Internet Histories
https://cis-india.org
The RAW programme has been interested in the histories of computing and Internet in India from its very inception. This cluster addresses the making of Internet in India – from questions of communication infrastructures, regulatory practices and formation of expertise, labour and industries of connecting India to the Internet, integration of Internet and computers into the functioning of the public and private sector agencies in India, coming of Internet-based solutions into the human development topics and practices, to early net cultures and netizens in India, roles of Internet in media and device cultures in India, spaces and geographies of Internet in India; and the making of the Indian cyberspace in terms of contents, users, and real/virtual practices. It is also interested in excavating the longer history(ies) of electronic communication in its various forms in India, and locating its implications and remnants in the contemporary experiences of Internet in India.
daily12014-12-26T02:51:47ZBuying into the Aakash Dream - A Tablet’s Tale of Mass Education
https://cis-india.org/raw/buying-into-the-aakash-dream
<b>The low-cost Aakash tablet and its previous iterations in India have gone through several phases of technological changes and ideological experiments. Did the government prioritise familiarity and literacy about personal technological devices over the promise of quality mass education generated by low-cost devices? This article by Sumandro Chattapadhyay and Jahnavi Phalkey (India Institute, King's College London) was published by EPW in the Web Exclusive section. Here is the unabridged version of the article.</b>
<p> </p>
<p>Originally published by <a href="http://www.epw.in/journal/2016/17/web-exclusives/buying-aakash-dream.html">Economic and Political Weekly</a> on April 23, 2016. Below is the unabridged version.</p>
<hr />
<em>This research note is based on a project conducted as part of the Max Weber Foundation’s Transnational Research Group on "Poverty and Education in India," and draws from a paper recently published by the authors in History and Technology.</em>
<h3>Introduction</h3>
<p>The Aakash tablet, hailed as the vanguard of India's “tablet revolution,” was unveiled at the United Nations. It was to showcase India's technological prowess but was quickly lamented as a failed “dream,” and as India's “object lesson” in how not to do technological innovation. The so-called failure of the device became a metonym for the government that backed it, and for the technology establishment of the country. While our longer paper <strong>[1]</strong> questions this notion of “failure,” in this note we wish to highlight the role played by the discourse and experiments in technologies of mass education in creating the practical context and the market conditions for low-cost tablets in India.</p>
<p>A 2011 report by the Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD) claimed that although the initiation of the Aakash tablet project met with “skepticism and scorn,” over time it not only developed an affordable device aimed at students in India, but has produced an entirely new market niche of sub-100 USD tablets <strong>[2]</strong>. This ambitious statement appears to be vindicated by a recent report by IDC, an economic intelligence company, on the tablet market in India. The report notes that the market has grown in the previous year at an annual rate of 8.2%. More importantly, the two companies leading in market share are DataWind (20.7%) and Samsung (15.8%) <strong>[3]</strong>. Incidentally, after the first quarter of 2014, Samsung had the largest (22.5%) and DataWind the fourth largest (6.8%) share <strong>[4]</strong>. What is noteworthy here is not the rise of DataWind as the leading seller of tablets alone, but that it is MHRD that heralded this creation of a market niche in India for affordable tablets.</p>
<h3>Broadcasting Education: Satellite to Internet</h3>
<p>On May 30, 1974, American National Aeronautics and Space Agency (NASA) launched an ATS-6 satellite that formed the central infrastructural component of the Satellite Instructional Television Experiment (SITE), one of the early initiatives to harness communication technology for primary and adult education. The SITE project involved broadcasting educational and informational audio-visual content, produced by All India Radio and Television, directly to televisions across 2400 selected villages located in Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, and Rajasthan. Operating from August 01, 1975 to July 31, 1976, the Experiment was led by Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO), and was supported by UNESCO, UNDP, UNCF, and International Telecommunication Union <strong>[5]</strong>.</p>
<p>The objective of the SITE project was inspired directly by the importance given to skill-development oriented higher education and adult education in the report of the first Education Commission (1964–1966). However, as Asif Siddiqi notes in a recent publication, the project performed a crucial task of establishing the Indian space research programme through a direct alliance with NASA, which held special geopolitical significance given the Chinese nuclear tests of 1964 <strong>[6]</strong>.</p>
<p>This experiment paved the way for development of INSAT, the first Indian satellite. The entanglement of the Indian space programme with the idea of national-level technological infrastructure for education has continued since. The EDUSAT, launched in 2004, was a collaborative project between ISRO and MHRD to drive satellite-based education across disadvantaged and remote regions of the country. In an audit report in 2013, however, the Department of Space declared that the project has failed, and highlighted three lacks in particular: network connectivity, content generation, and management structure <strong>[7]</strong>.</p>
<p>The earliest initiatives in India to put computers in schools, supplementing and supplanting the television screens, began in the 1980s. These efforts pre-dated extensive terrestrial communication fiber networks and relied almost completely upon the success of the Indian space programme. The UGC Countrywide Classroom, Computer Literacy and Studies in Schools, and Computer Literacy and Awareness Programme are the key examples from this time. The revised Programme of Action of the National Policy on Education (1986) reiterated the need for increased attention to upgrading education technology infrastructure, as well as the development of electronic content for the same. This led to the initiation of the ICT@Schools scheme beginning with the eighth Five Year Plan (1993-1998). Even after twenty years of the introduction of computers in schools across India, a 2006 report on education technology by the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) noted that computer-based teaching and learning in an actual classroom setting remains more of a 'spectator sport' <strong>[8]</strong>.</p>
<p>With the advent of the internet, the MHRD started experimenting with internet-based delivery of distance education from 2003, beginning with the National Programme on Technology Enhanced Learning (NPTEL). It did so alongside satellite-based distribution of educational content. NPTEL involved five Indian Institutes of Technology (Bombay, Delhi, Kanpur, Kharagpur, and Madras) developing openly available course materials for more than one hundred undergraduate courses in five engineering subjects, as well as courses in basic science. These course materials were later made part of the online learning portal called 'Sakshat,' which eventually became one of the pillars of the National Mission on Education through Information and Communication Technologies (NMEICT), initiated during the 11th Five Year Plan (2007–2012). This portal marked the completion of a conceptual and technological shift from the satellite-based models of delivery of educational content, to an internet-based one.</p>
<h3>Making and Un-making of the Aakash Tablet</h3>
<p>With NMEICT, large-scale education technology initiatives of the Indian state moved away from the earlier emphasis on primary education and school-oriented computer literacy, to that on higher education and aids for self-learning. The plan for an affordable tablet computer was announced in mid-2010 as part of this Mission. This “low-cost access-cum-computing device” was aimed at bypassing the institutional, bureaucratic, and infrastructural barriers to access to quality higher education. It’s main audience were students in disadvantaged regions and non-elite institutions, as well as self-learners. The actualisation the device, however, were continuously delayed and blocked by conflicts between the governmental and non-governmental actors, strong skepticism from the media, and several changes in the state's approach to the project.</p>
<p>The first approach to the project was an international company that approached the MHRD in 2006, with a proposal to sell educational laptops for school students at 100 USD each. N.K. Sinha, then Mission Director of NMEICT, argued against the purchase. The MHRD saw this as an opportunity for developing an indigenous low-cost computer, and initiated a competition among the IITs to come up with a prototype for this device, which was won by the IIT Kanpur team led by Prof. Prem Kumar Kalra, then Professor and Head of the Department of Electrical Engineering. The first publicly exhibited (2010) prototype of the device was the one developed in IIT Kanpur, which was priced initially at 35 USD.</p>
<p>The MHRD, however, soon decided to buy the device from a commercial manufacturer. The responsibility of procurement and testing went to IIT Rajasthan, under the leadership of Prof. Kalra who joined the newly established institution as its first Director. After the contract with HCL Infosystems was called off in January 2011, DataWind, a Canada and UK based company specialising in internet-access devices, won the new tender to produce the first version of the device. On 5 October 2011, the first version of tablet was launched, priced at Rs 2,500, and co-branded as Aakash and Ubislate: respectively for those bought and redistributed at a subsidised rate by MHRD, and those sold commercially by DataWind <strong>[9]</strong>.</p>
<p>An early controversy about the tablet, apart from its technical capabilities, was around the claim that they were produced and assembled in China. DataWind rejected the allegations and claimed that all the devices were assembled by Quad Electronics in its factory in Secunderabad, (then Andhra Pradesh). Within a year, however, DataWind got involved in serious conflict with IIT Rajasthan on one hand, and Quad Electronics on the other. The MHRD intervened again to change the approach by bringing in IIT Bombay (March 2012) as the new procuring and testing agency, thus removing IIT Rajasthan from the project. DataWind also found a new partner in VMC Systems, who started assembling the “kits” imported from China in its establishments in Amritsar and Delhi.</p>
<p>With M. M. Pallam Raju becoming the Minister of Human Resource Development in late 2012 by succeeding Kapil Sibal, one might say, the Aakash project gradually moved to what we know as its final form. At first, it was suggested that the state should entirely move out of the business of providing low-cost tablets as there is already a vibrant market. Later on, and with thought leadership from Prof. Rajat Moona, Director General of the Centre for Development of Advanced Computing, and others, it was decided that “Aakash” would become a brand name available for commercial manufacturers of affordable tablets that satisfy a minimum set of technical specifications <strong>[10]</strong>. The first draft of the specifications list was published in June 2013. The tendering process, however, got delayed, and eventually came to a near-permanent pause with the General Elections in 2014.</p>
<p>As of November 2015, the MHRD has again shown interest in the idea of a state-subsidised tablet computer for education. The tablet was now called Udaan, and aimed at girl students at the higher secondary level, priced at Rs. 10,000 (against Rs. 2,500 of Aakash), and distributed only to 1,000 students.</p>
<h3>Government Dream and Device Desire</h3>
<p>In an interview in late 2013, Kapil Sibal (then Union Minister of Communication and Information Technology, former Union Minister of Human Resource Development) shared that "[the] Aakash tablet was [his] dream but it was not fulfilled" <strong>[11]</strong>. Sibal, undoubtedly the key political driver of the project, in his admission to failure, raises deep concerns about the present state and the future of the technological infrastructure - and the imagination - for mass education in the country.</p>
<p>Tracing the transition of these technologies from SITE to Aakash, we continously find it difficult to delineate the state’s transforming and transformative agenda of mass education from that of building technological capability. At times, though, we wondered if the agenda for mass education did not become one that served the purpose of generating, for lack of a better phrase, a certain familiarity and literacy about personal technological devices among the population. The motivations and goals that informed these mammoth projects become more and more difficult to decipher when we look at the relatively poor attention given to the production of content. Careful monitoring and documentation of how such content is being received and utilised by the actual learners and their educators was not prioritised; and whenever undertaken, such exercises revealed the deep lack of pedagogic concerns at the heart of these education technology programmes.</p>
<p>Alongside the overwhelming narrative of <em>failure</em>, however, we cannot ignore the remarkable, but quiet, success of the project in normalising and framing the tablet computer as familiar, and almost essential, object for personal learning and development. Apart from presenting the tablet computer as an everyday media object, almost similar to the way television entered the households, the NMEICT and the Aakash project played a crucial role in normalising the notion of online self-learning, and thus that of the <em>online</em>, in the Indian public imagination. In an insightful comment, Suneet Singh Tuli, CEO of DataWind, remarked that the Aakash tablet was not an “iPad for the poor”, it was the “the computer and Internet of the masses” – it was not selling a demo version of the real thing, it was shaping the very imagination <strong>[12]</strong>.</p>
<p>These stories, together, conspire to make us wonder if all this eventually amounts to create desires for devices; and that the educational and developmental rhetoric helped frame electronic devices as everyday and household objects. The consequences, as we see, cannot exactly be called unintended.</p>
<h3>References</h3>
<p><strong>[1]</strong> Phalkey, Jahnavi and Sumandro Chattapadhyay. "The Aakash Tablet and Technological Imaginaries of Mass Education in Contemporary India." <em>History and Technology</em>, Vol. 31, No. 4, 2015. <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07341512.2015.1136142">http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07341512.2015.1136142</a>.</p>
<p><strong>[2]</strong> Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India. The History of Aakash
Low Cost Access cum Computing Device. Sakshat, October 05, 2011. <a href="http://archive.sakshat.ac.in/pdf/Final_Note_Aakash.pdf">http://archive.sakshat.ac.in/pdf/Final_Note_Aakash.pdf</a>.</p>
<p><strong>[3]</strong> International Data Corporation. "India Tablet Market Posts 8.2 percentage Annual Growth in 2015." March 21 (2016). <a href="http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prAP41123816">http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prAP41123816</a>.</p>
<p><strong>[4]</strong> Press Trust of India. "Tablet Market in India Shrank 32 Percent in Q1 2014 on YoY Basis: IDC." Gadgets 360, NDTV. May 28, 2014. <a href="http://gadgets.ndtv.com/tablets/news/tablet-market-in-india-shrank-32-percent-in-q1-2014-on-yoy-basis-idc-532253">http://gadgets.ndtv.com/tablets/news/tablet-market-in-india-shrank-32-percent-in-q1-2014-on-yoy-basis-idc-532253</a>.</p>
<p><strong>[5]</strong> Chander, Romesh, and Kiran Karnik. <em>Planning for Satellite Broadcasting: The Indian
Instructional Television Experiment</em>. Paris: The Unesco Press, 1976.</p>
<p><strong>[6]</strong> Siddiqi, Asif. "Making Space for the Nation: Satellite Television, Indian Scientific Elites, and the Cold War." <em>Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa and the Middle East</em>, Vol. 35, No. 1, 2015: 35–49./p></p>
<p><strong>[7]</strong> Department of Space. Comptroller and Auditor General of India, Government of India. Report
No. 22 of 2013 - Compliance Audit on Union Government (Scientific and Environmental Ministries/ Departments). New Delhi: Government of India, 2013: 23–53.</p>
<p><strong>[8]</strong> National Council of Educational Research and Training. <em>Position Paper of National Focus
Group on Educational Technology</em>. Government of India, New Delhi, 2006, 6.</p>
<p><strong>[9]</strong> Press Information Bureau, Government of India. 2011. “Shri Kapil Sibal Launches ‘Aakash’,
Low Cost Access Device.” Press Information Bureau, October 05. <a href="http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=76476">http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=76476</a>.</p>
<p><strong>[10]</strong> Agarwal, Surabhi. 2013. “Govt Plans to License ‘Brand Aakash.’” Business Standard, June 19.
<a href="http://www.businessstandard.com/article/technology/govtplanstolicensebrandaakash
113061800902_1.html">http://www.businessstandard.com/article/technology/govtplanstolicensebrandaakash
113061800902_1.html</a>.</p>
<p><strong>[11]</strong> Press Trust of India. "Kapil Sibal: Aakash Tablet is My Unfulfilled Dream." Financial Express, December 24, 2013. <a href="http://www.financialexpress.com/news/kapilsibalaakashtabletismyunfulfilleddream/1211284/0">http://www.financialexpress.com/news/kapilsibalaakashtabletismyunfulfilleddream/1211284/0</a>.</p>
<p><strong>[12]</strong> Kurup, Saira. 2011. “We Want to Target the Billion Indians who are Cut off.” Times of India, October 09. <a href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/stoi/deepfocus/WewanttotargetthebillionIndianswhoarecutoff/articleshow/10284832.cms">http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/stoi/deepfocus/WewanttotargetthebillionIndianswhoarecutoff/articleshow/10284832.cms</a>.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/raw/buying-into-the-aakash-dream'>https://cis-india.org/raw/buying-into-the-aakash-dream</a>
</p>
No publishersumandroAakashResearchEducation TechnologyInternet HistoriesResearchers at Work2016-04-25T08:04:28ZBlog EntryThe Aakash Tablet and Technological Imaginaries of Mass Education in Contemporary India (Excerpt)
https://cis-india.org/raw/aakash-tablet-and-technological-imaginaries-of-education-in-india-excerpt
<b>In a recently published paper, Jahnavi Phalkey and Sumandro Chattapadhyay explore public initiatives in technological solutions for educating the poor and the disadvantaged in independent India. Here is an edited excerpt from the paper that traces the recent history of technological solutions for mass education and unpacking the narrative of ‘failure’ that is associated with the Aakash experiment.</b>
<p> </p>
<p><img src="https://github.com/cis-india/website/raw/master/img/2016.02.14_s-campion-aakash.jpg" alt="Students using <p>Aakash tablet, Anupshahr, Uttar Pradesh. Photograph by Sonali Campion." /></p>
<h6>Students at Pardada Pardadi Education Society in Anupshahr, Uttar Pradesh, use the Aakash tablet in class as part of a pilot project introducing the low-cost computer into rural schools. Photograph by Sonali Campion, April 09, 2013: <a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/sonalicampion/9449250639/">https://www.flickr.com/photos/sonalicampion/9449250639/</a>.</h6>
<p> </p>
In 2010, the Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD) of the Government of India launched a set of prototype devices of an affordable tablet computer, the development and production of which were to be supported by the Ministry as part of its larger ICTs for education project. This device later came to be known as the “Aakash” tablet, and the project went through several iterations, between 2010 and 2014, of not only technological re-designs, but also institutional arrangements to design, develop, manufacture, test, and procure the devices.
<p> </p>
<h2>Technological Solutions for Mass Education</h2>
<p>Our exploration of technological solutions for mass education in India has taken us through a not-so-linear history of projects that have informed the imagination and making of the Aakash project. This include the Satellite Instructional Television Experiment, or SITE (1975); University Grants Commission-led Countrywide Classroom project (1984 -); the Simputer, the first hand-held device developed in India (1998); the Hole in the Wall project developed and led by Sugata Mitra (1999); the Government of India-led EDUSAT (2004); National Programme on Technology Enhanced Learning (2003); and finally, a national online education portal named Sakshat (2006). The Satellite Instructional Television Experiment itself terminated rather quickly, but it led to several versions of television based instruction programmes, most notably aimed at higher secondary and university students. Instruction in the broadcast-format continues to date, even after the arrival of the internet and the fact it has become the preferred medium for the Indian state. The television has not been replaced, but certainly shadowed by a variety of internet access and computing devices.</p>
<p> </p>
<h2>Aakash, a “Low Cost Access-Cum-Computing Device”</h2>
<p>An early official description of the then-nameless tablet as a “low cost access-cum-computing device” is noteworthy <strong>[1]</strong>. It is difficult to imagine a contemporary computing device that does not also function as an access device (say, to the internet). Where does the need for calling it an “access-cum-computing” device come from? It comes, perhaps, from the hierarchy of priority – the device is primarily an access device, and secondarily can perform the function of a general-purpose computer. An archaeological reading of the assumptions of learning processes embodied in this device reveals an earlier layer of thinking – that of broadcasting educational programmes to television sets via satellite connection. Labelling it as “access-cum-computing” frames the object as being shaped by the residue of the Indian state’s education technological experiences of the past, including that of the SITE initiative.</p>
<p> </p>
<h2>“[The] Aakash tablet was my dream but it was not fulfilled”</h2>
<p>Throughout the short history of the Aakash device, the verdict of “failed innovation” figures prominently – from the early failure of "Sakshat" <strong>[2]</strong>, to allegations of the Chinese origin of the Aakash device <strong>[3]</strong>, to manufacturing troubles and under-production of the device <strong>[4]</strong>, to criticisms of the tablet’s built quality and computing capacity <strong>[5]</strong>, to mistrust and failed collaborations between parties involved in its production <strong>[6]</strong>, and intra-governmental criticisms of the implementation process <strong>[7]</strong>. Moreover, there remained a continuous tension within the government itself regarding the necessity of the project, especially fuelled by (and fuelling) the image of the project as being driven by the dreams of a specific minister <strong>[8]</strong>.</p>
<p>To simply describe the Aakash project’s failure as one due to the unbearable heaviness of functions ranging from the technical to the symbolic and political is to fall short of a full explanation. Alongside that narrative of failure, it is critical to foreground the quiet success of the project in establishing the tablet computer as a near-essential and familiarised everyday object for access to educational material. There is an alarming accuracy in the MHRD claim that the Aakash project established a sub $100 tablet market in India – it did, even if it was not for the device they wanted to promote <strong>[9]</strong>.</p>
<p> </p>
<h2>The Device is the Desire</h2>
<p>We observe that the Aakash project, as well as the ones preceding it, have been driven primarily by a desire to scale up the provision of education. The initiatives towards building delivery infrastructures for such mass-scale provision of education has almost always been accompanied by a larger desire for developing capabilities in space exploration, communication, and computing – the key technologies of twentieth century geopolitics. Our study of the manufacturing of the Aakash tablet, and its surrounding discourses, foreground the technological imagination of the state after liberalisation in India (1991), and its unique arrangements and efforts to create domestic capability of technological innovation in a context of globalised production and communication networks. We see our role as one of recovering the work of technology in the history of education as understood through the interactions between the state, academia, and industry.</p>
<p> </p>
<h2>Archival Research in (Increasingly) Digital India</h2>
<p>Documenting the project has been an interesting historical exercise. We have been attentive to documents disappearing from their online locations. One remarkable possibility for archival research opened up by the internet is the (limited, and often uncertain) ability to access materials that are not presently available on a website, but were part of it in the past. This possibility allowed us to access a few crucial government documents that are not directly available on the official websites any more. We have also been attentive to the reiterations and revisions that do not merely overtake or shadow earlier documents. They sometimes erase earlier documents altogether as digital revisions. We do not have access to personal correspondence or internal institutional correspondence relating to the project. We are, however, skeptical of that happening as no protocols for the archiving of digital correspondence is yet in place with the Government of India. Doing recent history of India is becoming an ever more difficult exercise that historians must urgently attend to, if we are to make the present ready to have its own past in the future.</p>
<p> </p>
<h2>References</h2>
<p><strong>[1]</strong> Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India. “The History of Aakash Low Cost Access cum Computing Device.” Sakshat. October 05, 2011. <a href="http://archive.sakshat.ac.in/pdf/Final_Note_Aakash.pdf">http://archive.sakshat.ac.in/pdf/Final_Note_Aakash.pdf</a>.</p>
<p><strong>[2]</strong> Mukherjee, Arindam. “Bonsai Netbooks.” Outlook. February 16, 2009. <a href="http://www.outlookindia.com/article/Bonsai-Netbooks/239719">http://www.outlookindia.com/article/Bonsai-Netbooks/239719</a>.</p>
<p><strong>[3]</strong> Raina, Pamposh, and Mia Li. “India’s ‘Aakash,’ Now Made in China.” The New York Times. November 26, 2012. <a href="http://india.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/26/india%E2%80%99s-super-cheap-tablet-now-made-in-china/">http://india.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/26/india%E2%80%99s-super-cheap-tablet-now-made-in-china/</a>.</p>
<p><strong>[4]</strong> Nanda, Prashant K., and Surabhi Agarwal. “Government Close to Giving Up on Aakash Project.” Mint. March 22, 2013. <a href="http://www.livemint.com/Politics/fmEi8gsOSFgOzSTFfLsw6J/Govt-almost-gives-up-on-Aakash-says-no-point-in-hardware-ob.html">http://www.livemint.com/Politics/fmEi8gsOSFgOzSTFfLsw6J/Govt-almost-gives-up-on-Aakash-says-no-point-in-hardware-ob.html</a>.</p>
<p><strong>[5]</strong> Chopra, Ritika. “Kapil Sibal's Cheap Aakash Proves to be a Dud.” Mail Today. January 08, 2012. <a href="http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/kapil-sibal-cheapest-tablet-of-world-aakash-failure/1/167730.html">http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/kapil-sibal-cheapest-tablet-of-world-aakash-failure/1/167730.html</a>.</p>
<p><strong>[6]</strong> Julka, Harsimran. “14 Lakh Aakash Tablets Booked in 14 Days.” The Economic Times. January 03, 2012. <a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/hardware/14-lakh-aakash-tablets-booked-in-14-days/articleshow/11345695.cms">http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/hardware/14-lakh-aakash-tablets-booked-in-14-days/articleshow/11345695.cms</a>. Parthasarathi, Ashok. “Cloudy Outlook for Aakash.” The Hindu. May 21, 2012 (Updated: May 22, 2012). <a href="http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/article3439629.ece
">http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/article3439629.ece</a>.</p>
<p><strong>[7]</strong> Comptroller and Auditor General of India, Government of India. Report No. 19 of 2013 - Union Government (Civil) - Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India on Compliance Audit Observations. Government of India. 2013. <a href="http://www.cag.gov.in/content/report-no-19-2013-compliance-audit-observations-union-governmentcivil">http://www.cag.gov.in/content/report-no-19-2013-compliance-audit-observations-union-governmentcivil</a>.</p>
<p><strong>[8]</strong> At an event in late 2013, Kapil Sibal admitted, “[the] Aakash tablet was my dream but it was not fulfilled, I tried hard...” Quoted in Press Trust of India. “Kapil Sibal: Aakash Tablet is My Unfulfilled Dream.” Financial Express. December 24, 2013. <a href="http://www.financialexpress.com/news/kapil-sibal-aakash-tablet-is-my-unfulfilled-dream/1211284/0 ">http://www.financialexpress.com/news/kapil-sibal-aakash-tablet-is-my-unfulfilled-dream/1211284/0 </a>.</p>
<p><strong>[9]</strong> See <strong>[1]</strong>.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>Note:</strong> This is an edited excerpt from a paper titled ‘The Aakash Tablet and Technological Imaginaries of Mass Education in Contemporary India’ recently published in History and Technology, on 5 February, 2016. The paper can be accessed here: <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07341512.2015.1136142" target="_blank">http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07341512.2015.1136142</a> (the first 50 downloads are free).</p>
<p>Cross-posted from <a href="http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/southasia/2016/02/12/the-aakash-tablet-and-technological-imaginaries-of-mass-education-in-contemporary-india/" target="_blank">South Asia @ LSE Blog</a>.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/raw/aakash-tablet-and-technological-imaginaries-of-education-in-india-excerpt'>https://cis-india.org/raw/aakash-tablet-and-technological-imaginaries-of-education-in-india-excerpt</a>
</p>
No publishersumandroResearchers at WorkEducation TechnologyInternet HistoriesResearch2016-02-14T10:11:09ZBlog EntryRAW Lectures #01: Nishant Shah on 'Stories and Histories of Internet in India' - Video
https://cis-india.org/raw/raw-lectures-01-nishant-shah-video
<b>Dr. Nishant Shah spoke on the 'Stories and Histories of Internet in India' at the first event of the RAW Lectures series in Bangalore on March 6, 2015. Here is the video recording of the talk and the discussion that followed. </b>
<p> </p>
<iframe src="https://archive.org/embed/CISRAWLectureSeriesIDr.NishantShah" frameborder="0" height="480" width="640"></iframe>
<p> </p>
<h2>RAW Lectures</h2>
<p>The Researchers at Work programme initiated the RAW Lectures series to take stock, reflect, and chart courses into the studies of Internet in/from India. The lectures address the experiences and practices of Internet in India as plural and intertwined with longer-duration processes. The lectures also critically respond to the questions around the methods of studying Internet in/from India, and the opportunities and challenges of studying Indian society on/through the Internet.</p>
<p> </p>
<h2>Lecture #01 - Stories and Histories of Internet in India</h2>
<p><a href="http://cdc.leuphana.com/people/#nishant-shah" target="_blank"><strong>Dr. Nishant Shah</strong></a> is the Professor of Culture and Aesthetics of New Media at the Leuphana University Lüneburg, Research Associate at COMMON MEDIA LAB, Affiliate at DIGITAL CULTURES RESEARCH LAB, and International Tandempartner at HYBRID PUBLISHING LAB. He is the co-founder and former-Director-Research at the Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore, India.</p>
<p><strong>More:</strong> <a href="http://cis-india.org/raw/raw-lectures-01-nishant-shah" target="_blank">http://cis-india.org/raw/raw-lectures-01-nishant-shah</a>.</p>
<p> </p>
<h2>Download</h2>
<p><strong>Video files:</strong> <a href="https://archive.org/download/CISRAWLectureSeriesIDr.NishantShah/CIS%20RAW%20Lecture%20Series%20-%20I%20(Dr.%20Nishant%20Shah).mp4" target="_blank">MP4</a>, <a href="https://archive.org/download/CISRAWLectureSeriesIDr.NishantShah/CIS%20RAW%20Lecture%20Series%20-%20I%20(Dr.%20Nishant%20Shah).ogv" target="_blank">OGG</a>, and <a href="https://archive.org/download/CISRAWLectureSeriesIDr.NishantShah/CISRAWLectureSeriesIDr.NishantShah_archive.torrent" target="_blank">Torrent</a>.</p>
<p>The video is shared under Creative Commons <a href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/" target="_blank">Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International</a> license.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/raw/raw-lectures-01-nishant-shah-video'>https://cis-india.org/raw/raw-lectures-01-nishant-shah-video</a>
</p>
No publishersneha-ppResearchers at WorkInternet HistoriesLearningRAW Lectures2016-02-09T08:45:00ZBlog EntryCivil Society Organisations and Internet Governance in India - Open Review
https://cis-india.org/raw/civil-society-organisations-and-internet-governance-in-india-open-review
<b>This is a book section written for the third volume (2000-2010) of the Asia Internet History series edited by Prof. Kilnam Chon. The pre-publication text of the section is being shared here to invite suggestions for addition and modification. Please share your comments via email sent to raw[at]cis-india[dot]org with 'Civil Society Organisations and Internet Governance in India - Comments' as the subject line. This text is published under Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International license. </b>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>You are most welcome to read the pre-publication drafts of other sections of the Asia Internet History Vol. 3, and share your comments: <a href="https://sites.google.com/site/internethistoryasia/book3" target="_blank">https://sites.google.com/site/internethistoryasia/book3</a>.</strong></p>
<p> </p>
<h2>Early Days</h2>
<p>The overarching context of development interventions and rights-based approaches have shaped the space of civil society organizations working on the topics of information and communication technologies (ICTs) and Internet governance in India. Early members of this space came from diverse backgrounds. Satish Babu was working with the South Indian Federation of Fishermen Societies (SIFFS) in mid-1990s, when he set up a public mailing list called 'FishNet,' connected to Internet via the IndiaLink email network, (then) run by India Social Institute to inter-connect development practitioners in India. He went on to become the President of Computer Society of India during 2012-2013; and co-founded Society for Promotion of Alternative Computing and Employment (SPACE) in 2003, where he served as the Executive Secretary during 2003-2010 [Wikipedia 2015]. Anita Gurumurthy, Executive Director of IT for Change and one of the key actors from Indian civil society organizations to take part in the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) process, had previously worked extensively on topics related to public health and women's rights [ITfC b], which deeply shaped the perspectives she and IT for Change have brought into the Internet governance sphere, globally as well as nationally [Gurumurthy 2001]. Arun Mehta initiated a mailing list titled 'India-GII' in 2002 to discuss 'India's bumpy progress on the global infohighway' [India-GII 2005]. This list played a critical role in curating an early community of non-governmental actors interested in the topics of telecommunication policy, spectrum licensing, Internet governance, and consumer and communication rights. As Frederick Noronha documents, the mailing list culture grew slowly in India during the late 1990s and early 2000s. However, they had a great impact in organizing early online communities, sometimes grouped around a topical focus, sometimes functioning as a bridge among family members living abroad, and sometimes curating place-specific groups [Noronha 2002].</p>
<p>The inaugural conference of the Free Software Foundation of India [FSFI] in Thiruvananthapuram, on 20 July 2001, galvanized the Free/Libre and Open Source Software (FLOSS) community in India. The conference was titled 'Freedom First,' and Richard Stallman was invited as the chief guest. It was a vital gathering of actors from civil society organizations, software businesses, academia, and media, as well as the Secretary of the Department of Information Technology, Government of Kerala (the state where the conference was held). The conference laid the basis for sustained collaborations between the free software community, civil society organizations, emerging software firms in the state, and the Government of Kerala for the years to come. Two early initiatives that brought together free software developers and state government agencies were the Kerala Trasportation Project and the IT@School project, which not only were awarded to firms promoting use of FLOSS in electronic governance project, but facilitated a wider public dialogue regarding the need think critically about the making of information society in India [Kumar 2007]. The inter-connected communities and overlapping practices of the FLOSS groups, civil society organizations involved in ICT for Development initiatives, telecommunication policy analysts and advocates, and legal-administrative concerns regarding life in the information society – from digital security and privacy, to freedom of online expressions, to transparency in electronic governance infrastructures – have, hence, continued to shape the civil society space in India studying, discussing, responding, and co-shaping policies and practices around governance of Internet in India.</p>
<p> </p>
<h2>Key Organizations</h2>
<p>IT for Change was established in 2000, in Bengaluru, as a non-governmental organization that 'works for the innovative and effective use of information and communication technologies (ICTs) to promote socio-economic change in the global South, from an equity, social justice and gender equality point of view' [ITfC]. It has since made important contributions in the field of ICTs for Development, especially in integrating earlier communication rights practices organised around old media forms with newer possibilities of production and distribution of electronic content using digital media and Internet [ITfC e], and in that of Internet governance, especially through their participation in the WSIS and Internet Governance Forum (IGF) processes and by co-shaping the global Souther discourse of the subject [ITfC d]. It has also done significant works in the area of women's rights in the information society, and have been a core partner in a multi-country feminist action research project on using digital media to enhance the citizenship rights and experiences of marginalized women in India, Brazil, and South Africa [ITfC c]. IT for Change has co-led the formation of Just Net Coalition in February 2014 [JNC].</p>
<p>Digital Empowerment Foundation (DEF) was founded by Osama Manzar, in New Delhi in 2002, with a 'deep understanding that marginalised communities living in socio-economic backwardness and information poverty can be empowered to improve their lives almost on their own, simply by providing them access to information and knowledge using digital tools' [DEF c]. DEF has contributed to setting up Community Information Resource Centres across 19 states and 53 districts in India, with computers, printers, scanners, and Internet connectivity [DEF]. DEF organises one of the biggest competitions in Asia to identify, foreground, and honour significant contributions in the area of ICT for Development [DEF d]. This annual competition series, titled 'Manthan Award' (Translation: 'manthan' means 'churning' in Sanskrit), started in 2004. It has alllowed DEF to create a detailed database of ICT for Development activities and actors in the South Asia and Asia Pacific region. Since 2011, DEF has started working with Association for Progressive Communications on a project titled 'Internet Rights' to take forward the agenda of 'internet access for all' in India [DEF b].</p>
<p>The Society for Knowledge Commons was formed in New Delhi 2007 by 'scientists, technologists, researchers, and activists to leverage the tremendous potential of the ‘collaborative innovation’ model for knowledge generation that has lead to the growth of the Free and Open Source Software community (FOSS) around the world' [Society for Knowledge Commons]. It has championed integration of FOSS into public sector operations in India – from electronic governance systems to use of softwares in educational institutes – and has made continuous interventions on Internet governance issues from the perspective of the critical importance of shared knowledge properties and practices for a more democratic information society. It is a part of the Free Software Movement of India [FSMI], an alliance of Indian organizations involved in advocating awareness and usage of FOSS, as well as a founding member of the Just Net Coalition [JNC].</p>
<p>The Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) was established in Bengaluru in 2008 with a research and advocacy focus on topics of accessibility of digital content for differently-abled persons, FOSS and policies on intellectual property rights, open knowledge and Indic Wikipedia projects, digital security and privacy, freedom of expression and Internet governance, and socio-cultural and historical studies of Internet in India [CIS]. In one of the key early projects, CIS contributed to the making of web accessibility policy for government websites in India, which was being drafted by the Department of Information Technology, Government of India [CIS 2008]. In the following years it took part in the Internet Governance Forum summits; submitted responses and suggestions to various policies being introduced by the government, especially the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008, National Identification Authority of India (NIA) Bill, 2010, and the Approach Paper for a Legislation on Privacy, 2010; produced a report on the state of open government data in India [Prakash 2011b], and undertook an extensive study on the experiences of the young people in Asia with Internet, digital media, and social change [Shah 2011].</p>
<p>Software Freedom Law Centre has undertaken research and advocacy interventions, since 2011, in the topics digital privacy, software patents, and cyber-surveillance [SFLC]. The Internet Democracy Project, an initiative of Point of View, has organised online and offline discussions, participated in global summits, and produced reports on the topics of freedom of expression, cyber security and human rights, and global Internet governance architecture since 2012 [IDP].</p>
<p>The first Internet Society chapter to be established in India was in Delhi. The chapter began in 2002, but went through a period of no activity before being revived in 2008 [Delhi]. The Chennai chapter started in 2007 [Chennai], the Kolkata one in 2009 [Kolkata], and the Bengaluru chapter came into existence in 2010 [Bangalore]. Asia Internet Symposium have been organised in India twice: 1) the Kolkata one, held on on 1 December 2014, focused on 'Internet and Human Rights: Empowering the Users,' and 2) the Chennai symposium, held on 2 December 2014, discussed 'India in the Open and Global Internet.' The newest Internet Society chapter in India is in the process of formation in Trivandrum [Trivandrum], led by the efforts of Satish Babu (mentioned above).</p>
<p> </p>
<h2>Global and National Events</h2>
<p>The first World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) conference in Geneva, held on 10-12 December 2003, was not attended by many civil society organizations from India. Several Indian participants in the conference were part of the team of representatives from different global civil society organizations, like Digital Partners, Development Alternatives with Women for a New Era (DAWN), and International Centre for New Media [ITU 2003]. Between the first and the second conference, the engagement with the WSIS process increased among Indian civil society organizations increased of the WSIS process, which was especially led by IT for Change. In early 2005, before the second Preparatory Committee meeting of the Tunis conference, it organized a discussion event titled 'Gender Perspectives on the Information Society: South Asia Pre-WSIS Seminar' in partnership with DAWN and the Indian Institute of Management, Bangalore, which was supported by UNIFEM and the UNDP Asia-Pacific Development Information Programme [Gurumurthy 2006]. In a separate note, Anita Gurumurthy and Parminder Jeet Singh of IT for Change have noted their experience as a South Asian civil society organization engaging with the WSIS process [Gurumurthy 2005]. The second WSIS conference in Tunis, held on 16-18 November 2005, however, neither saw any significant participation from Indian civil society organizations, except for Ambedkar Centre for Justice and Peace, Childline India Foundation / Child Helpline International, and IT for Change [ITU 2005]. This contrasted sharply with the over 60 delegates from various Indian government agencies taking part in the conference [ITU 2005].</p>
<p>Two important events took place in India in early 2005 that substantially contributed to the civil society discourses in India around information technology and its socio-legal implications and possibilities. The former is the conference titled 'Contested Commons, Trespassing Publics' organized by the Sarai programme at the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies, Alternative Law Forum, and Public Service Broadcasting Trust, in Delhi on 6-8 January 2005. The conference attempted to look into the terms of intellectual property rights (IPR) debates from the perspectives of experiences in countries in Asia, Latin America, and Africa. It was based on the research carried out by the Sarai programme and Alternative Law Forum on contemporary realities of media production and distribution, and the ways in which law and legal instruments enter into the most intimate spheres of social and cultural life to operationalise the IPRs. The conference combined academic discussions with parallel demonstrations by media practitioners, and knowledge sharing by FLOSS communities [Sarai 2005]. The latter event is the first of the Asia Source workshop that took place in Bengaluru during 28 January - 4 February 2005 . It brought together more than 100 representatives from South and South-East Asian civil society organizations and technology practitioners working with them, along with several leading practitioners from Africa, Europe, North America, and Latin America, to promote adoption and usage of FLOSS across the developmental sector in the region. The workshop was organized by Mahiti (Bengaluru) and Tactical Technology Collective (Amsterdam), with intellectual and practical support from an advisory group of representatives from FLOSS communities and civil society organizations, and financial support from Hivos, the Open Society Institute, and International Open Source Network [Asia Source].</p>
<p>While the participation of representatives from Indian civil society organizations at the IGFs in Athens (2006) and Rio de Janeiro (2007) was minimal, the IGF Hyderabad, held on 3-6 December 2008, provided a great opportunity for Indian civil society actors to participate in and familiarize themselves with the global Internet governance process. Apart from various professionals, especially lawyers, who attended the Hyderabad conference as individuals, the leading civil society organizations participating in the event included: Ambedkar Center for Justice and Peace, Centre for Internet and Society, Centre for Science, Development and Media Studies, Digital Empowerment Foundation, Internet Society Chennai chapter, IT for Change, and Mahiti. The non-governmental participants from India at the event, however, were predominantly from private companies and academic institutes [IGF 2008].</p>
<p>IT for Change made a critical intervention into the discourse of global Internet governance during the Hyderabad conference by bringing back the term 'enhanced cooperation,' as mentioned in the Tunis Agenda for the Information Society [ITU 2005 b]. At IGF Sharm El Sheikh, held during 15-18 November 2009, Parminder Jeet Singh of IT for Change explained:</p>
<blockquote>[E]nhanced cooperation consists of two parts. One part is dedicated to creating globally applicable policy principles, and there is an injunction to the relevant organizations to create the conditions for doing that. And I have a feeling that the two parts of that process have been conflated into one. And getting reports from the relevant organizations is going on, but we are not able to go forward to create a process which addresses the primary purpose of enhanced cooperation, which was to create globally applicable public policy principles and the proof of that is that I don't see any development of globally applicable public policy principles, which remains a very important need. [IGF 2009]</blockquote>
<p>This foregrounding of the principle of 'enhanced cooperation' have since substantially contributed to rethinking not only the global Internet governance mechanisms and its reconfigurations, but also the Indian government's perspectives towards the same. It eventually led to the proposal made by a representative of Government of India at the UN General Assembly session on 26 October 2011 regarding the establishment of a UN Committee for Internet-Related Policies [Singh 2011].</p>
<p> </p>
<h2>Internet Policies and Censorship</h2>
<p>One of the earliest instances of censorship of online content in India is the blocking of several websites offering Voice over IP (VoIP) softwares, which can be downloaded to make low-cost international calls, during late 1990s. The India-GII mailing list initiated by Arun Mehta, as mentioned above, started almost as a response to this blocking move by Videsh Sanchar Nigam Limited (VSNL), the government-owned Internet Service Provider (ISP). Additionally, Mehta filed a case against VSNL for blocking these e-commerce websites, which might be identified as the first case of legal activism for Internet-related rights in India [India-GII 2001]. During the war between India and Pakistan during 1999, the Indian government instructed VSNL to block various Pakistani media websites, including that of Dawn. Like in the case of websites offering VoIP services, this blocking did not involve direct intervention with the websites concerned but only the ability of Indian users to access them [Tanna 2004].
The first well-known case of the Government of India blocking digital content for political reasons occurred in 2003, when a mailing list titled 'Kynhun' was banned. Department of Telecommunications instructed all the But the previously deployed URL-blocking strategy did not work in the new situation of mailing lists. Blocking the URL of the group did not stop it from being used by members of the group to continue sharing email through it. Government of India then approached Yahoo directly to ensure that the mailing list is closed down, which Yahoo declined to implement. This resulted in imposing of a blanket blocking of all Yahoo Groups pages across ISPs in India during September 2003. By November, Yahoo decided to close down the mailing list, and the blanket blocking was repealed [Tanna 2004]. Further blocking of several blogs and websites continued through 2006 and 2007, where the government decided to work in collaboration with various platforms offering hosted blog and personal webpage services to remove access to specific sub-domains. In resistance to this series of blocking orders by the government, there emerged an important civil society campaign titled 'Bloggers Against Censorship' led by Bloggers Collective Group, a distributed network of bloggers from all across India [Bloggers 2006].</p>
<p>A few weeks after the IGF Hyderabad, the Government of India passed the Information Technology (Amendment) Act 2008 on 22 December 2008 [MoLaJ 2009], although it was notified and enforced much later on 27 October 2009 [MoCaIT 2009]. This amendment attempted to clarify various topics left under-defined in the Information Technology Act of 2000. However, as Pranesh Prakash of the Centre for Internet and Society noted, the casual usage of the term 'offensive content' in the amendment opened up serious threats of broad curbing of freedom of online expression under the justification that it caused 'annoyance' or 'inconvenience' [Prakash 2009]. The sections 66 and 67 of the amended Information Technology Act, which respectively address limits to online freedom of expression and legally acceptable monitoring of digital communication by government agencies, have since been severely protested against by civil society organizations across India for enabling a broad-brushed censorship and surveillance of the Internet in India. The section 66A has especially allowed the government to make a series of arrests of Internet users for posting and sharing 'offensive content' [Pahwa 2015].</p>
<p>In 2011, the Government of India introduced another critical piece of policy instrument for controlling online expressions – the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines) Rules, 2011 [MoCaIT 2011] – targeted at defining the functions of the intermediaries associated with Internet-related services and communication, and how they are to respond to government's directives towards taking down and temporary blocking of digital content. The draft Rules were published in early 2011 and comments were invited from the general public. One of the responses, submitted by Privacy India and the Centre for Internet and Society, explicitly highlighted the draconian implications of the (then) proposed rules:</p>
<blockquote>This rule requires an intermediary to immediately take steps to remove access to information merely upon receiving a written request from “any authority mandated under the law”. Thus, for example, any authority can easily immunize itself from criticism on the internet by simply sending a written notice to the intermediary concerned. This is directly contrary to, and completely subverts the legislative intent expressed in Section 69B which lays down an elaborate procedure to be followed before any information can be lawfully blocked. [Prakash 2011]</blockquote>
<p>The policy apparatus of controlling online expression in India took its full form by the beginning of the decade under study here. The 'chilling effect' of this apparatus was made insightfully evident by a study conducted by Rishabh Dara at the Centre for Internet and Society, where fake takedown notices (regarding existing digital content) were sent to 7 important Internet intermediaries operating in India, and their responses were studied. The results of this experiment demonstrated that:</p>
<blockquote>[T]he Rules create uncertainty in the criteria and procedure for administering the takedown thereby inducing the intermediaries to err on the side of caution and over-comply with takedown notices in order to limit their liability; and as a result suppress legitimate expressions. Additionally, the Rules do not establish sufficient safeguards to prevent misuse and abuse of the takedown process to suppress legitimate expressions. [Dara 2012]</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<h2>Reference</h2>
<p>[Bloggers 2006] Bloggers Collective Group, Bloggers Against Censorship. Last updated on April 30, 2009. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://censorship.wikia.com/wiki/Bloggers_Against_Censorship.</p>
<p>[Dara 2012] Dara, Rishabh, Intermediary Liability in India: Chilling Effects on Free Expression on the Internet. The Centre for Internet and Society. April 27. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/chilling-effects-on-free-expression-on-internet.</p>
<p>[DEF] Digital Empowerment Foundation (DEF). Community Information Resource Centre. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://defindia.org/circ-2/.</p>
<p>[DEF b] Digital Empowerment Foundation (DEF). Internet Rights. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://internetrights.in/.</p>
<p>[DEF c] Digital Empowerment Foundation (DEF). Our Story. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://defindia.org/about-def/.</p>
<p>[DEF d] Digital Empowerment Foundation (DEF). Manthan Awards. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://defindia.org/manthan-award-south-asia-masa/.</p>
<p>[FSFI] Free Software Foundation of India. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://fsf.org.in/.</p>
<p>[FSMI] Free Software Movement of India. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://www.fsmi.in/node.</p>
<p>[Gurumurthy 2001] Gurumurthy, Anita, A Gender Perspective to ICTs and Development: Reflections towards Tunis. January 15. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://www.worldsummit2003.de/en/web/701.htm.</p>
<p>[Gurumurthy 2005] Gurumurthy, Anita, and Parminder Jeet Singh, WSIS PrepCom 2: A South Asian Perspective. Association for Progressive Communications. April 01. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from https://www.apc.org/en/news/hr/world/wsis-prepcom-2-south-asian-perspective.</p>
<p>[Gurumurthy 2006] Gurumuthy, Anita et al (eds.), Gender in the Information Society: Emerging Issues. UNDP Asia-Pacific Development Information Programme. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://www.genderit.org/sites/default/upload/GenderIS.pdf.</p>
<p>[India-GII 2001] India-GII, Status of VSNL Censorship of IP-Telephony Sites. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://members.tripod.com/~india_gii/statusof.htm.</p>
<p>[India-GII 2005] India-GII. 2005. Last modified on May 24. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://india-gii.org/.</p>
<p>[IDP] Internet Democracy Project. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://internetdemocracy.in/.</p>
<p>[ITU 2003] International Telecommunication Union (ITU), Geneva Phase of the WSIS: List of Participants. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/summit_participants.pdf.</p>
<p>[ITU 2005] International Telecommunication Union (ITU), List of Participants (WSIS) – Update 5 Dec 2005. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs2/tunis/final-list-participants.pdf.</p>
<p>[ITU 2005 b] International Telecommunication Union (ITU), Tunis Agenda for the Information Society. November 18. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs2/tunis/off/6rev1.pdf.</p>
<p>[IGF 2008] Internet Governance Forum, Hyderabad Provisional List of Participants. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/component/content/article/385-hyderabad-provisional-list-of-participants.</p>
<p>[IGF 2009] Internet Governance Forum, Managing Critical Resources. IGF Sharm El Sheikh, Egypt . November 16. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/2009/sharm_el_Sheikh/Transcripts/Sharm%20El%20Sheikh%2016%20November%202009%20Managing%20Critical%20Internet%20Resources.pdf.</p>
<p>[Bangalore] Internet Society Bangalore Chapter. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://www.isocbangalore.org/.</p>
<p>[Delhi] Internet Society Delhi Chapter. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://www.isocbangalore.org.</p>
<p>[Chennai] Internet Society Chennai Chapter. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://www.isocbangalore.org.</p>
<p>[Kolkata] Internet Society Kolkata Chapter. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://isockolkata.in/.</p>
<p>[Trivandrum] Internet Society Trivandrum Chapter. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/where-we-work/chapters/india-trivandrum-chapter.</p>
<p>[ITfC] IT for Change, About IT for Change. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://www.itforchange.net/aboutus.</p>
<p>[ITfC b] IT for Change, Anita Gurumurthy. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://www.itforchange.net/Anita.</p>
<p>[ITfC c] IT for Change, Gender and Citizenship in the Information Society: Southern Feminist Dialogues in Practice and Theory. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://www.gender-is-citizenship.net/.</p>
<p>[ITfC d] IT for Change, Internet Governance. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://www.itforchange.net/Techgovernance.</p>
<p>[ITfC e] IT for Change, Our Field Centre. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://www.itforchange.net/field_centre.</p>
<p>[JNC] Just Net Coalition (JNC). Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://justnetcoalition.org/.</p>
<p>[Kumar 2007] Kumar, Sasi V. 2007. The Story of Free Software in Kerala, India. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://swatantryam.blogspot.in/2007/08/story-of-free-software-in-kerala-india.html.</p>
<p>[MoLaJ 2009] Ministry of Law and Justice (MoLaJ), The Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008. The Gazette of India. February 05. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://deity.gov.in/sites/upload_files/dit/files/downloads/itact2000/it_amendment_act2008.pdf.</p>
<p>[MoCaIT 2009] Ministry of Communications and Information Technology (MoCaIT), Notification. The Gazette of India. October 27. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://deity.gov.in/sites/upload_files/dit/files/downloads/itact2000/act301009.pdf.</p>
<p>[MoCaIT 2011] Ministry of Communications and Information Technology (MoCaIT), Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules, 2011. The Gazette of India. April 11. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://deity.gov.in/sites/upload_files/dit/files/GSR314E_10511%281%29.pdf.</p>
<p>[Noronha 2002] Noronha, Frederick, Linking a Diverse Country: Mailing Lists in India. The Digital Development Network. May 22. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://www.comminit.com/ict-4-development/content/linking-diverse-country-mailing-lists-india.</p>
<p>[Pahwa 2015] Pahwa, Nikhil, A List of Section 66A Arrests in India through the Years. Medianama. March 24. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://www.medianama.com/2015/03/223-section-66a-arrests-in-india/.</p>
<p>[Prakash 2009] Prakash, Pranesh, Short Note on IT Amendment Act, 2008 . The Centre for Internet and Society. February. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/publications/it-act/short-note-on-amendment-act-2008/.</p>
<p>[Prakash 2011] Prakash, Pranesh, CIS Para-wise Comments on Intermediary Due Diligence Rules, 2011. The Centre for Internet and Society. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/intermediary-due-diligence.</p>
<p>[Prakash 2011 b] Prakash, Pranesh, et al, Open Government Data Study. The Centre for Internet and Society. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://cis-india.org/openness/blog/open-government-data-study.</p>
<p>[SFLC] Software Freedom Law Centre (SFLC). Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://sflc.in/.</p>
<p>[Shah 2011] Shah, Nishant. 2011. Digital AlterNatives with a Cause? The Centre for Internet and Society. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://cis-india.org/digital-natives/blog/dnbook.</p>
<p>[Singh 2011] Singh, Dushyant, India's Proposal for a United Nations Committee for Internet-Related Policies. Sixty Sixth Session of the UN General Assembly, New York. October 26. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://www.itforchange.net/sites/default/files/ItfC/india_un_cirp_proposal_20111026.pdf.</p>
<p>[SKC] Society for Knowledge Commons. About Us. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://www.knowledgecommons.in/about-us/.</p>
<p>[Asia Source] Tactical Technology Collective, Asia Source. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from https://tacticaltech.org/asiasource.</p>
<p>[Tanna 2004] Tanna, Ketan, Internet Censorship in India: Is It Necessary and Does It Work?. Sarai-CSDS Independent Fellowship. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://www.ketan.net/INTERNET_CENSORSHIP_IN_INDIA.html.</p>
<p>[CIS] The Centre for Internet and Society. About Us. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://cis-india.org/about/.</p>
<p>[CIS 2008] The Centre for Internet and Society. 2008. Annual Report. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://cis-india.org/accessibility/annual-report-2008.pdf.</p>
<p>[Sarai 2005] The Sarai Programme, Contested Commons, Trespassing Publics. January 12. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://sarai.net/contested-commons-trespassing-publics/.</p>
<p>[Wikipedia 2015] Satish Babu. Wikipedia. Last modified on June 25. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satish_Babu.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/raw/civil-society-organisations-and-internet-governance-in-india-open-review'>https://cis-india.org/raw/civil-society-organisations-and-internet-governance-in-india-open-review</a>
</p>
No publishersumandroInternet Governance ForumResearchInternet HistoriesCivil SocietyResearchers at Work2015-11-13T05:51:03ZBlog EntryCivil Society Organisations and Internet Governance in Asia - Open Review
https://cis-india.org/raw/civil-society-organisations-and-internet-governance-in-asia-open-review
<b>This is a book section written for the third volume (2000-2010) of the Asia Internet History series edited by Prof. Kilnam Chon. The pre-publication text of the section is being shared here to invite suggestions for addition and modification. Please share your comments via email sent to raw[at]cis-india[dot]org with 'Civil Society Organisations and Internet Governance in Asia - Comments' as the subject line. This text is published under Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International license.</b>
<p> </p>
<strong>You are most welcome to read the pre-publication drafts of other sections of the Asia Internet History Vol. 3, and share your comments: <a href="https://sites.google.com/site/internethistoryasia/book3" target="_blank">https://sites.google.com/site/internethistoryasia/book3</a>.</strong>
<p> </p>
<h2>Preparations for the World Summit on the Information Society</h2>
<p>The World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) conferences organized by the United Nations in Geneva (2003) and Tunis (2005) initiated crucial platforms and networks, some temporary and some continued, for various non-governmental actors to intensively and periodically take part in the discussions of governance of Internet and various related activities towards the goals of inclusive development and human rights. Many of the civil society organizations taking part in the WSIS conferences, as well as the various regional and thematic preparatory meetings and seminars, had little prior experience in the topic of Internet governance. They were entering these conversations from various perspectives, such as local developmental interventions, human and cultural rights activism, freedom and diversity of media, and gender and social justice. With backgrounds in such forms of applied practice and theoretical frameworks, members of these civil society organizations often faced a difficult challenge in articulating their experiences, insights, positions, and suggestions in terms of the (then) emerging global discourse of Internet governance and that of information and communication technologies (ICTs) as instruments of development. At the WSIS: An Asian Response Meeting in 2002, Susanna George, (then) Executive Director of Isis International, Manila, succinctly expressed this challenge being faced by the members of civil society organizations:</p>
<blockquote>For some feminist activists however, including myself, it has felt like trying to squeeze my concerns into a narrow definition of what gender concerns in ICTs are. I would like it to Cinderella’s ugly sister cutting off her toe to fit into the dainty slipper of gender concerns in ICTs. The development ball, it seems, can only accommodate some elements of what NGO activists, particularly those from the South, are concerned about in relation to new information and communications technologies. (George 2002)</blockquote>
<p>The above mentioned seminar, held in Bangkok, Thailand, on November 22-24, 2002, was a crucial early meeting for the representatives from Asian civil society organizations to share and shape their understanding and positions before taking part in the global conversations during the following years. The meeting was organised by Bread for All (Switzerland), Communication Rights in the Information Society Campaign (Netherlands), Forum-Asia (Thailand), and World Association for Christian Communication (United Kingdom), as a preparatory meeting before the Asia-Pacific Regional Conference of WSIS, with 34 organizations from 16 Asian countries taking part in it. The Final Document produced at the end of this seminar was quite a remarkable one. It highlighted the simultaneity of Asia as one of the global centres of the information economy and the everyday reality of wide-spread poverty across the Asian countries, and went on to state that the first principle for the emerging global information society should be that the '[c]ommunication rights are fundamental to democracy and human development' (The World Summit on the Information Society: An Asian Response 2002). It proposed the following action items for the efforts towards a global inclusive information society: 1) strengthen community, 2) ensure access, 3) enhance the creation of appropriate content, 4) invigorate global governance, 5) uphold human rights, 6) extend the public domain, 7) protect and promote cultural and linguistic diversity, and 8) ensure public investment in infrastructure (ibid.).</p>
<p>Immediately after this Conference, several Asian civil society organizations attended the Asian Civil Society Forum, organised as part of the Conference of Non-governmental Organizations in Consultative Relations with the United Nations (CONGO), held in Bangkok, Thailand, during December 9-13, 2002. Representatives of Dhaka Ahsania Mission (Bangladesh), OneWorld South Asia (India), GLOCOM (Japan), Foundation for Media Alternative (Philippines), Korean Progressive Network – JINBONET (Republic of Korea), Friedrich Naumann Foundation (Singapore), International Federation of University Women (Switzerland), and Forum Asia (Regional) drafted a Joint Statement emphasising that a 'broad-based participation of civil society, especially from those communities which are excluded, marginalized and severely deprived, is critical in defining and building such a [true communicative, just and peaceful] society' (Aizu 2002). In the very next month, the Asia-Pacific Regional Conference was held in Tokyo during January 13-15, 2003, 'to develop a shared vision and common strategies for the “Information Society' (WSIS Executive Secretariat 2003: 2). The conference saw participation of representatives from 47 national governments, 22 international organizations, 54 private sector agencies, and 116 civil society organizations across the Asia-Pacific region. The Tokyo Declaration, the final document prepared at the conclusion of the Conference, recognized that:</p>
<blockquote>[T]he Information Society must ... facilitate full utilization of information and communication technologies (ICT) at all levels in society and hence enable the sharing of social and economic benefits by all, by means of ubiquitous access to information networks, while preserving diversity and cultural heritage. (Ibid.: 2)</blockquote>
<p>Further, it highlighted the following priority areas of action: 1) infrastructure development, 2) securing affordable, universal access to ICTs, 3) preserving linguistic and cultural diversity and promoting local content, 4) developing human resources, 5) establishing legal, regulatory and policy frameworks, 6) ensuring balance between intellectual property rights (IPR) and public interest, 7) ensuring the security of ICTs, and 8) fostering partnerships and mobilizing resources. It is not difficult to see how the focus of necessary actions shifted from an emphasis on concerns of community and human rights, and public investments and commons, towards those of legal and policy mechanisms, multi-partner delivery of services, and intellectual property rights. Civil society organizations, expectedly, felt sidelined in this Conference, and decided to issue a join statement of Asian civil society organizations to ensure that their positions are effectively presented. The first two topics mentioned in this document were: 1) '[c]ommunication rights should be fully recognized as a fundamental and universal human right to be protected and promoted in the information society,' and 2) '[t]he participation of civil society in the information society at all levels should be ensured and sustained, from policy planning to implementation, monitoring and evaluation' (UNSAJ et al 2003). The joint statement was endorsed by 30 civil society organizations: UDDIPAN (Bangladesh); COMFREL (Cambodia); ETDA (East Timor); The Hong Kong Council of Social Services (Hong Kong); Food India, IT for Change (India); Indonesian Infocom Society (Indonesia); Active Learning, CPSR, Forum for Citizens' Television and Media, JTEC, Kyoto Journal, Ritsumeikan University Media Literacy Project, UNSAJ (Japan); Computer Association Nepal, Rural Area Development Programme (Nepal); APC Women's Networking Support Programme, Foundation for Media Alternatives, ISIS International (Philippines); Citizens' Action Network, Korean Progressive Network – Jinbonet, Labor News Production, ZAK (Republic of Korea); e-Pacificka Consulting (Samoa); National University of Singapore (Singapore); Public Television Service, Taiwan Association for Human Rights (Taiwan); Asian-South Pacific Bureau for Adult Education, FORUM ASIA, and TVE Asia Pacific (Regional) (Ibid.).</p>
<p> </p>
<h2>Participation in the WSIS Process</h2>
<p>The first WSIS conference was held in Geneva in December 2003. Through the processes of organizing this conference, and the second one in Tunis in November 2005, United Nations expressed a clear intention of great participation of actors from the private companies, civil society, academia, and media, along with the governmental organizations. During the first meeting of the WSIS Preparatory Committee (PrepCom-1) in Geneva, during July 1-5, 2002, the civil society organizations demanded that they should be allowed to co-shape the key topics to be discussed during the first conference (2003). There was already an Inter-Governmental Subcommittee on Contents and Themes, but no equivalent platform for the civil society organizations was available. With the approval of the Civil Society Plenary (CSP), the Civil Society Subcommittee on Content and Themes (WSIS-SCT) was instituted during PrepCom-1 (WSIS-SCT 2003b). At the second WSIS Preparatory Committee meeting (PrepCom-2) in Geneva, during February 17-28, 2003, the WSIS-SCT produced a summary of the views of its members titled 'Vision and Principles of Information and Communication Societies,' and also a one page brief titled 'Seven Musts: Priority Principles Proposed by Civil Society' to be used for lobbying purposes (Ibid.). This brief mentioned seven key principles of Internet governance identified by the civil society organization taking part in the WSIS process: (1) sustainable development, (2) democratic governance, (3) literacy, education, and research, (4) human rights, (5) global knowledge commons, (6) cultural and linguistic diversity, and (7) information security (WSIS-SCT 2003a).</p>
<p>Asian civil society organizations that took part in the PrepCom-2 meeting included United Nations Association of China (China); CASP - Centre for Adivasee Studies and Peace, C2N - Community Communications Network (India); ICSORC - Iranian Civil Society Organizations Resource Center (Iran); GAWF - General Arab Women Federation (Iraq); Daisy Consortium, GLOCOM - Center for Global Communications (Japan); Association for Progressive Communication, Global Knowledge Partnership (Malaysia); Pakistan Christian Peace Foundation (Pakistan); WFEO - World Federation of Engineering Organization (Palestine); Asian South Pacific Bureau of Adult Education, Foundation for Media Alternatives, ISIS International – Manila (Philippines); Korean Progressive Network - Jinbonet (Republic of Korea); IIROSA - International Islamic Relief Organization (Saudi Arabia); and Taking IT Global (India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, and Turkey) (ITU 2003a).</p>
<p>All these efforts led to development of the Civil Society Declaration to the World Summit on the Information Society, which was prepared and published by the Civil Society Plenary at the Geneva conference, on December 08, 2003. The Declaration was titled 'Shaping Information Societies for Human Needs' (WSIS Civil Society Plenary 2003). The Asian civil society organization that took part in the Geneva conference were BFES - Bangladesh Friendship Education Society, Drik, ICTDPB - Information & Communication Technology Development Program, Proshika - A Center for Human Development (Bangladesh); China Society for Promotion of the Guangcai Programme, Chinese People's Association for Friendship with Foreign Countries, United Nations Association of China (China); The Hong Kong Council of Social Service (Hong Kong); CASP - Centre for Adivasee Studies and Peace, Childline India Foundation / Child Helpline International, DAWN - Development Alternatives with Women for a New Era (India); Communication Network of Women's NGOs in Iran, Green front of Iran, ICTRC - Iranian Civil Society Organizations Training and Research Center, Islamic Women's Institute of Iran, Institute for Women's Studies and Research, Organization for Defending Victims of Violence (Iran); ILAM - Center for Arab Palestinians in Israel (Israel); Citizen Digital Solutions, Forum for Citizens' Television and Media, GLOCOM - Center for Global Communications, JCAFE - Japan Computer Access for Empowerment, Soka Gakkai International (Japan); LAD-Nepal - Literary Academy for Dalit of Nepal (Nepal); Asia-Pacific Broadcasting Union, Global Knowledge Partnership (Malaysia); PAK Educational Society / Pakistan Development Network, SMEDA - Small & Medium Enterprise Development Authority (Pakistan); Palestine IT Association of Companies (Palestine); Isis International – Manila, Ugnayan ng Kababaihan sa Pulitika / Philippine Women's Network in Politics and Governance (Philippines); Citizen's Alliance for Consumer Protection of Korea, Korean Civil Society Network for WSIS (Republic of Korea); Youth Challenge (Singapore); Association for Progressive Communications (India and Philippines), CITYNET - Regional Network of Local Authorities for the Management of Human Settlements (India. Mongolia, and Philippines), Taking IT Global (India and Philippines) (ITU 2003b).</p>
<p>As the preparatory meetings and consultations towards the second WSIS conference advanced during the next year, the Asian civil society organizations attempted to engage more directly with the global Internet governance processes on one hand, and the national Internet and ICT policy situations on the other. Writing about their encounters at and before the second Preparatory Committee meeting of the Tunis conference, held in Geneva during February 17-25, 2005, Anita Gurumurthy and Parminder Jeet Singh made several early observations that have continued to resonate with the experiences of Asian civil society organizations throughout the decade (Gurumurthy & Singh 2005). Firstly, they indicated that the government agencies present in the dialogues tend to take diverging positions in international events and domestic contexts. Secondly, there was a marked absence of formal and informal discussions between the governmental and the civil society representatives of the same country present at the meeting. The government agencies were clearly disinterested in involving civil society organizations in the process. Thirdly, the civil society actors present in the meeting were mostly from the ICT for Development sector, and the organizations working in more 'traditional' sectors – such as education, health, governance reform, etc. – remained absent from the conversations. This is especially problematic in the case of such developing countries where there does not exist strategic linkages between civil society organizaions focusing on topics of technologized developmental interventions, and those involved in more 'traditional' development practices. Rekha Jain, in a separate report on the Indian experience of participating in the WSIS process, re-iterates some of these points (Jain 2006). She notes that '[w]hile the Secretary, [Department of Telecommunications, Government of India] was involved in (PrepCom-1) drafting the initial processes for involvement of NGOs, at the national level, this mechanism was not translated in to a process for involving the civil society or media' (Ibid.: 14).</p>
<p>The frequent lack of interest of national governments, especially in the Asian countries, to engage with civil society organizations on matters of policies and projects in Internet governance and ICTs for development (Souter 2007), further encouraged these organization to utilise the global discussion space opened up by the WSIS process to drive the agendas of democratisation of Internet governance processes, and protection and advancement of human rights and social justice. The second WSIS conference held in Tunis, during November 16-18, 2005, however, did not end in a positive note for the civil society organizations as a whole. The sentiment is aptly captured in the title of the Civil Society Statement issued after the Tunis Conference: 'Much more could have been achieved' (WSIS Civil Society Plenary 2005). Apart from producing this very important critical response to the WSIS process, within a month of its conclusions, the civil society organization contributed effectively in one of the more longer-term impacts of the process – the establishment of the Internet Governance Forums (IGFs). Immediately after the publication of the Report of the Working Group on Internet Governance (Desai et al) in June 2005, the Center for Global Communications (GLOCOM), Japan, acting on behalf of the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus, came forward with public support for 'the establishment of a new forum to address the broad agenda of Internet governance issues, provided it is truly global, inclusive, and multi-stakeholder in composition allowing all stakeholders from all sectors to participate as equal peers' (WSIS Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus 2005: 3).</p>
<p> </p>
<h2>Asian Civil Society Organizations at the IGFs</h2>
<p>In 2006, the WSIS Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus was reformed and established as a permanent 'forum for discussion, advocacy, action, and for representation of civil society contributions in Internet governance processes' (Civil Society Internet Government Caucus 2006). Representatives from Asian civil society organizations have consistently played critical roles in the functionings of this Caucus. Youn Jung Park of the Department of Technology and Society, SUNY Korea, co-founded and co-coordined the original Caucus in 2003. Adam Peake of the Center for Global Communications (GLOCOM), International University of Japan, was co-coordinator of the original Caucus from 2003 to 2006. Parminder Jeet Sing of IT for Change, India, was elected as one of the co-cordinators of the newly reformed Caucus in 2006, with the term ending in 2008. Izumi Aizu of the Institute for HyperNetwork Society and the Institute for InfoSocinomics, Tama University, Japan served as the co-coordinator of the Caucus during 2010-2012.</p>
<p>The first Internet Governance Forum organized in Athens, October 30 – November 2, 2006, saw participation from a very few Asian civil society organizations, mostly from Bangladesh and Japan (IGF 2006). The second Internet Governance Forum in Rio de Janeiro, November 12-15, 2007 had a wider representation from Asian civil society organizations: Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio and Communication, BFES - Bangladesh Friendship Education Society, VOICE – Voices for Interactive Choice and Empowerment (Bangladesh); China Association for Science and Technology, Internet Society of China (China); University of Hong Kong (Hong Kong); Alternative Law Forum (via Association for Progressive Communications - Women's Networking Support Programme), Indian Institute of Technology in Delhi, IT for Change (India); GLOCOM, Kumon Center, Tama University (Japan); Sustainable Development Networking Programme (Jordan); Kuwait Information Technology Society (Kuwait); Assocation of Computer Engineers – Nepal, Rural Area Development Programme, Nepal Rural Information Technology Development Society (Nepal); Bytesforall – APC / Pakistan, Pakistan Christian Peace Foundation (Pakistan); Foundation for Media Alternatives, Philippine Resources for Sustainable Development Inc. (Philippines); and LIRNEasia (Sri Lanka). At the Open IGF Consultations in Geneva, on February 26 2008, the Internet Governance Caucus made two significant submissions: 1) that, although structuring the IGF sessions in Athens and Rio de Janeiro around the large themes of access, openness, diversity, and security have been useful to open up the multi-stakeholder dialogues, it is necessary to begin focused discussions of specific public policy issues to take the IGF process forward (Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus 2008a), and 2) that the Multi-Stakeholder Advisory Group (MAG), which drives the IGF process and events, should be made more proactive and transparent, and expanded in size so as to better include the different stakeholder groups who may self-identify their representatives for the MAG (Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus 2008b).</p>
<p>On one hand, the IGF Hyderabad, December 3-6, 2008, experienced a decline in the percentage of participants from civil society organizations and a rather modest increase in the percentage of participants from Asian countries (see: 6.1.5. Annexe – Tables), especially since this was the first major international Internet governance summit held in an Asian country. On the other hand, the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus succeeded to bring forth the term 'enhanced cooperation,' as mentioned in the Tunis Agenda, to be addressed and discussed in one of the main sessions of the Forum (IGF 2008). The next IGF held in Sharm El Sheikh, November 15-18, 2009, saw further decline of participation from both the representatives of civil society organizations, and the attendees from Asian countries (see: 6.1.5. Annexe – Tables). In this context, Youn Jung Park made the following statement in the Stock Taking session of the summit:</p>
<blockquote>As a cofounder of WSIS Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus in 2003, I would like to remind you ... [that] Internet Governance Forum was created as a compromise between those who supported the status quo Internet governance institution under one nation's status provision, and those who requested for more balanced roles for governments under international supervision of the Internet. While IGF has achieved a great success of diluting of such political tension between those who have different views of how to institutionalize Internet governance, ironically Internet governance forum became a forum without governance... [We] have to admit [that] IGF failed to deliver another mandate of the U.N. WSIS: Continuing discussion of how to design Internet governance institutions... The current IGF continues to function as knowledge transfer of ICANN's values to other stakeholders, while those who want to discuss and negotiate on how to design Internet governance institutions should have another platform for that specific U.N. WSIS mandate. (IGF 2009)</blockquote>
<p>The first Asia Pacific Regional Internet Governance Forum (APrIGF) was held in Hong Kong on June 14-16, 2010. The organising committee included three civil society / acadmic organizations – Center for Global Communications (GLOCOM), Internet Society Hong Kong, and National University of Singapore – and three indpendent experts – Kuo-Wei Wu (Taiwan), Norbert Klein (Cambodia), and Zahid Jamil (Pakistan). Though the Forum had dominant presence from government and private sector participants, several representatives from Asian civil society / academic organizations spoke at the sessions: Ang Peng Hwa (Singapore Internet Research Centre, Nanyang Technological University), Charles Mok (Internet Society Hong Kong), Christine Loh (Civic Exchange), Chong Chan Yau (Hong Kong Blind Union), Clarence Tsang (Christian Action), Ilya Eric Lee (Taiwan E-Learning and Digital Archives Program, and Research Center for Information Technology Innovation), Izumi Aizu (Institute for HyperNetwork Society, and Institute for InfoSocinomics, Kumon Center, Tama University), Oliver “Blogie” Robillo (Mindanao Bloggers Community), Parminder Jeet Singh (IT for Change), Priscilla Lui (Against Child Abuse in Hong Kong), Tan Tin Wee (Centre for Internet Research, National University of Singapore), and Yap Swee Seng (Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development). As Ang Peng Hwa noted at the beginning of the summit, its key objective was to provide a formal space for various stakeholders from the Asia-Pacific region to discuss and provide inputs to the IGF process (APrIGF 2010). The regional forum was successful in enabling newer civil society entrants from the Asia-Pacific region to familiarize themselves with the IGF process, and to contribute to it. Oliver “Blogie” Robillo, represented and submit recommendations from Southeast Asian civil society organizations at IGF Vilnius, September 14-17, 2010, which was the first time he took part in the summit series. He emphasised the following topics: 1) openness and freedom of expression are the basis of democracy, and state-driven censorship of Internet in the region is an immediate threat to such global rights, 2) coordinated international efforts need to address and resolve not only global digital divides, but also the divides at regional, national, and sub-nationals scales, 3) the right to privacy is an integral part of cybersecurity, as well as a necessary condition for exercising human rights, 4) global Internet governance efforts must ensure that national governments do not control and restrict abilities of citizens to express through digital means, and it should be aligned with the universal human rights agenda, and 5) even after 5 years of the IGF process, a wider participation of civil society organizations, especially from the Asia-Pacific regions, remains an unachieved goal, which can only be achived if specific resources are allocated and processes are implemented (IGF 2010).</p>
<p> </p>
<h2>Internet Censorship and Civil Society Responses</h2>
<p>Throughout the decade of 2000-2010, censorship of Internet and restriction of digital expression remained a crucial Internet rights concern across the world, and especially the Asian countries. One of the earliest global reports on the matter was brought out by the Reporters without Borders. In 2006, it published a list of countries marked as 'Internet Enemies' that featured 16 countries, out of which 11 were from Asia: China, Iran, Maldives, Myanmar (then, Burma), Nepal, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Vietnam (Reporters without Borders 2006). The list was updated in 2007, and three of these countries – Libya, Maldives, and Nepal – were taken off (Ibid.). The unique contradictions of the Asian region were sharply foregrounded in the 2006-07 report on Internet censorship by OpenNet Initiative, which noted:</p>
<blockquote>Some of the most and least connected countries in the world are located in Asia: Japan, South Korea, and Singapore all have Internet penetration rates of over 65 percent, while Afghanistan, Myanmar, and Nepal remain three of thirty countries with less than 1 percent of its citizens online. Among the countries in the world with the most restricted access, North Korea allows only a small community of elites and foreigners online. Most users must rely on Chinese service providers for connectivity, while the limited number North Korean–sponsored Web sites are hosted abroad... [T]hough India’s Internet community is the fifth largest in the world, users amounted to only about 4 percent of the country’s population in 2005. Afghanistan, Myanmar, and Nepal are among the world’s least-developed countries. Despite the constraints on resources and serious developmental and political challenges, however, citizens are showing steadily increasing demand for Internet services such as Voice-over Internet Protocol (VoIP), blogging, and chat. (Wang 2007)</blockquote>
<p>The report further described the strategy used by various Asian governments of 'delegation of policing and monitoring responsibilities to ISPs, content providers, private corporations, and users themselves' (Ibid.) These mechanisms enforce self-surveillance and self-censorship in the face of threats of loss of commercial license, denial of services, and even criminal liability. Defamation suits and related civil and criminal liability have also been used by several Asian governments to silence influential critics and protesters. Direct technical filtering of Internet traffic (especially inwards traffic) and blocking of URLS via government directives sent to Internet Service Providers (ISPs) have also been common practice in key Asian countries (Ibid.). Expectedly, such experiences of oppression led to widespread campaigns and communications by the Asian civil society organizations, as can be sensed from the above mentioned submission by Oliver “Blogie” Robillo at IGF Vilnius.</p>
<p>Among the Asian countries, the comprehensive technologies of censorship developed and deployed by China has been studied most extensively. The Golden Shield Project was initiated by the Ministry of Public Security of China in 1998 to undertake blanket blocking of incoming Internet traffic based on specific URLs and terms. Evidences of the project getting operationalised became available in 2003 (Garden Networks for Freedom of Information 2004). Censorship of Internet in China, however, has not only been dependent on such sophisticated systems. In 2003, it was made mandatory for all residents of Lhasa, Tibet, to use a specific combination and password to access Internet, which was directly linked to their names and address. An Internet ID Card was issued by the government to implement this (International Campaign for Tibet. 2004). Tibet Action Institute has been a key civil society organization at the forefront of cyber-offensive of the Chinese government. A recent documentary by the Institute, titled 'Tibet: Frontline of the New Cyberwar,' has narrated how it has worked closely with the Citizen Lab, Munk School of Global Affairs, University of Toronto, to identify, trace, and resist the malware- and other cyber-attacks experienced by the civil society actors and websites in favor of independence of Tibet (Tibet Action Institute 2015). Not only activists supporting the Tibetan cause, digital security training emerged as an important aspect of the life of civil society organizations during the decade. Asian organizations like Bytes for All (Pakistan) and Myanmar ICT for Development Organization (Mynamar), as well as international organizations like Front Line Defenders and Citizen Lab have educated and supported civil society activities much beyond the Internet governance sphere with tools and techniques for effectively using digital channels of communications, and defending themselves for cyber-threats.</p>
<p>Combination of traditional forms of civil society mobilizations and digital techniques have often been used resist attempts by Asian governments to control the online communication space. Huma Yusuf has extensively studied the emergence of hybrid media strategies, using both old media channels like newspapers and new media channels like blogs and video sharing platforms, among citizen journalists and civil society activists in Pakistan as the government took harsh steps towards control of both traditional and online media during 2007-2008 (Yusuf 2009). She has carefully traced how possibilities of new forms of information and media sharing enabled by Internet were initially identified and implemented by citizen journalists and student activists, which was quickly learned and re-deployed by more formal organisation, such as print and electronic news companies, and civil society organizations like those involved in election monitoring (Ibid.). Malaysia also experienced fast-accelerating face-off between the government and the civil society during 2007-2010, as the former started intervening directly into censoring blogs and newspaper websites. On one hand, the government took legal actions against critical bloggers, either directly or indirectly, and on the other it instructed ISPs to block 'offensive content.' It also borrowed the 'Singapore-model' to mandate registration of bloggers with government authorities, if they are identifed as writing on socio-political topics. The civil society actors responded to these oppressive steps by setting up a new blog dedicated to coverage of the defamation cases (filed against prominent bloggers), and publicly sharing instructions for circumvention of the blocks imposed by ISPs. The National Alliance of Bloggers was soon formed, which organised the “Blogs and Digital Democracy” forum on October 3, 2007 (Thien 2011: 46-47). Similarly, Bloggers Against Censorship campaign took shape in India in 2006 as the government first directed ISPs to block specific blogs hosted on Blogspot, TypePad, and Yahoo! Geocities, and then went for complete blocking of Yahoo! Geocities as the ISPs failed to block specific sub-domains of the platform (Bloggers Collective Group 2006). Learning from this experience, the following year Indian government decided to work directly with Orkut to take down 'defamatory content' about a politician (The Economic Times 2007). This is common for other Asian governments too, as they have continued to develop more legally binding and technically sophisticated measures to monitor and control online expression.</p>
<p>In the 'Internet Enemies Report 2012,' Reporters without Borders listed 12 countries as 'enemies of the Internet,' out of which 10 were from Asia – Bahrain, China, Iran, Myanmar, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Vietnam – and it named 14 countries that are conducting surveillance on its citizens, out of which 7 were from Asia – India, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and United Arab Emirates (Reporters without Borders 2012). At the APrIGF held in Tokyo, July 18-20, 2012, a group of delegates from civil society organizations working in the South-East Asian region issued a joint statement with a clear call for global action against the shrinking space for freedom of (digital) expression in the region (Thai Netizen Network et al 2012). They specifically noted the following national acts as examples of the legislative mechanisms being used by different Asian governments to criminalize online speech and/or to harass public dissenters:</p>
<blockquote>Burma – The 2004 Electronic Transactions Act<br />
Cambodia – The 2012 Draft Cyber-Law, the 1995 Press Law, and the 2010 Penal Code<br />
Malaysia – The 2012 Amendment to the Evidence Act and the 2011 Computing Professionals Bill<br />
Indonesia – The 2008 Law on Information and Electronic Transaction and the 2008 Law on Pornography<br />
The Philippines – The 2012 Data Privacy Act<br />
Thailand – The 2007 Computer Crimes Act, the Article 112 of the Penal Code, and the 2004 Special Case Investigation Act<br />
Vietnam – The 1999 Penal Code, the 2004 Publishing Law, the 2000 State Secrets Protection Ordinance, and the 2012 Draft Decree on Internet Management. (Ibid.)</blockquote>
<p>The statement was co-signed by Thai Netizen Network, Thai Media Policy Centre, The Institute for Policy Research and Advocacy (ELSAM), Southeast Asian Press Alliance (SEAPA), Southeast Asian Centre for e-Media (SEACeM), Victorius (Ndaru) Eps, Community Legal Education Center (CLEC), Sovathana (Nana) Neang, Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA), and was endorsed by ICT Watch (Indonesian ICT Partnership Association).</p>
<p> </p>
<h2>Annexe – Tables</h2>
<h3>Table 1: Participation from Asian Countries and of representatives from Asian civil society organisations in IGFs, 2006-2010</h3>
<table>
<tbody>
<tr>
<th>Event</th>
<th>Participants from Asian Countries</th>
<th>Participants from Civil Society Organizations</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>IGF Athens 2006</td>
<td>11%</td>
<td>29%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>IGF Rio de Janeiro 2007</td>
<td>13%</td>
<td>32%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>IGF Hyderabad 2008</td>
<td>56% from India, and 15% from other Asian countries</td>
<td>25%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>IGF Sharm El Sheikh 2009</td>
<td>17%</td>
<td>19%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>IGF Vilnius 2010</td>
<td>Not Available</td>
<td>Not Available</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p>Source: Reports available on Internet Governance Forum website (http://igf.wgig.org/cms).</p>
<h3>Table 2: Internet Society Chapters in Asia</h3>
<table>
<tbody>
<tr>
<th>Chapter</th>
<th>Year of Establishment</th>
<th>URL</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Afghanistan</td>
<td>In formation</td>
<td>Not available</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Bahrain</td>
<td>2001</td>
<td>http://www.bis.org.bh/</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Bangladesh</td>
<td>2011</td>
<td>http://www.isoc.org.bd/dhaka/</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Hong Kong</td>
<td>2005</td>
<td>http://www.isoc.hk/</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>India (Bangalore)</td>
<td>2010</td>
<td>http://www.isocbangalore.org/</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>India (Chennai)</td>
<td>2007</td>
<td>http://www.isocindiachennai.org/</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>India (Delhi)</td>
<td>2002. Rejuvenated in 2008.</td>
<td>http://www.isocdelhi.in/</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>India (Kolkata)</td>
<td>2009</td>
<td>http://isockolkata.in/</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>India (Trivandrum)</td>
<td>2015</td>
<td>Not available</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Indonesia</td>
<td>2014</td>
<td>http://www.isoc.or.id/</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Israel</td>
<td>1995</td>
<td>http://www.isoc.org.il/</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Japan</td>
<td>1994</td>
<td>http://www.isoc.jp/</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Lebanon</td>
<td>2010</td>
<td>http://www.isoc.org.lb/</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Malaysia</td>
<td>2010</td>
<td>http://www.isoc.my/</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Nepal</td>
<td>2007</td>
<td>http://www.internetsociety.org.np/</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Pakistan (Islamabad)</td>
<td>2013</td>
<td>http://www.isocibd.org.pk/</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Palestine</td>
<td>2002</td>
<td>http://www.isoc.ps/</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Philippines</td>
<td>1999. Rejuvenated in 2009.</td>
<td>https://www.facebook.com/isoc.ph/</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Qatar</td>
<td>2011</td>
<td>http://www.isoc.qa/</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Republic of Korea</td>
<td>2014</td>
<td>Not available</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Singapore</td>
<td>2011</td>
<td>http://isoc.sg/</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Sri Lanka</td>
<td>2010</td>
<td>http://www.isoc.lk/</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Taipei</td>
<td>1996</td>
<td>http://www.isoc.org.tw/</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Thailand</td>
<td>1996</td>
<td>http://www.isoc-th.org/</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>United Arab Emirates</td>
<td>2007</td>
<td>http://www.isocuae.com/</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Yemen</td>
<td>2013</td>
<td>http://isoc.ye/</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p>Source: Details of chapters available on Internet Society website (http://www.internetsociety.org/).</p>
<p> </p>
<h2>Reference</h2>
<p>Aizu, Izumi et al. 2002. Joint Statement from Asia Civil Society Forum Participants on World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). December 13. Accessed on July 08, 2015 from http://www.wsisasia.org/wsis-acsf2002/wsis-acsfdec13f.doc.</p>
<p>Asia Pacific Regional Internet Governance Forum (APrIGF). 2010. APrIGF Roundtable – June 15th, 2010: Session 1 – Welcome Remarks and Introduction – Real Time Transcript. Accessed on July 08, 2015 from http://2010.rigf.asia/aprigf-roundtable-june-15th-2010-session-1/.</p>
<p>Bloggers Collective Group. 2006. Bloggers Against Censorship. Last updated on April 30, 2009. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://censorship.wikia.com/wiki/Bloggers_Against_Censorship.</p>
<p>Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus. 2006. Internet Governance Caucus Charter. October 14. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://igcaucus.org/old/IGC-charter_final-061014.html.</p>
<p>Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus. 2008a. Inputs for the Open IGF Consultation, Geneva, 26th February, 2008 – Statement II: Main Session Themes for IGF, Hyderabad. February 26. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://igcaucus.org/old/IGC%20-%20Main%20themes%20for%20IGF%20Hyd.pdf.</p>
<p>Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus. 2008b. Inputs for the Open IGF Consultation, Geneva, 26th February, 2008 – Statement III: Renewal / Restructuring of Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group. February 26. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://igcaucus.org/old/IGC%20-%20MAG%20Rotation.pdf.</p>
<p>Desai, Nitin, et al. 2005. Report of the Working Group on Internet Governance. United June. Accessed on July 08, 2015 from http://www.wgig.org/docs/WGIGREPORT.pdf.</p>
<p>Garden Networks for Freedom of Information. 2004. Breaking through the “Golden Shield.” Open Society Institute. November 01. Accessed on July 08, 2015 from https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/sites/default/files/china-internet-censorship-20041101.pdf.</p>
<p>George, Susanna. 2002. Women and New Information and Communications Technologies: The Promise of Empowerment. Presented at The World Summit on the Information Society: An Asian Response Meeting, November 22-24. Accessed on July 08, 2015 from http://www.wsisasia.org/materials/susanna.doc/.</p>
<p>Gurumurthy, Anita, & Parminder Jeet Singh. 2005. WSIS PrepCom 2: A South Asian Perspective. Association for Progressive Communications. April 01. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from https://www.apc.org/en/news/hr/world/wsis-prepcom-2-south-asian-perspective.</p>
<p>Internet Governance Forum (IGF). 2006. Athens 2006 – List of Participants. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://www.intgovforum.org/PLP.html.</p>
<p>Internet Governance Forum (IGF). 2008. Arrangements for Internet Governance, Global and National/Regional. IGF Hyderabad, India. December 5. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from https://web.archive.org/web/20130621205004/http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/hyderabad_prog/AfIGGN.html [Original URL: http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/hyderabad_prog/AfIGGN.html].</p>
<p>Internet Governance Forum (IGF). 2009. Taking Stock and Looking Forward – On the Desirability of the Continuation of the Forum, Part II. IGF Sharm El Sheikh, Egypt. November 18. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/2009/sharm_el_Sheikh/Transcripts/Sharm%20El%20Sheikh%2018%20November%202009%20Stock%20Taking%20II.txt.</p>
<p>Internet Governance Forum (IGF). 2010. Taking Stock of Internet Governance and the Way Forward. IGF Vilnius, Lithuania. September 17. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://igf.wgig.org/cms/component/content/article/102-transcripts2010/687-taking-stock.</p>
<p>International Campaign for Tibet. 2004. Chinese Authorities Institute Internet ID Card System in Tibet for Online Surveillance. April 30. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://www.savetibet.org/chinese-authorities-institute-internet-id-card-system-in-tibet-for-online-surveillance/.</p>
<p>International Telecommunication Union (ITU). 2003a. PrepCom-2 / 17-28 February 2003 – Final List of Participants. February 28. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://www.itu.int/wsis/participation/prepcom2/prepcom2-cl.pdf.</p>
<p>International Telecommunication Union (ITU). 2003b. Geneva Phase of the WSIS: List of Participants. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/summit_participants.pdf.</p>
<p>Jain, Rekha. 2006. Participation of Developing Countries in the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) Process: India Case Study. Association for Progressive Communications. March. Accessed on July 08, 2015 from http://rights.apc.org/documents/wsis_india.pdf.</p>
<p>Reporters without Borders. 2006. List of the 13 Internet Enemies. Last updated on August 28, 2007. Accessed on July 08, 2015 from http://en.rsf.org/list-of-the-13-internet-enemies-07-11-2006,19603.</p>
<p>Reporters without Borders. 2012. Internet Enemies Report 2012. Accessed on July 08, 2015 from http://en.rsf.org/IMG/pdf/rapport-internet2012_ang.pdf.</p>
<p>Souter, David. 2007. WSIS and Civil Society. In: Whose Summit? Whose Information Society? Developing Countries and Civil Society at the World Summit on the Information Society. With additional research by Abiodun Jagun. Association for Progressive Communications. Pp. 72-89. Accessed on July 08, 2015 from http://rights.apc.org/documents/whose_summit_EN.pdf.</p>
<p>Thai Netizen Network et al. 2012. Southeast Asian Civil Society Groups Highlight Increasing Rights Violations Online, Call for Improvements to Internet Governance Processes in the Region. Statement of Civil Society Delegates from Southeast Asia to 2012 Asia-Pacific Regional Internet Governance Forum (APrIGF). July 31. Accessed on July 08, 2015 from https://freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/AprIGF-Joint%20Statement-FINAL.pdf.</p>
<p>The Economic Times. 2007. Orkut's Tell-All Pact with Cops. May 01. Accessed on July 08, 2015 from http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2007-05-01/news/28459689_1_orkut-ip-addresses-google-spokesperson.</p>
<p>The World Summit on the Information Society: An Asian Response. 2002. Final Document. Accessed on July 08, 2015 from http://www.wsisasia.org/materials/finalversion.doc.</p>
<p>Thien, Vee Vian. 2011. The Struggle for Digital Freedom of Speech: The Malaysian Sociopolitical Blogosphere’s Experience. In: Ronald Deibert et al. (eds.) Access Contested. OpenNet Initiative. Pp. 43-63. Accessed on July 08, 2015 from http://access.opennet.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/accesscontested-chapter-03.pdf.</p>
<p>Tibet Action Institute. 2015. Tibet: Frontline of the New Cyberwar. YouTube. January 27. Accessed on July 08, 2015 from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yE3AQqbGVkk.</p>
<p>UNSAJ et al. 2003. Civil Society Observations and Response to the Tokyo Declaration. Asia-Pacific Regional Conference on the World Summit on the Information Society. January 15. Accessed on July 08, 2015 from http://www.wsisasia.org/wsis-tokyo/tokyo-statement.html.</p>
<p>Wang, Stephanie. 2007. Internet Filtering in Asia in 2006-2007. OpenNet Initiative. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from https://opennet.net/studies/asia2007.</p>
<p>WSIS Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus. 2005. Initial Reactions to the WGIG Report. Contribution from GLOCOM on behalf of the WSIS Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus. July 19. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from www.itu.int/wsis/%20docs2/pc3/contributions/co23.doc.</p>
<p>WSIS Civil Society Plenary. 2003. “Shaping Information Societies for Human Needs” – Civil Society Declaration to the World Summit on the Information Society. December 8. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/civil-society-declaration.pdf.</p>
<p>WSIS Civil Society Plenary. 2005. “Much more could have been achieved” – Civil Society Statement on the World Summit on the Information Society. December 18. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from https://www.itu.int/wsis/docs2/tunis/contributions/co13.pdf.</p>
<p>WSIS Civil Society Subcommittee on Content and Themes. 2003a. “Seven Musts”: Priority Principles Proposed by Civil Society. February 25. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://www.movimientos.org/es/foro_comunicacion/show_text.php3%3Fkey%3D1484.</p>
<p>WSIS Civil Society Subcommittee on Content and Themes. 2003b. Final Report on Prepcom-2 Activities of the Civil Society on Content and Themes. March 27. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/pcip/misc/cs_sct.pdf.</p>
<p>WSIS Executive Secretariat. 2003. Report of the Asia-Pacific Regional Conference for WSIS (Tokyo, 13-15 January 2003). WSIS. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://www.itu.int/dms_pub/itu-s/md/03/wsispc2/doc/S03-WSISPC2-DOC-0006!!PDF-E.pdf.</p>
<p>Yusuf, Huma. 2009. Old and New Media: Converging during the Pakistan Emergency (March 2007 - February 2008). MIT Centre for Civic Media. January 12. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from https://civic.mit.edu/blog/humayusuf/old-and-new-media-converging-during-the-pakistan-emergency-march-2007-february-2008.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/raw/civil-society-organisations-and-internet-governance-in-asia-open-review'>https://cis-india.org/raw/civil-society-organisations-and-internet-governance-in-asia-open-review</a>
</p>
No publishersumandroInternet Governance ForumResearchInternet HistoriesCivil SocietyResearchers at Work2015-11-13T05:54:33ZBlog EntryCivil Society Organisations and Internet Governance in Asia and India – Section Outlines
https://cis-india.org/raw/civil-society-organisations-and-internet-governance-in-asia-and-india-outlines
<b>The Centre for Internet and Society has been invited to contribute two sections to the Asia Internet History - Third Decade (2001-2010) book edited by Dr. Kilnam Chon. The sections will discuss the activities and experiences of civil society organisations in Asia and India, respectively, in national, regional, and global Internet governance processes. The draft outlines of the sections are shared here. Comments and suggestions are invited.</b>
<p> </p>
<p>In the (draft) Foreword to the <a href="https://sites.google.com/site/internethistoryasia/book3" target="_blank">Asia Internet History – Third Decade (2001-2010)</a>, Prof. David J. Farber <a href="https://sites.google.com/site/annex3asia/home/foreword14629.docx?attredirects=0&d=1" target="_blank">writes</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>One of the early attempts to extend the reach of the Internet to Asia was via the “Johnny Appleseed” approach. That is a set of people responded to queries by people in Asian countries asking how they could connect with the growing Internet by offering to supply tapes to key people in the requesting countries, often by physically going with the tapes, as well as providing access points to the USA Internet. The people that we, I was one of the seeders, worked, with became the leaders in their nation and founded the initial national networks that blossomed with time and often formed the basis of commercial Internets. The traditions that these network frontier pioneers established lead to the eventual spread of the benefits of Internet access to not only their nations but became models for the spread to the rest of Asia…</p>
</blockquote>
<p>I am honoured to contribute to the pioneering series titled <a href="https://sites.google.com/site/internethistoryasia/home" target="_blank">Asia Internet History</a>, edited by Dr. Kilnam Chon, by foregrounding a range of other individuals and organisations that often worked outside but in engagement with the national governments, and technical and academic institutions that govern <em>the connecting tapes</em> of the Internet, to ensure mass access to and effective usages of Internet in Asia.</p>
<p>The two sections, to be authored me, provides an overview of ‘civil society organisations’ working across Asian countries that have played a critical role in the shaping of policy-making and discourse around Internet governance during 2000-2010, and then undertakes a closer look at the organisations working in India and their interventions at national, regional, and global levels.</p>
<p>Please read the draft outlines of the <a href="https://github.com/ajantriks/writings/blob/master/sumandro_asia_internet_history_civil_society_overview_outline.md" target="_blank">overview section</a> and the <a href="https://github.com/ajantriks/writings/blob/master/sumandro_asia_internet_history_civil_society_india_outline.md" target="_blank">section on Indian organisations</a>, and share your comments. The comments can be posted on the GitHub page where the outlines are hosted, on this page, or over email: sumandro[at]cis-india[dot]org.</p>
<p>The outlines can also be directly downloaded as markdown files: the <a href="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/ajantriks/writings/master/sumandro_asia_internet_history_civil_society_overview_outline.md" target="_blank">overview</a> and the <a href="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/ajantriks/writings/master/sumandro_asia_internet_history_civil_society_india_outline.md" target="_blank">India</a> section.</p>
<p> </p>
<h2>Asian Civil Society Organisations and Internet Governance</h2>
<p> </p>
<p>Here is a tentative list of key civil society organisations from Asia that have participated and intervened in Internet governance processes during 2001-2010. Please suggest organisations missing from the list.</p>
<p> </p>
<strong>Bangladesh</strong>
<p> </p>
<ul><li><a href="http://bfes.net/" target="_blank">Bangladesh Friendship Education Society (BFES)</a></li><li><a href="http://www.bnnrc.net/" target="_blank">Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio and Communication (BNNRC)</a></li><li>
<a href="http://www.bytesforall.net/" target="_blank">Bytes for All, Bangladesh</a></li><li>
<a href="http://www.isoc.org.bd/dhaka/" target="_blank">Dnet</a></li><li>
<a href="http://www.isoc.org.bd/dhaka/" target="_blank">Internet Society Dhaka Chapter</a></li><li><a href="http://www.voicebd.org/" target="_blank">VOICE</a></li></ul>
<p> </p>
<strong>Cambodia<br /><br /></strong>
<ul><li><a href="http://www.ccimcambodia.org/" target="_blank">Cambodian Center for Independent Media (CCIM)</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.open.org.kh/en" target="_blank">Open Institute</a></li></ul>
<p> </p>
<strong>China</strong>
<p> </p>
<ul><li><a href="http://english.cast.org.cn/" target="_blank">China Association for Science and Technology (CAST)</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.isoc.hk/" target="_blank">Internet Society Hong Kong</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.isc.org.cn/english/" target="_blank">Internet Society of China</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.isoc.org.tw/" target="_blank">Internet Society Taiwan Chapter</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.isoc.org.tw/" target="_blank"></a><br /></li>
<li><a href="http://knowledgedialogues.com/" target="_blank">Knowledge Dialogues, Hong Kong</a></li></ul>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>Indonesia</strong></p>
<p> </p>
<ul><li><a href="http://www.engagemedia.org/" target="_blank">EngageMedia, Australia and Indonesia</a> <br /></li>
<li><a href="http://www.ilab.or.id/" target="_blank">ICT Laboratory for Social Change (iLab)</a></li>
<li><a href="http://id-config.org/" target="_blank">Indonesian CSOs Network for Internet Governance</a></li>
<li><a href="http://ictwatch.id/" target="_blank">Indonesian ICT Partnership Association (ICT Watch)</a> <br /></li>
<li><a href="http://www.isoc.or.id/" target="_blank">Internet Society Indonesia Chapter</a> [website is under construction]</li></ul>
<p> </p>
<strong>India</strong>
<p> </p>
<ul><li><a href="http://censorship.wikia.com/wiki/Bloggers_Collective_group" target="_blank">Bloggers Collective</a></li>
<li><a href="http://cis-india.org/" target="_blank">Centre for Internet and Society (CIS)</a> <br /></li>
<li><a href="http://www.csdms.in/" target="_blank">Centre for Science, Development and Media Studies (CSDMS)</a></li>
<li><a href="http://defindia.org/" target="_blank">Digital Empowerment Foundation (DEF)</a></li>
<li><a href="http://fsf.org.in/" target="_blank">Free Software Foundation India (FSFI)</a></li>
<li><a href="http://fsmi.in/" target="_blank">Free Software Movement of India (FSMI)</a></li>
<li><a href="http://internetdemocracy.in/" target="_blank">Internet Democracy Project</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.isocbangalore.org/" target="_blank">Internet Society Bangalore Chapter</a></li>
<li><a href="http://isocindiachennai.org/" target="_blank">Internet Society Chennai Chapter</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.isocdelhi.in/" target="_blank">Internet Society Delhi Chapter</a> <br /></li>
<li><a href="http://www.isocindiakolkata.in/" target="_blank">Internet Society Kolkata Chapter</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.itforchange.net/" target="_blank">IT for Change</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.itu-apt.org/" target="_blank">ITU-APT Foundation of India (IAFI)</a> <br /></li>
<li><a href="http://www.orfonline.org/" target="_blank">Observer Research Foundation (ORF)</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.knowledgecommons.in/" target="_blank">Society for Knowledge Commons (Knowledge Commons)</a></li>
<li><a href="http://sflc.in/" target="_blank">Software Freedom Law Centre (SFLC)</a></li></ul>
<p> </p>
<strong>Iran</strong>
<p> </p>
<ul><li><a href="http://www.ictgroup.org/" target="_blank">Iranian Civil Society Organizations Training and Research Centre (ICTRC)</a> [URL is not working]</li></ul>
<p> </p>
<strong>Japan</strong>
<p> </p>
<ul><li><a href="http://www.glocom.ac.jp/e/" target="_blank">Centre for Global Communications (GLOCOM)</a> [Academia?]</li>
<li><a href="http://www.isoc.jp/" target="_blank">Internet Society Japan Chapter</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.jcafe.net/" target="_blank">Japan Computer Access for Empowerment (JCAFE)</a> [URL is not working]</li>
<li><a href="http://www.jca.apc.org/" target="_blank">Japan Computer Access Network (JCA-NET)</a></li></ul>
<p> </p>
<strong>Kuwait</strong>
<p> </p>
<ul><li><a href="http://www.ijma3.org/" target="_blank">iJMA3 - Kuwait Information Technology Society (KITS)</a></li></ul>
<p> </p>
<strong>Lebanon</strong>
<p> </p>
<ul><li><a href="http://www.lccelebanon.org/" target="_blank">Lebanese Center for Civic Education (LCCE)</a></li></ul>
<p> </p>
<strong>Malaysia</strong>
<p> </p>
<ul><li><a href="http://www.isoc.my/" target="_blank">Internet Society Malaysia Chapter</a></li></ul>
<p> </p>
<strong>Myanmar</strong>
<p> </p>
<ul><li><a href="http://myanmarido.org/en" target="_blank">Myanmar ICT for Development Organization (MIDO)</a></li></ul>
<p> </p>
<strong>Nepal</strong>
<p> </p>
<ul><li><a href="http://www.internetsociety.org.np/" target="_blank">Internet Society Nepal Chapter</a></li></ul>
<p> </p>
<strong>Pakistan</strong>
<p> </p>
<ul><li><a href="https://content.bytesforall.pk/" target="_blank">Bytes for All, Pakistan</a></li>
<li><a href="http://isocibd.org.pk/" target="_blank">Internet Society Islamabad Chapter</a></li></ul>
<p> </p>
<strong>Philippines</strong>
<p> </p>
<ul><li><a href="http://democracy.net.ph/" target="_blank">Democracy.Net.PH</a> <br /></li>
<li><a href="http://www.fma.ph/" target="_blank">Foundation for Media Alternatives (FMA)</a> [URL not working</li>
<li><a href="https://www.facebook.com/isoc.ph" target="_blank">Internet Society Philippines Chapter</a></li></ul>
<p> </p>
<strong>Regional</strong>
<p> </p>
<ul><li><a href="http://www.forum-asia.org/" target="_blank">Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA)</a></li>
<li><a href="http://discfoundation.com/" target="_blank">Developing Internet Safe Community (DISC) Foundation</a></li>
<li><a href="http://lirneasia.net/" target="_blank">LIRNEasia</a></li></ul>
<p> </p>
<strong>Singapore</strong>
<p> </p>
<ul><li><a href="http://isoc.sg/" target="_blank">Internet Society Singapore Chapter</a></li></ul>
<p> </p>
<strong>South Korea</strong>
<p> </p>
<ul><li><a href="http://www.jinbo.net/" target="_blank">Korean Progressive Network Jinbonet</a></li>
<li><a href="http://opennet.or.kr/" target="_blank">OpenNet</a></li></ul>
<p> </p>
<strong>Sri Lanka</strong>
<p> </p>
<ul><li><a href="http://isoc.lk/?lang=en" target="_blank">Internet Society Sri Lanka Chapter</a></li></ul>
<p> </p>
<strong>Thailand</strong>
<p> </p>
<ul><li><a href="http://www.isoc-th.org/" target="_blank">Internet Society Thailand Chapter</a> <br /></li><li><a href="https://thainetizen.org/" target="_blank">Thai Netizen Network</a></li></ul>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/raw/civil-society-organisations-and-internet-governance-in-asia-and-india-outlines'>https://cis-india.org/raw/civil-society-organisations-and-internet-governance-in-asia-and-india-outlines</a>
</p>
No publishersumandroInternet StudiesResearchFeaturedInternet HistoriesResearchers at Work2015-11-13T05:40:49ZBlog EntryThe Last Cultural Mile
https://cis-india.org/raw/histories-of-the-internet/blogs/the-last-cultural-mile/the-last-cultural-mile-blog-old
<b>Ashish’s monograph follows the career of a priori contradiction, one that only mandates a state mechanism to perform an act of delivery, and then disqualifies the state from performing that very act effectively. This contradiction which he names as the Last Mile problem is a conceptual hurdle, not a physical one and when put one way, the Last Mile is unbridgeable, when put another, it is being bridged all the time.</b>
<p>This monograph provides a set of four case studies of the Indian State. The case studies address four technologies, television, telecommunications, networked higher education and the Unique Identity project. It also looks at Wireless-in-Local Loop (or WLL) technology that constituted the first revolution in telecommunications in the early 1990s, the arrival of satellite television also in the 1990s, the low-end IT ‘device’ with which the Ministry of HRD plans to use digitized distance education to increase enrolment of Indian students by five per cent of the overall population, and the celebrated Aadhaar.</p>
<p><strong>Download the Monograph <a href="https://cis-india.org/raw/histories-of-the-internet/last-cultural-mile.pdf" class="internal-link"><span class="external-link"><span class="external-link">here</span></span></a></strong></p>
<div><br /> <br />
<blockquote class="pullquote"></blockquote>
</div>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/raw/histories-of-the-internet/blogs/the-last-cultural-mile/the-last-cultural-mile-blog-old'>https://cis-india.org/raw/histories-of-the-internet/blogs/the-last-cultural-mile/the-last-cultural-mile-blog-old</a>
</p>
No publisherkaeruDigital GovernanceInternet HistoriesHistories of InternetResearchers at WorkPublications2015-04-03T10:59:23ZCollection (Old)Re:Wiring Bodies
https://cis-india.org/raw/histories-of-the-internet/rewiring-bodies
<b>Asha Achuthan initiates a historical research inquiry to understand the ways in which gendered bodies are shaped by the Internet imaginaries in contemporary India. Tracing the history from nationalist debates between Gandhi and Tagore to the neo-liberal perspective based knowledge produced by feminists like Martha Nussbaum; Asha’s research offers a unique entry point into cyberculture studies through a feminist epistemology of science and technology. The monograph establishes that there is a certain pre-history to the Internet that needs to be unpacked in order to understand the digital interventions on the body in a range of fields from social sciences theory to medical health practices to technology and science policy in the country.</b>
<p><br />Section I (<strong>Attitudes to Technology</strong>) attempts to trace the trajectories of the critiques of technology standing in for science in the Indian context. This section traces the methodology of critique itself that animates the political in India and shows the ways in which these critiques access anterior difference, the ways in which they posit resistance as providing the crisis to closure of hegemonic western science and the ways in which this resistance fails to meet the promise of crisis.</p>
<p>Section II (<strong>Mapping Transitions</strong>) explores in detail the responses to science and technology in feminist and gender work in India. Here, Asha presents an ‘attitude’ to technology as discrete from ‘man’. Feminist and gender work in India have articulated four responses to technology across state and civil society positions. These being the presence of women as agents of technological change, the demand for improved access for women to the fruits of technology, the demand for inclusion of women as a constituency that must be specifically provided for by technological amendments a need for recognition of technology’s ills particularly for women and the consequent need for resistance to technology on the same count.</p>
<p>Keeping in mind that woman’s lived experiences have served as the vantage point for all four of the responses to technology in the Indian context, Asha suggests the need to revisit the idea of such experience itself, and the ways in which it might be made critical, rather than valorising it as an official counterpoint to scientific knowledge, and by extension to technology. Section III (<strong>Working towards an Alternative</strong>) does not address the ‘technology question’ in a direct sense but makes an effort to make that exploration.</p>
<p>Asha concludes by saying that she treats technology as a part of the philosophy of modern western science and the relationship between technology and bodies is the more obvious relationship upon which the formulations of human-technology relationships are built.</p>
<p>Download the monograph <a href="https://cis-india.org/raw/histories-of-the-internet/rewiring-bodies.pdf" class="internal-link" title="Re:Wiring Bodies">here</a> [PDF, 2.58 MB]</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/raw/histories-of-the-internet/rewiring-bodies'>https://cis-india.org/raw/histories-of-the-internet/rewiring-bodies</a>
</p>
No publisherAsha AchuthanRAW PublicationsInternet HistoriesHistories of InternetResearchers at WorkPublications2015-04-14T12:49:46ZBlog EntryArchives and Access
https://cis-india.org/raw/histories-of-the-internet/blogs/archives-and-access/archives-and-access
<b>The monograph by Aparna Balachandran and Rochelle Pinto, is a material history of the Internet archives. It examines the role of the archivist and the changing relationship between the state and private archives for looking at the politics of subversion, preservation and value of archiving. By examining the Tamil Nadu and Goa state archives, along with the larger public and state archives in the country, the monograph looks at the materiality of archiving, the ambitions and aspirations of an archive, and why it is necessary to preserve archives, not as historical artefacts but as living interactive spaces of memory and remembrance. The findings have direct implications on various government and market impulses to digitise archives and show a clear link between opening up archives and other knowledge sources for breathing life into local and alternative histories.
</b>
<p><a href="https://cis-india.org/raw/histories-of-the-internet/blogs/archives-and-access/archives-and-access.pdf" class="internal-link" title="Archives and Access">Download the Monograph</a></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/raw/histories-of-the-internet/blogs/archives-and-access/archives-and-access'>https://cis-india.org/raw/histories-of-the-internet/blogs/archives-and-access/archives-and-access</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaRAW PublicationsPublicationsHistories of InternetResearchers at WorkInternet HistoriesArchives2015-04-17T11:06:20ZBlog EntryWe, the Cyborgs: Challenges for the Future of being Human
https://cis-india.org/raw/histories-of-the-internet/the-cyborgs
<b>The Cyborg - a cybernetique organism which is a combination of the biological and the technological – has been at the centre of discourse around digital technologies. Especially with wearable computing and ubiquitous access to the digital world, there has been an increased concern that very ways in which we understand questions of life, human body and the presence and role of technologies in our worlds, are changing. In just the last few years, we have seen extraordinary measures – the successful production of synthetic bacteria, artificial intelligence that can be programmed to simulate human conditions like empathy and temperament, and massive mobilisation of people around the world, to fight against the injustices and inequities of their immediate environments. </b>
<p><strong>Rationale</strong></p>
<p>All of these, in some way or the other, hint at new models of
cyborgification which we need to unpack in order to understand a few
questions which have been at the helm of all philosophical inquiry and
practical design around Internet and Society:</p>
<ul><li>How do we understand ourselves as human? What are the technologies that define being human?</li><li>How
do conceptualise the technological beyond prosthetic imaginations? How
do we understand technology (especially the digital) as a condition?</li><li>What are the new challenges we shall face in law, ethics, life and social sciences as we increasingly live in Cyborg societies?<br /></li></ul>
<em>We , the Cyborgs</em>, is a first of its kind research inquiry that
locates these questions in a quickly digitising India to see the
challenges of being human in the time of technological futures. In her
seminal body of work on Cyborgs, Donna Haraway had posited the cyborg as
a creature of fiction and ironies; a monster, a trickster, a boundary
creature that is irreducible to the existing binaries of
human-technology, technology-nature, nature-regulation.
In imagining the cyborg as simultaneously fictitious and embodied in
practices of care and labour, Haraway was further hinting at a set of
questions that have never really entered discourse on cyborgs: Who are
we when we become cyborgs? What do we do with the cyborgs we have
produced? What are the other kinds of cyborgs? What are the new places
them? What are the other ways of understanding cyborgs? Asha Achuthan in
her monograph Re:Wiring Bodies, maps these questions along the axes of
Presence, Access, Inclusion and Resistance to understand ‘attitudes to
technology’.
Achuthan talks about a moment of elision where technology is separated
from the human body in the space of policy and critique. In those
moments of separation, there is the production of a cyborg body that is
suddenly vulnerable because it does not have the support of the
technological which was an essential part of its bodily experience. How
does this body get assimilated in our technology practices? What are the
axes of discrimination and inequity that are attributed to these bodies
in the process of cyborg making? Who are the actors that play a part in
designing these cyborg bodies and selves? In the Indian context, where
there has been a legacy of being technosocial subjects and cyborg
citizens in the nation’s own technoscience imagination of itself, we
need to locate the cyborg in new sites and contexts to see what the
regulation of technology and its integration in everyday life.
<strong><br /><br />Methodology</strong>
<p>Building upon her work, We, The Cyborgs, seeks to locate the cyborg
in India, on 3 interdisciplinary but connected sites to examine how
bodies, in their interaction with the design and practice of different
processes of regulation and control, are in the process of becoming
cyborgs. The inquiry locates the cyborg at intersections of Health Care,
Planning and Gender, to start unpacking the different futures of the
body-technology relationships that have been posited in terms like
post-human, techno-social, simulated bodies, bodies as traffic, etc. In
the process, it hopes to unravel the questions of methods, frameworks,
ethics and practices of bodies in conditions of technology.
<em>We, The Cyborgs</em>, aims to bring together a wide range of
researchers and practitioners from different disciplinary locations
including but not limited to – Art, Anthropology, Law, Planning,
Architecture and Design, Gender and Sexuality studies, Cultural Studies,
Life Sciences, Medicine, New Media Studies, etc. – to start a debate
around some of the key issues around cyborgs and cyborg-making in their
fields.</p>
<p><br /><strong></strong></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/raw/histories-of-the-internet/the-cyborgs'>https://cis-india.org/raw/histories-of-the-internet/the-cyborgs</a>
</p>
No publisherkaeruCyborgsHistories of InternetResearchers at WorkInternet Histories2015-04-06T15:48:35ZBlog Entry