posed.

Question 1
Is there a need to have TSP agnostic platform to provide free data or suitable reimbursement to users, without violating the principles of Differential Pricing for Data laid down in TRAI Regulation? Please suggest the most suitable model to achieve the objective.

Is There a Need for Free Data?

No, there is no need for free data, just as there is no need for telephony or Internet. However, making provisions for free data would increase the amount of innovation in the Internet and telecom sector, and there is a good probability that it would lead to faster adoption of the Internet, and thus be beneficial in terms of commerce, freedom of expression, freedom of association, and many other ways.

Thus the question that a telecom regulator should ask is not whether there is a need for TSP agnostic platforms, but whether such platforms are harmful for competition, for consumers, and for innovation. The telecom regulator ought not undertake regulation unless there is evidence to show that harm has been caused or that harm is likely to be caused. In short, TRAI should not follow the precautionary principle, since the telecom and Internet sectors are greatly divergent from environmental protection: the burden of proof for showing that something ought to be prohibited ought to be on those calling for prohibition.

Goal: Regulating Gatekeeping

TRAI wouldn’t need to regulate price discrimination or Net neutrality if ISPs were not “gatekeepers” for last-mile access. “Gatekeeping” occurs when a single entity establishes itself as an exclusive route to reach a large number of people and businesses or, in network terms, nodes. It is not possible for Internet services to reach their end customers without passing through ISPs (generally telecom networks). The situation is very different in the middle-mile and for backhaul. Even though anti-competitive terms may exist in the middle-mile, especially given the opacity of terms in “transit agreements”, a packet is usually able to travel through multiple routes if one route is too expensive (even if that is not the shortest network path, and is thus inefficient in a way). However, this multiplicity of routes is generally not possible in the last mile.¹ This leaves last mile telecom operators (ISPs) in a position to unfairly discriminate between different Internet services or destinations or applications, while harming consumer choice.

However, the aim of regulation by TRAI cannot be to prevent gatekeeping, since that is not possible as long as there are a limited number of ISPs. For instance, even by the very act of charging money for access to the Internet, ISPs are guilty of “gatekeeping” since they are controlling who can and cannot access an Internet service that way. Instead, the aim of regulation by TRAI should be to “regulate gatekeepers to ensure they do not use their gatekeeping power to unjustly discriminate between similarly situated persons, content or traffic”, as we proposed in our submission to TRAI (on OTTs) last year.

Models for Free Data

There are multiple models possible for free data, none of which TRAI should prohibit unless it would enable OTTs to abuse their gatekeeping powers.

Government Incentives For Non-Differentiated Free Data

The government may opt to require all ISPs to provide free Internet to all at a minimum QoS in exchange for exemption from paying part of their USO contributions, or the government may pay ISPs for such access using their USO contributions.

TRAI should recommend to DoT that it set up a committee to study the feasibility of this model.

ISP subsidies

ISP subsidies of Internet access only make economic sense for the ISP under the following ‘Goldilocks’ condition is met: the experience with the subsidised service is ‘good enough’ for the consumers to want to continue to use such services, but ‘bad enough’ for a large number of them to want to move to unsubsidised, paid access.

Providing free Internet to all at a low speed.
1. This naturally discriminates against services and applications such as video streaming, but does not technically bar access to them.
Providing free access to the Internet with other restrictions on quality that aren’t discriminatory with respect to content, services, or applications.

Rewards model

A TSP-agnostic rewards platform will only come within the scope of TRAI regulation if the platform has some form of agreement with the TSPs, even if it is collectively. If the rewards platform doesn’t have any agreement with any TSP, then TRAI does not have the power to regulate it. However, if the rewards platform has an agreement with any TSP, it is unclear whether it would be allowed under the Differential Data Tariff Regulation, since the clause 3(2) read with paragraph 30 of the Explanatory Memorandum might disallow such an agreement.

Assuming for the sake of argument that platforms with such agreements are not disallowed, such platforms can engage in either post-purchase credits or pre-purchase credits, or both. In other words, it could be a situation where a person has to purchase a data pack, engage in some activity relating to the platform (answer surveys, use particular apps, etc.) and thereupon get credit of some form transferred to one’s SIM, or it could be a situation where even without purchasing a data pack, a consumer can earn credits and thereupon use those credits towards data.

The former kind of rewards platform is not as useful when it comes to encouraging people to use the Internet, since only those who already see worth in using in the Internet (and can afford it) will purchase a data pack in the first place. The second form, on the other hand is quite useful, and could be encouraged. However, this second model is not as easily workable, economically, for fixed line connections, since there is a higher initial investment involved.

Recharge API

A recharge API could be fashioned in one of two ways: (1) via the operating system on the phone, allowing a TSP or third parties (whether OTTs or other intermediaries) to transfer credit to the SIM card on the phone which have been bought wholesale. Another model could be that of all TSPs providing a recharge API for the use of third parties. Only the second model is likely to result in a “toll-free” experience since in the first model, like in the case of a rewards platform that requires up-front purchase of data packs, there has to be a investment made first before that amount is recouped. This is likely to hamper the utility of such a model.

Further, in the first case, TRAI would probably not have the powers to regulate such transactions, as there would be no need for any involvement by the TSP. If anti-competitive agreements or abuse of dominant position seems to be taking place, it would be up to the Competition Commission of India to investigate.

However, the second model would have to be overseen by TRAI to ensure that the recharge APIs don’t impose additional costs on OTTs, or unduly harm competition and innovation. For instance, there ought to be an open specification for such an API, which all the TSPs should use in order to reduce the costs on OTTs. Further, there should be no exclusivity, and no preferential treatment provided for the TSPs sister concerns or partners.

“0.example” sites

Other forms of free data, for instance by TSPs choosing not to charge for low-bandwidth traffic should be allowed, as long as it is not discriminatory, nor does it impose increased barriers to entry for OTTs. For instance, if a website self-certifies that it is low-bandwidth and optimized for Internet-enabled feature phones and uses 0.example.tld to signal this (just as wap.* were used in for WAP sites and m.* are used for mobile-optimized versions of many sites), then there is no reason why TSPs should be prohibited from not charging for the data consumed by such websites, as long as the TSP does so uniformly without discrimination. In such cases, the TSP is not harming competition, harming consumers, nor abusing its gatekeeping powers.

OTT-agnostic free data

If a TSP decides not to charge for specific forms of traffic (for example, video, or for locally-peered traffic) regardless of the Internet service from which that traffic emanates, as as long as it does so with the end customer’s consent, then there is no question of the TSP harming competition, harming consumers, nor abusing its gatekeeping powers. There is no reason such schemes should be prohibited by TRAI unless they distort markets and harm innovation.

Unified marketplace

One other way to do what is proposed as the “recharge API” model is to create a highly-regulated market where the gatekeeping powers of the ISP are diminished, and the ISP’s ability to leverage its exclusive access over its customers are curtailed. A comparison may be drawn here to the rules that are often set by standard-setting bodies where patents are involved: given that these patents are essential inputs, access to them must be allowed through fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory licences. Access to the Internet and common carriers like telecom networks, being even more important (since alternatives exist to particular standards, but not to the Internet itself), must be placed at an even higher pedestal and thus even stricter regulation to ensure fair competition.

A marketplace of this sort would impose some regulatory burdens on TRAI and place burdens on innovations by the ISPs, but a regulated marketplace harms ISP innovation less than not allowing a market at all.

At a minimum, such a marketplace must ensure non-exclusivity, non-discrimination, and transparency. Thus, at a minimum, a telecom provider cannot discriminate between any OTTs who want similar access to zero-rating. Further, a telecom provider cannot prevent any OTT from zero-rating with any other telecom provider. To ensure that telecom providers are actually following this stipulation, transparency is needed, as a minimum.

Transparency can take one of two forms: transparency to the regulator alone and transparency to the public. Transparency to the regulator alone would enable OTTs and ISPs to keep the terms of their commercial transactions secret from their competitors, but enable the regulator, upon request, to ensure that this doesn’t lead to anti-competitive practices. This model would increase the burden on the regulator, but would be more palatable to OTTs and ISPs, and more comparable to the wholesale data market where the terms of such agreements are strictly-guarded commercial secrets. On the other hand, requiring transparency to the public would reduce the burden on the regulator, despite coming at a cost of secrecy of commercial terms, and is far more preferable.

Beyond transparency, a regulation could take the form of insisting on standard rates and terms for all OTT players, with differential usage tiers if need be, to ensure that access is truly non-discriminatory. This is how the market is structured on the retail side.

Since there are transaction costs in individually approaching each telecom provider for such zero-rating, the market would greatly benefit from a single marketplace where OTTs can come and enter into agreements with multiple telecom providers.

Even in this model, telecom networks will be charging based not only on the fact of the number of customers they have, but on the basis of them having exclusive routing to those customers. Further, even under the standard-rates based single-market model, a particular zero-rated site may be accessible for free from one network, but not across all networks: unlike the situation with a toll-free number in which no such distinction exists.

To resolve this, the regulator may propose that if an OTT wishes to engage in paid zero-rating, it will need to do so across all networks, since if it doesn’t there is risk of providing an unfair advantage to one network over another and increasing the gatekeeper effect rather than decreasing it.

Question 2

Whether such platforms need to be regulated by the TRAI or market be allowed to develop these platforms?

In many cases, TRAI would have no powers over such platforms, so the question of TRAI regulating does not arise. In all other cases, TRAI can allow the market to develop such platforms, and then see if any of them violates the Discriminatory Data Tariffs Regualation. For government-incentivised schemes that are proposed above, TRAI should take proactive measure in getting their feasibility evaluated.

Question 3

Whether free data or suitable reimbursement to users should be limited to mobile data users only or could it be extended through technical means to subscribers of fixed line broadband or leased line?

Spectrum is naturally a scarce resource, though technological advances (as dictated by Cooper’s Law) and more efficient management of spectrum make it less so. However, we have seen that fixed-line broadband has more or less stagnated for the past many years, while mobile access has increased. So the market distortionary power of fixed-line providers is far less than that of mobile providers. However, competition is far less in fixed-line Internet access services, while it is far higher in mobile Internet access. Switching costs in fixed-line Internet access services are also far higher than in mobile services. Given these differences, the regulation with regard to price discrimination might justifiably be different.

All in all, for this particular issue, it is unclear why different rules should apply to mobile users and fixed line users.

Question 4

Any other issue related to the matter of Consultation.

None.

In India’s mobile telecom sector, according to a Nielsen study, an estimated 15% of mobile users are multi-SIM users, meaning the “gatekeeping” effect is significantly reduced in both directions: Internet services can reach them via multiple ISPs, and conversely they can reach Internet services via multiple ISPs. See Nielsen, ‘Telecom Transitions: Tracking the Multi-SIM Phenomena in India’, http://www.nielsen.com/in/en/insights/reports/2015/telecom-transitions-tracking-the-multi-sim-phenomena-in-india.html↩

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis-submission-trai-consultation-free-data

We are anonymous, we are legion

CIS@IGF 2014

Workshops and Panel Discussions

Other Participation

CIS’ Efforts Towards Greater Financial Disclosure by ICANN

CIS’ Comments to the Christchurch Call

CIS's Position on Net Neutrality

CIS's Comments on the CCWG-Accountability Draft Proposal

Time for Comments

Capture of ICANN and CCWG Process

Bogey of Governmental Capture

Jurisdiction

Right of Inspection

Timeline for WS2 Reforms

CIS' Statement on Sexual Harassment at ICANN55

CIS Welcomes Standing Committee Report on IT Rules

Ambiguous and Over-reaching Language

Government Confused Whether Rules Are Mandatory or Advisory

Evidence Needed Against Foreign Websites

Cyber Cafes Rules Violate Citizens’ Privacy

Government’s Half-Truths

Lack of Representation of Stakeholders in Policy Formulation

CIS Welcomes 52nd Report on Cyber Crime, Cyber Security, and Right to Privacy

Conclusion

CIS to Screen Subasri’s film “Brave New Medium”

Subasri Krishnan

CIS Team

Senior Staff

Administration and Finance

CIS Supports the UN Resolution on “The Right to Privacy in the Digital age”.

CIS submitted a response to a Notice of Enquiry by the US Government on International Internet Policy Priorities

The Free Flow of Information and Jurisdiction

Multistakeholder Approach to Internet Governance

Privacy and Security

CIS Submission to UN High Level Panel on Digital Cooperation

CIS Submission to UN High Level Panel on Digital Co-operation

CIS Submission to TRAI Consultation on Free Data

Question 1 Is there a need to have TSP agnostic platform to provide free data or suitable reimbursement to users, without violating the principles of Differential Pricing for Data laid down in TRAI Regulation? Please suggest the most suitable model to achieve the objective.

Is There a Need for Free Data?

Goal: Regulating Gatekeeping

Models for Free Data

Government Incentives For Non-Differentiated Free Data

ISP subsidies

Rewards model

Recharge API

“0.example” sites

OTT-agnostic free data

Unified marketplace

Question 2

Question 3

Question 4

Question 1
Is there a need to have TSP agnostic platform to provide free data or suitable reimbursement to users, without violating the principles of Differential Pricing for Data laid down in TRAI Regulation? Please suggest the most suitable model to achieve the objective.