Centre for Internet and Society

Government of India's Response to WGEC Questionnaire

snehashish — 2014-01-22T16:55:43Z

The Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation circulated a questionnaire to collect the views and positions of the stakeholders on the various aspects of enhanced cooperation. India's response to the questionnaire is documented below for archival purposes.

INDIA, Permanent Mission of India to the United Nations Office
9, RUE DU VALAIS, 1202, GENEVA
Mission.india@ties.itu.int

1. Which stakeholder category do you belong to?
Government
If non-government, please indicate:
If non-government, please indicate if you are:

2. What do you think is the significance, purpose and scope of enhanced cooperation as per the Tunis Agenda? 1) Significance 2) Purpose 3) Scope

Significance
The World Summit on Information Society (WSIS), held in two phases had discussed the issues relating to Internet Governance at a great length and in detail and recommended (i) convening a new forum for multi-stake holder policy dialogue and (ii) beginning the process towards Enhanced Cooperation. As a result of the first recommendation, an Internet Governance Forum was established in 2006 as a forum for dialogue among various stakeholders. However, the process towards Enhanced Cooperation to develop international public policy issues pertaining to Internet in a fair and equitable manner is yet to take off. The use of internet and its socio-economic impact has grown further in the last few years. This has made the need for Enhanced Cooperation even more significant and urgent.
Purpose
The purpose of Enhanced Cooperation is to enable governments, on an equal footing, through a suitable multilateral, transparent and democratic mechanism, to carry out their roles and responsibilities in international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet, in consultation with all other stakeholders.
Scope
The scope of Enhanced Cooperation covers international public policy issues pertaining to the internet as well as the development of globally-applicable principles on public policy issues pertaining to the coordination and management of critical internet resources, but not the dayto-day technical and operational matters, that do not impact on international public policy issues.

3. To what extent has or has not enhanced cooperation been implemented? Please use the space below to explain and to provide examples to support your answer.

Enhanced Cooperation, as envisaged in Paras 68 and 69 of the Tunis Agenda, has not been realized. This remains a major shortcoming in implementation of WSIS Outcomes related to Enhanced Cooperation, considering that a specific mandate was given by the World Summit for Information Society (WSIS) in 2005 to begin such a process of Enhanced Cooperation in the first quarter of 2006. There is no multilateral, transparent and democratic global platform where governments can, on an equal footing, decide the full range of international public policies related to internet, in a holistic manner. There is also no mechanism for the development of globally-applicable principles on public policy issues including those pertaining to coordination and management of critical Internet resources. Not establishing an Enhanced Cooperation process has denied the Governments an opportunity to carry out their roles and responsibilities in international public-policy issues pertaining to the internet.

4. What are the relevant international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet?
The Working Group on Internet Governance set up by WSIS identified many public policy issues pertaining to internet, which continue to be relevant today, as listed below:

Issues relating to infrastructure and the management of critical Internet resources, including administration of the domain name system and Internet protocol addresses (IP addresses), administration of the root server system, technical standards, peering and interconnection, telecommunications infrastructure, including innovative and convergent technologies, as well as multilingualization;
Issues relating to the use of the Internet, including spam, network security and cybercrime;
Issues that are relevant to the Internet but have an impact much wider than the Internet and for which existing organizations are responsible, such as intellectual property rights (IPRs) or international trade;
Issues relating to the developmental aspects of Internet governance, in particular capacity building in developing countries;
Issues relating to interconnection costs, meaningful participation in global policy development, freedom of expression, Data protection and privacy rights, Consumer rights, convergence and “next generation networks” (NGNs), as well as trade and e-commerce; Furthermore, Para 59 of the Tunis Agenda recognised that Internet Governance includes social, economic and technical issues including affordability, reliability and quality of service and para 60 of the Tunis Agenda recognised that there are many cross-cutting public policy issues that require attention. Since WSIS, international internet-related public policy issues have only grown in their number as well as importance. Several issues such as cloud computing have emerged in the last few years. Newer issues will keep arising with significant international public policy dimensions as the Internet continues to evolve and grow in its reach and spread.

5. What are the roles and responsibilities of the different stakeholders, including governments, in implementation of the various aspects of enhanced cooperation?

Enhanced Cooperation is a dynamic process due to the dynamic nature of internet. As a result, the roles and responsibilities of different stakeholders would need to be broadly defined. In this regard, we concur with the recommendations of the Working Group on Internet Governance on the role of different stakeholders — as listed below: Governments: Public authority for Internet related public policy issues is the sovereign right of States and that they have rights and responsibilities for international Internet public policy.

Their roles and responsibilities include:-

Public policy-making and coordination and implementation, as appropriate, at the national level, and policy development and coordination at the regional and international levels;
Creating an enabling environment for information and communication technology (ICT) development; Oversight functions; Development and adoption of laws, regulations and standards;
Treaty-making; Development of best practices; Fostering capacity-building in and through ICTs;
Promoting research and development of technologies and standards;
Promoting access to ICT services; Combating cybercrime;
Fostering international and regional cooperation;
Promoting the development of infrastructure and ICT applications;
Addressing general developmental issues;
Promoting multilingualism and cultural diversity;

Dispute resolution and arbitration.

Private sector: The private sector has important role and responsibilities which include the following:-
Industry self-regulation; Development of best practices; Development of policy proposals, guidelines and tools for policymakers and other stakeholders; Research and development of technologies, standards and processes; Contribution to the drafting of national law and participation in national and international policy development; Fostering innovation; Arbitration and dispute resolution; Promoting capacity-building.

Civil society: Civil society has also played an important role on Internet matters especially at the community level and should continue to play such roles. The roles and responsibilities of civil society include:

Awareness-raising and capacity-building (knowledge, training, skills sharing);
Promoting various public interest objectives; Facilitating network-building; Mobilizing citizens in democratic processes;
Bringing perspectives of marginalized groups, including, for example, excluded communities and grass-roots activists;
Engaging in policy processes; Contributing expertise, skills, experience and knowledge in a range of ICT policy areas;
Contributing to policy processes and policies that are more bottom-up, people-centred and inclusive; Research and development of technologies and standards; Development and dissemination of best practices;
Helping to ensure that political and market forces are accountable to the needs of all members of society;
Encouraging social responsibility and good governance practice. Advocating for the development of social projects and activities that are critical but may not be “fashionable” or profitable;
Contributing to shaping visions of human-centred information societies based on human rights, sustainable development, social justice and empowerment.

Furthermore, the contribution to the Internet of the academic community is very valuable and constitutes one of its main sources of inspiration, innovation and creativity. Similarly, the technical community and its organizations are deeply involved in Internet operation, Internet standard-setting and Internet services development. Both of these groups make a permanent and valuable contribution to the stability, security, functioning and evolution of the Internet. They interact extensively with and within all stakeholder groups. The para 35 of the Tunis Agenda recognises the role of intergovernmental organizations in facilitating the coordination of internet related public policy issues and international organizations in the development of internet related technical standards and relevant policies.

6. How should enhanced cooperation be implemented to enable governments, on an equal footing, to carry out their roles and responsibilities in international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet?

A suitable multilateral, transparent and democratic mechanism must be created where governments, on an equal footing, may carry out their roles and responsibilities in international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet and public policy issues pertaining to coordination and management of critical Internet resources, in consultation with all other stakeholders. India would submit its recommendations on such a mechanism separately to the WGEC.
WGEC should submit its recommendation on the broad parameters of such a mechanism to the UNGA through CSTD as an input to the overall review of the outcomes of the WSIS.

7. How can enhanced cooperation enable other stakeholders to carry out their roles and responsibilities?

The mechanism should be designed so as to enable the other stakeholders to discharge their respective roles and responsibilities as mentioned above in response to Question 5 above in an effective manner. Further, Para 70 of the Tunis Agenda stated that relevant international organizations responsible for essential tasks associated with the Internet should contribute in creating an environment that facilitates the development of public policy principles. Therefore these organizations would need to make necessary changes to facilitate an appropriate interface with the mechanism of Enhanced Cooperation.

8. What are the most appropriate mechanisms to fully implement enhanced cooperation as recognized in the Tunis Agenda, including on international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet and public policy issues associated with coordination and management of critical Internet resources?

It is relevant to recall relevant paragraphs of the Tunis Agenda to identify most appropriate mechanisms to fully implement enhanced cooperation. The Para 69 sets the tone for Governments to define a mechanism of the enhanced cooperation. This paragraph together with other paras in the Tunis Agenda, when read with the WSIS outcomes clearly provides the basis for establishing the mechanism of enhanced cooperation. The sequence of paragraphs that help define the contours of a mechanism is as follows:

Para 29 states that international management of internet should be multilateral, transparent and democratic with the full involvement of governments and other stakeholders.
Para 31 commits to full participation of all stakeholders, within respective roles and responsibilities, to ensure requisite legitimacy of governance of internet.
The roles and responsibilities of various stakeholders have been defined in brief in para 35 of the Tunis Agenda and in detail in paras 29-34 of WGIG report.
In Para 60 of the Tunis Agenda, the Leaders have clearly pointed out the inadequacy of the current mechanisms for dealing with many cross-cutting international public policy issues. As a sequel to this recognition, Para 61 stresses the need to initiate, and reinforce, as appropriate, a transparent, democratic, and multilateral process, with the participation of governments, private sector, civil society and international organizations, in their respective roles.
Para 68 further recognizes the need for development of public policy by governments in consultation with all stakeholders. The Para 69 recognises the importance of the governments to act on an equal footing with each other. Thus, there is a clear mandate for defining a mechanism for effective and enhanced cooperation on global internet governance. India would submit its recommendations on such a mechanism separately to the WGEC.

9. What is the possible relationship between enhanced cooperation and the IGF?

The IGF is a forum for multi-stakeholder dialogue. The discussions and dialogue in IGF would enrich the process of development of the international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet by the mechanism proposed under Enhanced Cooperation. Enhanced Cooperation is a mechanism for policy development whereas IGF is a forum for policy dialogue - IGF is, thus, a distinct and a complementary process to the enhanced cooperation mechanism. IGF should contribute its outcomes as inputs into the policy development/ making processes to be undertaken by the new mechanism for Enhanced Cooperation.

10. How can the role of developing countries be made more effective in global Internet governance?

Paragraph 65 of the Tunis Agenda underlines the need to maximize the participation of developing countries in decisions regarding Internet governance, which should reflect their interests, as well as in the development of capacity building. The developing countries are integral part of the global Internet governance. They would participate, at equal footing in the mechanism explained above.

11. What barriers remain for all stakeholders to fully participate in their respective roles in global Internet governance? How can these barriers best be overcome?

The main barrier to the participation of stakeholders is the absence of a mechanism for global internet governance where they can participate in their respective roles. Second barrier to participation of stakeholders is the nature of selection process of participants who represent these stakeholders. The process of selection of the representatives should be made in a transparent manner and using an inclusive approach.
12. What actions are needed to promote effective participation of all marginalised people in the global information society?

The mechanism proposed above involves all stakeholders, having important role to play in addressing the challenge to effective participation of marginalised people. Challenges like accessibility, availability and affordability of information services have to be addressed at regional, national and international level with participation of all stakeholders in their respective roles and responsibilities effectively.

13. How can enhanced cooperation address key issues toward global, social and economic development?

Since enhanced cooperation would facilitate establishment of a mechanism to formulate international internet related public policies with the participation of all stakeholders in their respective roles from developed and developing countries, the implementation of these policies would be able to address the issues toward global, social and economic development in a better way than today.

14. What is the role of various stakeholders in promoting the development of local language content?

Development of local language content is an important element in ensuring overall socioeconomic development. All stakeholders have an important role to play in generation, dissemination and consumption of the local language content. National governments would be responsible for creation of an enabling environment including, development of relevant standards, legal protection and business opportunities. Private sector would be responsible to provide innovative solutions to the challenge. Civil society would play a very important role in supporting and generating community interest towards local language content development.

15. What are the international internet-related public policy issues that are of special relevance to developing countries?

The issues important for developing countries include accessibility, affordability and availability of the information services and technologies. The public policy issues contained in our replies to Question No. 4 are also equally important for developing countries.

16. What are the key issues to be addressed to promote the affordability of the Internet, in particular in developing countries and least developed countries?

The key issues relating to affordability of the Internet, include the following:-

Co-location of content in geographically dispersed location along with Content Distribution Networks (CDNs)
Lowering of Interconnection costs
Internet Exchange Points with peering for routing local traffic and interconnection across borders
Location of Internet “host” computers in the country and/or region.
Regional backbones that interlink countries in the region and which also link to international backbones
Location of the root server systems in these countries
Interoperability and Net Neutrality - In response to the limitation posed by propriety software, alternative products such as Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) and alternative licensing regimes (for example Creative Commons, Copy left etc.) to help reduce the costs and (legal) risks associated with proprietary software and content.
Multi-lingualization (Internationalized Domain Names and Local Language Content).
Affordability in accessing International internet connectivity.

17. What are the national capacities to be developed and modalities to be considered for national governments to develop Internet-related public policy with participation of all stakeholders?

The national capacities that need to be considered by national governments to develop Internet related public policy include:

Setting up of Centre of Excellence on Internet Governance and related issues.
Establishment of R&D centers in the area of Internet related Public Policy.
Introduction of formal courses on Internet governance in premier educational institutes for Industries, Academia & Civil Society.
Introduction of Training and Awareness building programmes in the area of Internet Governance.
Creation of online Knowledge Repository Portal on Internet Governance.

18. Are there other comments, or areas of concern, on enhanced cooperation you would like to submit?

Enhanced Cooperation is a dynamic process, and hence it requires periodic reassessment – based on the feedback from Governments as well as other relevant stakeholders, on any inter-governmental mechanism that is set up to oversee its operationalization.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/government-of-indias-response-to-wgec-questionnaire-1

Electoral Databases – Privacy and Security Concerns

snehashish — 2014-01-16T11:07:21Z

In this blogpost, Snehashish Ghosh analyzes privacy and security concerns which have surfaced with the digitization, centralization and standardization of the electoral database and argues that even though the law provides the scope for protection of electoral databases, the State has not taken any steps to ensure its safety.

The recent move by the Election Commission of India (ECI) to tie-up with Google for providing electoral look-up services for citizens and electoral information services has faced heavy criticism on the grounds of data security and privacy.[i] After due consideration, the ECI has decided to drop the plan.[ii]

The plan to partner with Google has led to much apprehension regarding Google gaining access to the database of 790 million voters including, personal information such as age, place of birth and residence. It could have also gained access to cell phone numbers and email addresses had the voter chosen to enroll via the online portal on the ECI website. Although, the plan has been cancelled, it does not necessarily mean that the largest database of citizens of India is safe from any kind of security breach or abuse. In fact, the personal information of each voter in a constituency can be accessed by anyone through the ECI website and the publication of electoral rolls is mandated by the law.

Publication of Electoral Rolls
The electoral roll essentially contains the name of the voter, name of the relationship (son of/wife of, etc.), age, sex, address and the photo identity card number. The main objective of creation and maintenance of electoral rolls and the issue of Electoral Photo Identity Card (EPIC) was to ensure a free and fair election where the voter would have been able to cast his own vote as per his own choice. In other words, the main purpose of the exercise was to curtail bogus voting. This is achieved by cross referencing the EPIC with the electoral roll.

The process of creation and maintenance of electoral rolls is governed by the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. Rule 22 requires the registration officer to publish the roll with list of amendments at his office for inspection and public information. Furthermore, ECI may direct the registration officer to send two copies of the electoral roll to every political party for which a symbol has exclusively been reserved by the ECI. It can be safely concluded that the electoral roll of a constituency is a public document[iii] given that the roll is published and can be circulated on the direction of the ECI.

With the computational turn, in 1998 the ECI took the decision to digitize the electoral databases. Furthermore, printed electoral rolls and compact discs containing the rolls are available for sale to general public.[iv] In addition to that, the electoral rolls for the entire country are available on the ECI website.[v] However, the current database is not uniform and standardized, and entries in some constituencies are available only in the local language. The ECI has taken steps to make the database uniform, standardized and centralized.[vi]

Security Concerns
The Registration of Electoral Rules, 1960 is an archaic piece of delegated legislation which is still in force and casts a statutory duty on the ECI to publish the electoral rolls. The publication of electoral rolls is not a threat to security when it is distributed in hard copies and the availability of electoral rolls is limited. The security risks emerge only after the digitization of electoral database, which allows for uniformity, standardization and centralization of the database which in turn makes it vulnerable and subject to abuse. The law has failed to evolve with the change in technology.

In a recent article, Bill Davidow analyzes "the dark side of Moore’s Law" and argues that with the growth processing power there has been a growth in surveillance capabilities and on this note the article is titled, “With Great Computing Power Comes Great Surveillance”[vii] Drawing from Davidow’s argument, with the exponential growth in computing power, search has become convenient, faster and cheap. A uniform, standardized and centralized database bearing the personal information of 790 million voters can be searched and categorized in accordance with the search terms. The personal information of the voters can be used for good, but it can be equally abused if it falls into the wrong hands. Big data analysis or the computing power makes it easier to target voters, as bits and pieces of personal information give a bigger picture of an individual, a community, etc. This can be considered intrusive on individual’s privacy since the personal information of every voter is made available in the public domain

For example, the availability of a centralized, searchable database of voters along with their age would allow the appropriate authorities to identify wards or constituencies, which has a high population of voters above the age of 65. This would help the authority to set up polling booths at closer location with special amenities. However, the same database can be used to search for density of members of a particular community in a ward or constituency based on the name, age, sex of the voters. This information can be used to disrupt elections, target vulnerable communities during an election and rig elections.

Current IT Laws does not mandate the protection of the electoral database
A centralized electoral database of the entire country can be considered as a critical information infrastructure (CII) given the impact it may have on the election which is the cornerstone of any democracy. Under Section 70 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act) CII means “the computer resource, incapacitation or destruction of which, shall have debilitating impact on national security, economy.”[viii] However, the appropriate Government has not notified the electoral database as a protected system[ix]. Therefore, information security practices and procedures for a protected system are not applicable to the electoral database.

The Information Technology Rules (IT Rules) are also not applicable to electoral databases, per se. Since, ECI is not a body corporate, the Information Technology (Reasonable Security Practices and Procedures and Sensitive Personal Data or Information), Rules, 2011 (hereinafter Reasonable Security Practices Rules) do not apply to electoral databases. Ignoring that Reasonable Security Practices Rules only apply to a body corporate, the electoral database does fall within the ambit of definition of “personal information”[x] and should arguably be made subject to the Rules.

The intent of the ECI for hosting the entire country’s electoral database online inter alia is to provide electronic service delivery to the citizens. It seeks to provide “electoral look up services for citizens ... for better electoral information services.”[xi] However, the Information Technology (Electronic Service Delivery) Rules, 2011 are not applicable to the electoral database given that it is not notified by the appropriate Government as a service to be delivered electronically. Hence, the encryption and security standards for electronic service delivery are not applicable to electoral rolls.

The IT Act and the IT Rules provide a reasonable scope for the appropriate Government to include electoral databases within the ambit of protected system and electronic service delivery. However, the appropriate government has not taken any steps to notify electoral database as protected system or a mode of electronic service delivery under the existing laws.

Conclusion
Publication of electoral rolls is a necessary part of an election process. It ensures free and fair election and promotes transparency and accountability. But unfettered access to electronic electoral databases may have an adverse effect and would endanger the very goal it seeks to achieve because the electronic database may pose threat to privacy of the voters and also lead to security breach. It may be argued that the ECI is mandated by the law to publish the electoral database and hence, it is beyond the operation of the IT Act. But Section 81 of the IT Act has an overriding effect on any law inconsistent, therewith. The appropriate Government should take necessary steps under the IT Act and notify electoral databases as a protected system.

It is recommended that the Electors Registration Rules, 1960 should be amended, taking into account the advancement in technology. Therefore, the Rules should aim at restricting the unfettered electronic access to the electoral database and also introduce purposive limitation on the use of the electoral database. It should also be noted that more adequate and robust data protection and privacy laws should be put in place, which would regulate the collection, use, storage and processing of databases which are critical to national security.

[i] Pratap Vikram Singh, Post-uproar, EC’s Google tie-up plan may go for a toss, Governance Now, January 7, 2014 available at http://www.governancenow.com/news/regular-story/post-uproar-ecs-google-tie-plan-may-go-toss

[ii] Press Note No.ECI/PN/1/2014, Election Commission of India , January 9, 2014 available at http://eci.nic.in/eci_main1/current/PN09012014.pdf

[iii] Section 74, Indian Evidence Act, 1872

[iv] eci.nic.in/eci_main1/the_function.aspx

[v] http://eci.nic.in/eci_main1/Linkto_erollpdf.aspx

[vi] “At present, in most States and UTs the Electoral Database is kept at the district level. In some cases it is kept even with the vendors. In most States/UTs it is maintained in MS Access, while in some cases it is on a primitive technology like FoxPro and in some other cases on advanced RDBMS like Oracle or Sql Server. The database is not kept in bilingual form in some of the States/UTs, despite instructions of the Commission. In most cases Unicode fonts are not used. The database structure not being uniform in the country, makes it almost impossible for the different databases to talk to each other” – Election Commission of India, Revision of Electoral Rolls with reference to 01-01-2010 as the qualifying date – Integration and Standardization of the database- reg., No. 23/2009-ERS, January 6, 2010 available at eci.nic.in/eci_main/eroll&epic/ins06012010.pdf

[vii] http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/01/with-great-computing-power-comes-great-surveillance/282933/

[viii] Section 70, Information Technology Act, 2000

[ix] Computer resource which directly or indirectly affects the facility of Critical Information Infrastructure

[x] Rule 2(1)(i), Information Technology (Reasonable Security Practices and Procedures and Sensitive Personal Data or Information) Rules, 2011

[xi] Press Note No.ECI/PN/1/2014, Election Commission of India , January 9, 2014 available at http://eci.nic.in/eci_main1/current/PN09012014.pdf

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/electoral-databases-2013-privacy-and-security-concerns

Letter requesting public consultation on position of GoI at WGEC

snehashish — 2014-01-08T18:36:09Z

Snehashish Ghosh on behalf of the Centre for Internet and Society sent a letter to the Ministry of Communication and Information Technology, requesting for a public consultation on India's position at the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation (WGEC).

January 3, 2014

Shri Kapil Sibal,
Honourable Minister for Communication and Information Technology
Ministry of Communication and Information Technology,
Government of India

Subject: Public consultation at the domestic level on the position of Government of India at WGEC

Dear Sir,

We at the Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore (“CIS”) commend, Government of India’s participation at the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation (WGEC), working under the aegis of United Nations Commission on Science and Technology and Development (CSTD). The Working Group was set up in pursuance of General Assembly Resolution A/Res/67/195, to identify a shared understanding of enhanced cooperation on public policy issues pertaining to the internet. The WGEC after its first meeting circulated a questionnaire to collect the views and positions of the stakeholders on various aspects of enhanced cooperation. The Government of India responded to the questionnaire and also represented its position at the second meeting of WGEC held in Geneva from November 6-8, 2013. We would like the Government to take cognizance of representations from concerned stakeholders before finalizing its position.

In this regard, we would like to note, Government of India’s commitment towards multi-stakeholder approach in formulation of public policy pertaining to the internet. At the Internet Governance Forum, 2012 held in Baku, the Honourable Minister for Communications and Information Technology noted that the “issues of public policy related to the internet have to be dealt with, by adopting a multi-stakeholder, democratic and transparent approach”. Furthermore, the Government of India’s stand at the World Conference on International Telecommunications, 2012 in Dubai supported and recognized the multi-stakeholder nature of the internet.

However, it seems that the Government has digressed from its previous stand on internet governance whereas it fell short of having a multi-stakeholder public consultation on India’s position on enhanced cooperation at the WGEC. We earnestly urge you to hold domestic public consultation before the next WGEC meeting.

Thank you.
Sincerely,

Snehashish Ghosh,
Policy Associate,
Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore

Copied to: Dr. Ajay Kumar, Joint Secretary, DietY, MOCIT and Shri. J. Satyanarayana, Secretary, DietY, MOCIT

Download a copy of the letter here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/public-consultation-at-domestic-level-on-position-of-goi-at-wgec

The State is Snooping: Can You Escape?

snehashish — 2019-04-29T15:09:18Z

Blanket surveillance of the kind envisaged by India's Centralized Monitoring System achieves little, but blatantly violates the citizen's right to privacy; Snehashish Ghosh explores why it may be dangerous and looks at potential safeguards against such intrusion.

The Snowden Leaks have made it amply clear that the covert surveillance conducted by governments is no longer covert. Information by its very nature is prone to leaks. The discretion lies completely in the hands of the personnel handling your data or information. Whether it is through knowledge obtained by an intelligence analyst about the US Government conducting indiscriminate surveillance, or hackers infiltrating a secure system and leaking personal information, stored information has a tendency to come out in the open sooner or later.

This raises the question whether, with the advancement of technologies, we should trust our personal information and data with computers. Should we have more stringent laws and procedural safeguards to protect our personal information? Of course, the broader question that remains is whether we have a ‘Right to be Forgotten’.

Similar to PRISM in the US, India is also implementing a Centralized Monitoring System (CMS) which would have the capabilities to conduct multiple privacy-intrusive activities, ranging from call data record analysis to location based monitoring. Given the circumstances and the current revelations by a whistleblower in the US, it is more than imperative to take a closer look at the surveillance technologies which are being deployed by India and question what implications it might have in the future.

Technological shift and procedural safeguards
The need for procedural safeguards was brought to light in the Supreme Court case, when news reports surfaced about the tapping of politicians' phones by the CBI. The Court while deciding on the issue of phone tapping in the case of People’s Union of Civil Liberties v. Union of India (1996), observed that the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 is an ancient legislation and does not address the issue of telephone tapping. Thereafter, the court issued guidelines, which were implemented by the Government by amending and inserting Rule 419A of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951. These procedural safeguards ensure that due process will be followed by any law enforcement agency, while conducting surveillance.

Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 grants the power to the Government to conduct surveillance provided that there is an occurrence of any public emergency or public safety. If and only if the conditions of public safety and public emergency are compromised, and if the concerned authority is convinced that it is expedient to issue such an order for interception in the interest of “the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States or public order or for preventing incitement to the commission of an offence” is surveillance legitimized. The same was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in the 1996 judgment on wire tapping.

Now, as the Government of India is planning to launch a new technology, the Centralized Monitoring System (CMS) which would snoop, track and monitor communication data flowing through telecom and data networks, the question arises: can we have procedural safeguards which would protect our right to privacy against technologies such as the CMS?

The key component of a procedural safeguard is human discretion; either a court authorization or an order from a high ranking government official is necessary to conduct targeted surveillance and the reasons for conducting surveillance have to be recorded in writing. This is the procedure which is ordinarily followed by law enforcement agencies before conducting any form of surveillance. However, with the computational turn, governments have resorted to practices which would do away with the human discretion. Dragnet surveillance allows for blanket surveillance. Before getting to the problems in evolving a due process for systems like CMS, it is imperative to examine the capabilities of the system.

Centralized Monitoring System and death of due process
Setting up of a CMS was conceptualized in India after the 2008 Mumbai attacks. It was further consolidated and found a place in the Report of the Telecom Working Group on the Telecom Sector for the Twelfth Five Year Plan (2012-2017). The Report was published in August, 2011 and goes into the details of the CMS.

When machines and robots are deployed to conduct blanket surveillance and impinge on the most fundamental right to life and liberty, and also violate the basic tenets of due process, then much cannot be done by way of procedures. What then do we resort to, is the primary question. Can there be a compromise between the right to privacy and security?

The Report indicates that the technology will cater to “the requirements of security management for law enforcement agencies for interception, monitoring, data analysis/mining, antiâ€socialâ€networking using the country’s telecom infrastructure for unlawful activities.”

The CMS will also be capable of running algorithms for interception of connection oriented networks, algorithms for interception of voice over internet protocol (VoIP), video over IP and GPS based monitoring systems. These algorithms would be able to intercept any communication without any intervention from the telecom or internet service provider. It would also have the capability to intercept and analyze data on any communication network as well as to conduct location based monitoring by tracking GPS locations. Given such capabilities, it is clear that a computer system will be sifting through the internet/communication data and will conduct surveillance as instructed through algorithms. This would include identifying patterns, profiling and also storing data for posterity. Moreover, the CMS will have direct access to the telecommunication infrastructure and would be monitoring all forms of communication.

With the introduction of CMS, state surveillance will shift to blanket surveillance from the current practice of targeted surveillance which can be carried out under specific circumstances that are well defined in the law and in judgments. Moreover, when it comes to current means of surveillance, there are well-defined procedures under the law which have the ability to prevent misuse of the surveillance systems. This is not to say that the current procedural safeguards under the laws are not prone to abuse, but if implemented properly, there is less chance of them being misused. Furthermore, with strong privacy and data protection laws, unlawful and illegal surveillance can be minimized.

In the current legal framework, with respect to surveillance, if CMS is implemented then it will be in violation of the fundamental right to privacy and freedom of speech as guaranteed under our Constitution. It will be also in contravention of the procedural safeguards laid down in the Supreme Court judgement and the Rule 419A of Indian Telegraph Rules, thereof. Strong privacy laws and data protection laws may be put in place, which are completely absent now. But at the end of the day, a machine will be spying on every citizen of India or anyone using any communication services, without any specific targets or suspects.

In the People’s Union of Civil Liberties v. Union of India (1996), the Supreme Court laid down that “the substantive law as laid down in Section 5(2) of the [Indian Telegraph Act, 1885] must have procedural backing so that the exercise of power is fair and reasonable.” But with technologies such as CMS, it will be very difficult to have any form of procedural backing because the system would do away with human discretion which happens to be a key ingredient of any legal procedure.

The argument which can be made in favour of CMS, if any, is that a machine will be going through personal data and it will not be available to any personnel or law enforcement agency without authorization and therefore, it will adhere to the due process. However, such a system will be keeping track of all personal information. Right to privacy is the right to be left alone and any incursion on this fundamental right can only be allowed in special cases, in cases of public emergency or threat of public safety. So, electronic blanket surveillance without human intervention also amounts to violation of the substantive law, which specifically allows surveillance only to be conducted under certain conditions, and not through a system such as CMS that is designed to keep a constant watch on everyone, irrespective of the fact whether there is a need to do so.

Additionally, there exists a strong, pre-established notion that whatever comes out of a computer is bound to be true and authentic and there cannot be any mistakes. We have witnessed this in the past where an IT professional from Bangalore was arrested and detained by the Maharashtra Police for posting derogatory content on Orkut about Shivaji. Later, it was found that the records acquired from the Internet Service Provider were incorrect and the individual had been arrested and detained illegally.

Telephone bills, credit card bills coming out from a computer system are often held to be authentic and error-free. With UID, our identity has been reduced to a number and biometrics stored in a database corresponding to that number. It is this trust in anything which comes out of a computer or a machine that can lead to massive abuse of the system in the absence of any form of checks and balance in place. Artificial things taking control over human lives and our almost unflinching trust in technology will not only cause gross violations of privacy but will also be the death of due process and basic human rights as we know it.

In this regard, due emphasis should be given to the landmark Supreme Court judgment in the case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) which deals with issues related to due process and privacy. It states that "procedure which deals with the modalities of regulating, restricting or even rejecting a fundamental right falling within Article 21 has to be fair, not foolish, carefully designed to effectuate, not to subvert, the substantive right itself. Thus, understood, ‘procedure’ must rule out anything arbitrary, freakish or bizarre. A valuable constitutional right can be canalised only by canalised processes".

When machines and robots are deployed to conduct blanket surveillance and impinge on the most fundamental right to life and liberty and also violate the basic tenets of due process, then much cannot be done by way of procedures. What then do we resort to, is the primary question. Can there be a compromise between the right to privacy and security?

A no-win situation
In reality, dragnet surveillance or blanket surveillance is not very useful for gathering valuable intelligence to prevent instances of threat to national security, public safety and public emergency. For example, if the CMS is used to mine data, analyse content related to anti-social activities and even if the system is 99 per cent accurate, the remaining 1 per cent which is a false positive happens to be a large set. So, 1 out of every 100 individuals identified as an anti-social element by CMS may actually be an innocent citizen. Given the possibility of false positives and which may be more than 1 per cent, the number of innocent citizens caught in the terrorist net would be much higher.

Even though blanket surveillance or dragnet surveillance can keep a tab on everyone, it is nearly impossible for an algorithm to separate the terrorists from the rest. Moreover, the data set collected by the machine is too big for any human analyst, to actually analyze and identify the terrorist in the midst of a deluge of information. Therefore, the argument that a system like CMS will ensure security in lieu of minor intrusions of privacy is a flawed one. Implementation of CMS will not really ensure security but will be a case of blatant violation of individual’s right to privacy anyway.

What is perhaps more shocking is that not only will CMS be futile in preventing security breaches or neutralizing security threats, it will on the contrary expose individual Indian citizens to breach of personal security. If personal data and information are stored for future reference through a centralized mechanism, which is also the case with UID, it will be highly susceptible to attacks and security threats. It will be a Pandora’s Box with a potential to create havoc the moment someone is able to gain access to the information with intention to misuse that. Leaking of personal information and data on a large scale can be detrimental to society and give rise to instances of public emergency.

The ‘Right to be Forgotten’

Currently, the European Union is engulfed in the debate on the “Right to be Forgotten” laws. The Right to be Forgotten finds its origins in the French Law le droit Ã l’oubli or the right of oblivion, where a convict who has served his sentence can object to the publication of facts of his conviction and imprisonment or penalty. This law has a new found meaning in the context of social media and the internet, where we have the right to delete all our personal information permanently. This is an important issue which India should debate and discuss, as we live in an era where privacy comes at a cost.

On the one hand, technology has made it easier to track, trace, monitor and snoop, on the other it has also seen innovation in the field of encryption and anonymity tools. Encryption tools such as Open PGP exist online, which can secure information from third party access. Tor Browser, allows an user to surf the web anonymously. The use of such technologies should be encouraged as there is no law which prohibits their use. If systems are being built to spy on us, it will be better if we use technologies which protect our personal information from such surveillance technologies.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/india-together-june-26-2013-snehashish-ghosh-the-state-is-snooping-can-you-escape

Analyzing the Latest List of Blocked URLs by Department of Telecommunications (IIPM Edition)

snehashish — 2013-02-17T07:35:25Z

The Department of Telecommunications (DoT) in its order dated February 14, 2013 has issued directions to the Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to block seventy eight URLs. The block order has been issued as a result of a court order. Snehashish Ghosh does a preliminary analysis of the list of websites blocked as per the DoT order.

Medianama has published the DoT order, dated February 14, 2013, on its website.

What has been blocked?

The block order contains seventy eight URLs. Seventy three URLs are related to the Indian Institute of Planning and Management (IIPM). The other five URLs contain the term “highcourt”. The order also contains links from reputed news websites and news blogs including The Indian Express, Firstpost, Outlook, Times of India, Economic Times, Kafila and Caravan Magazine, and satire news websites Faking News and Unreal Times. The order also directs blocking of a public notice issued by the University Grants Commission (UGC).

The block order does not contain links to any social media website. However, some content related to IIPM has been removed but it finds no mention in the block order. Pursuant to which order or direction such content has been removed remains unclear. For example, Google has removed search results for the terms <Fake IIPM> pursuant to Court orders and it carries the following notice:

"In response to a legal request submitted to Google, we have removed 1 result(s) from this page. If you wish, you may read more about the request at ChillingEffects.org."

Are there any mistakes in the order?

The direction issued by the DoT is once again inaccurate and mired with errors. In effect, the DoT has blocked sixty one unique URLs and the block order contains numerous repetitions. By its order the DoT has directed the ISPs to block an entire blog [http://iipmexposed.blogspot.in] along with URLs to various posts in the same blog.

Reasons for Blocking Websites

According to news reports, the main reason for blocking of websites by the DoT is a Court order issued by a Court in Gwalior. The reason for issuing such a block order might have been a court proceeding with respect to defamation and removal of defamatory content thereof. However, the reasons for blocking of domain names containing the term ‘high court’, which is not at all related to the IIPM Court case is unclear. The DoT by its order has also blocked a link in the website of a internet domain registrar which carried advertisement for the domain name [www.highcourt.com].

Are the blocks legitimate?

The block order may have been issued by the DoT under Rule 10 of the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009.

The Court order seems to be an interim injunction in a defamation suit. Generally, Courts exercise utmost caution while granting interim injunction in defamation cases. According to the Bonnard Rule (Bonnard v. Perryman, [1891] 2 Ch 269) in a defamation case, “interim injunction should not be awarded unless a defence of justification by the defendant was certain to fail at trial level.” Moreover, in the case of Woodward and Frasier, Lord Denning noted “that it would be unjust to fetter the freedom of expression, when actually a full trial had not taken place, and that if during trial it is proved that the defendant had defamed the plaintiff, then should they be liable to pay the damages.” The Delhi High Court in Tata Sons Ltd. v. Green Peace International followed the Bonnard Rule and the Lord Denning’s judgements and ruled against the award of interim injunction for removal of defamatory content and stated:

“The Court notes that the rule in Bonnard is as applicable in regulating grant of injunctions in claims against defamation, as it was when the judgment was rendered more than a century ago. This is because the Courts, the world over, have set a great value to free speech and its salutary catalyzing effect on public debate and discussion on issues that concern people at large. The issue, which the defendant’s game seeks to address, is also one of public concern. The Court cannot also sit in value judgment over the medium (of expression) chosen by the defendant since in a democracy, speech can include forms such as caricature, lampoon, mime parody and other manifestations of wit.”

Therefore, it appears that the Court order has moved away from the settled principles of law while awarding an interim injunction for blocking of content related to IIPM. It is also interesting to note that in Green Peace International, the Court also answered the question as to whether there should be different standard for posting or publication of defamatory content on the internet. It was observed by the Court that publication is a comprehensive term, ‘embracing all forms and medium – including the Internet’.

Blocking a Public Notice issued by a Statutory Body of Government of India

The block order mentions a URL which contains a public notice issued by University Grants Commission (UGC) related to the derecognition of IIPM as a University. The blocking of a public notice issued by the statutory body of the Government of India is unprecedented. A public notice issued by a statutory body is a function of the State. It can only be blocked or removed by a writ order issued by the High Court or the Supreme Court and only if it offends the Constitution. However, so far, ISPs such as BSNL have not enforced the blocking of this URL.

Implementation of the order by the ISPs

As pointed out in my previous blog post on blocking of websites, the ISPs have again failed to notify their consumers the reasons for the blocking of the URLs. This lack of transparency in the implementation of the block order has a chilling effect on freedom of speech.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/analyzing-latest-list-of-blocked-urls-by-dot

Market Structure in the Telecom Industry

snehashish — 2013-03-15T07:17:12Z

In this unit Snehashish examines the market structure of telecom industry — which include the teledensity, wireless, wireline, and internet services.

Teledensity

Teledensity means number of telephones per hundred people. The current teledensity in India is 78.10. However, there is a large disparity between urban teledensity and rural teledensity. The urban teledensity stands at 169.37 whereas rural teledensity is 38.53 only. The reason for the slow growth in teledensity in the rural areas is that it is less attractive for the telecom service providers to invest. Furthermore, providing service in the remote and rural areas also requires massive investment.


Teledensity in India (Rural, Urban and Cumulative) 2007 – December, 2011
Source: Department of Telecommunication, Annual Report 2011-2012

Public and Private Share in the Market

Annual Growth Rate in the Telecom Industry (1981 to December, 2011)


CAGR: Compounded Annual Growth Rate Source: TRAI, Telecom Sector in India: A Decadal Profile

After the Government of India gave up its monopoly in the telecom sector in 1992 the growth of the telecom industry was slow due to lack of roust policy. However, with the change in the policy and licensing regime in the 1999, it is evident from the above graph that the telecom industry recorded a phenomenal growth. There was 35 per cent growth in the compounded annual growth rate.

Wireless

Market share in the wireless subscription as on February, 2012

	The pie chart clearly shows that currently the private sector dominates the cellular market. However, this was not the case in the beginning. The changes in the market structure were due to the changes in telecom policy in 1999. The growth rate of number of wireless subscribers from 1996-2011 in the graph below, clearly depicts the growth in wireless subscribers after the change in policy in 1999. Currently, the three main players in the mobile services sector are Vodafone, Reliance and Bharti.

Wireline

Market share in the wireline subscription as on December, 2011

In the basic telecom services or wireline services the incumbent — Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) has the majority share in the market. This is due to the expanse of the infrastructure available to the incumbent, and its ability to provide basic telecom services in the rural and remote areas. The private wireline service providers do not have the capital to invest in building such infrastructure and there is no profit in such capital investment as well. Therefore, the private players mainly concentrate in urban areas where they can earn more revenue.

Internet Services

Market share of ISPs as on December, 2011


Source: TRAI, Telecom Sector in India: A Decadal Profile

The broadband services came into forefront after the implementation of the Broadband Policy, 2004. It laid down that the minimum speed for a broadband connection has to be 256 kilo bits per second. This has been revised to 512 kilo bits per second under the National Telecom Policy, 2012. In India, 59.6 per cent internet subscription is broadband subscription.

Currently, the main technology used for broadband access is digital subscriber line (DSL). About 85.1 per cent of the broadband subscriptions are via DSL technology. While the other technologies such as fibre, leased line, wireless, ethernet, cable modem covers only 14.9 per cent of the market. The main internet service provider (ISP) in the market is BSNL which has a share of 54.97 per cent.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/telecom/resources/market-structure-in-telecom-industry

Licensing Framework for Telecom: A Historical Overview

snehashish — 2013-03-15T07:13:56Z

In this unit, Snehashish Ghosh tells us about licence, and lists out the major changes in the telecom licensing schemes since 1991.

Before analyzing the telecom licensing framework in India, it is imperative that one must examine what is a liceince. Licence issued by the government is an authority, given to a person upon certain conditions to do something which would have been illegal or wrongful otherwise. For example, a driver’s licence issued by the government, gives the authority to a person to drive a motor vehicle. There are three main types of licence fee which the government charges: (i) initial licence fee, which generally is non-refundable, (ii) annual licence fee, and (iii) additional fee for allocation of spectrum.

Licensing framework has been an integral part of India’s telecommunication law. Under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, section 4 gives power to the government to grant licence to any person to establish, maintain or use a telegraph. However, in the telecom sector, the government had complete monopoly until the early 1990s. Since 1992, the government has allowed licensing in the telecom sector. The major changes in the telecom licensing schemes are listed below:

1991: The government allowed private telecom companies to manufacture telecom switches for telephone exchange.

1992: The Department of Telecommunication (DoT) invited bids for licences for cellular service across the four metros. The DoT offered two licences per metro city. The process involved two stages. First stage, technical evaluation of the bidder and the second stage involved financial evaluation of the bidder.

The rejected bidders challenged the selection process on the grounds that it was unclear and arbitrary.[1]The Supreme Court decided that it would not interfere into the government decision making function until and unless they are patently arbitrary and unfair.

The litigation delayed the launch of the cellular mobile services by three years. Finally the first mobile services were launched in Calcutta in the year 1995. It also brought to the fore-front the lack of policy with respect to licensing and regulatory framework for telecommunication.

Licence Fee and Tariff: A minimum licence fee was specified for each metro. The annual licence fee was highest in Bombay. It was set at Rs. 30 million, which was increased to Rs. 240 million by the seventh year, similarly licence fee for Delhi, Calcutta and Madras were set at Rs. 20 million, Rs. 15 million and Rs. 10 million, respectively. However, by the seventh year the licence fee for the three metros were 160 million, 120 million and 80 million, respectively.

The licence fee was revised and the DoT asked the operators to pay Rs. 5000 per subscriber as annual licence. The licence fee was again revised and service operators had to pay Rs. 6,023 per subscriber.

The DoT also placed caps on the rental and tariffs. The service providers could charge a maximum Rs. 156 only as rental. The call tariff was set at a standard rate of Rs. 8.40; off peak was set at half the standard rate and peak rate was double the standard rate. DoT placed a cap on security deposit which had to be paid by the subscriber; it was restricted to Rs. 3000.

The change in the annual licence fee in the four metro cities is illustrated in the table below:

Metros	Bombay	Delhi	Calcutta	Madras
Licensees	BPL Telecom Maxtouch	Bharti Cellular Sterling	Usha Martin Modi Telstra	Skycell RPG Cellular
Annual Licence Fee (Rs million)
Year 1	30	20	15	10
Year 2	60	30	30	20
Year 3	120	80	60	40
Year 4-6*	180	120	90	60
Year 7*	240	160	120	80

*The service operator has to pay either the annual licence fee or Rs. 5000 per subscriber, whichever was higher.

[Source: TRAI, (1999c: 24-25) as cited in Ashok V. Desai, Indian Telecommunication Industry: History, Analysis and Diagnosis, Sage Publication 2006, pp. 77].

May, 1993: The DoT commissioned ICICI to study and prepare a report on the possibility of private participation in the telecommunication sector.

1994: The DoT took a step back, after falling into controversy, in its previous attempt to allow licensing in the telecom sector. However, the Finance Ministry was in the favour of private participation in the telecom sector and it argued that the incumbents need assistance from the private telecom service providers for increasing the tele-density in the country. In order to study the issue, a committee was set up under ICICI. The report finally culminated into the National Telecom Policy, 1994.

The National Telecom Policy, 1994 laid down the following criteria for the entry of private operators:

Track record of the company
Compatibility of the technology
Usefulness of technology being offered for future development
Protection of national security interests
Ability to give best service to the customer at the most competitive cost
Attractiveness of the commercial terms to the Department of Telecommunication[2]

1995: DoT allowed bidding for cellular licences and wireline licences. Spectrum was bundled with the telecom service provider licence. For the implementation of the licensing scheme, the country was divided into 21 circles (excluding four metros) and it was categorized in to circles namely A, B and C on the basis of the potential of the circle to generate revenue. DoT awarded two licences in each circle; one to the state operator and the other to the private operator. The potential service providers in order to be eligible for bidding for licences had to partner up with a foreign company. The foreign shareholder was allowed to hold equity share

Metros: Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkata, Chennai

Cirlce A: Gujarat, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra

Circle B: Haryana, Punjab, Kerala, Rajasthan, West Bengal, Uttar Pradesh (West), Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh (East)

Circle C: Bihar, Northeast, Assam, Orissa, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu & Kashmir

Eligibility for the private companies to bid for the licence: (i) financial net worth of the company making the bid and (ii) experience of the company in providing telecom services. The minimum net worth to qualify for bidding was set by DoT. A service provider in order to be eligible for bidding should have a minimum paid up capital of Rs. 1 billion and net worth of Rs. 10 billion. The auction of the licences was carried out through a first price sealed bid auction.[3] Two licences were awarded in each circle in order to avoid monopoly of service provider in a circle.

Licence fee and Tariff: A total of 34 licences were issued. The term of the licence was fixed at ten years which was revised to 15 years. The service providers had to pay an annual licence fee which was agreed upon during the auction of the licence. The annual licence fee was based on the projection of revenue generation. There was no allocation spectrum but the government levied charges for spectrum usage as well. The tariffs were same as for the metro licences.

Wire line Licences: DoT also issued six licences for basic telephone services.

Financial Breakdown: After the issue of cellular licences in 1995, six of the service providers were in default due to non-payment of licence fee by the early 1997. By the year 1998 the number of defaulters increased to eight.

The Bureau of Industry Cost and Prices (BICP) was requested to look into the matter. The BICP after investigation reported that 13 operators were running in loss. According to the BICP report, the telecom service providers were running in loss because of the high licence fee, interconnection charges and spectrum usage charges imposed by the DoT. One of the recommendations of the BICP was that the rental should be increased from Rs. 156 to Rs. 600. This would decrease the demand for mobile phones but allow service providers to sustain their business.

ICICI conducted a study, as well. The study revealed that 17 per cent of the consumers had not used their cell phone at all and 37 per cent of the subscriber had bills below Rs. 500 a month. This clearly showed that projection of revenue by the DoT was faulty.

Reasons for the Financial Breakdown (TRAI Report, 1999)

Later, in 1999 the TRAI studied the cellular operators. The study showed that main reasons for the financial failure of the telecom service provider were:

Heavy capital investment for setting up infrastructure, which was underutilized
Number of subscriber lower than projected
The average revenue per user (ARPU) was lower than the costs incurred by the service provider. The ARPU in circles A, B and C were Rs. 1100, Rs. 800 and Rs. 600 respectively.
Significant amount of the finances of the service provider were used to pay licence fees.
Operational charges also took a toll on the service providers.

None of the studies took into consideration that the industry was oligopolistic in nature and the incumbents flooded the market with basic telephone connections.[4] The obvious conclusion was that the revenue generated by the cellular operators was not able to cover their costs.

The financial failure of the telecom operator under the 1994 policy led to the implementation of New Telecom Policy, 1999.

1998: Internet services were rolled out in 1995 by Videsh Sanchar Nigam Limited (VSNL). In November, 1998, the government opened it up to the private sectors.

1999: The New Telecom Policy, 1999 allowed the migration of the licensees from a Fixed Licence Fee Regime to a Revenue Arrangement Scheme (w.e.f. 1/08/1999). Under the new scheme a licence fees was collected as proportional tax on the service provider’s revenue. Previously, there were two operators in each circle and the 1999 Policy allowed the government as the third operator in the circle.

The 1999 Policy issued licences for the following services:

Cellular Mobile Service Providers (CMSPs);
Fixed Service Providers (FSPs) and Cable Service Providers, collectively referred as ‘Access Providers’;
Radio Paging Service Providers;
Public Mobile Radio Trunking Service Providers;
National Long Distance Operators;
International Long Distance Operators;
Global Mobile Personal Communication by Satellite (GMPCS) Service Providers;
V-SAT based Service Providers

Licence and Tariff: Licence holders under the 1994 policy migrated to the new licensing regime, under the New Telecom Policy, 1999. In order to shift from the fixed licence fee regime to revenue arrangement scheme the service providers had to pay previous arrears in licence fee on a pro-rata basis till July 31, 1999. Under the new adjusted gross revenue, the service providers had to pay 15 per cent of their adjusted gross revenue.[5] The circle operators also had to pay spectrum usage charge.

TRAI regulated the tariff under the New Telecom Policy, 1999. It brought down the call tariff from the peak rate of 16.80 to Rs. 6 per minute with a pulse of 20 seconds. This allowed the consumers to make calls for a minimum of Rs. 2.00. TRAI also put a cap of Rs. 600 on the rental charges. After notification of tariffs in the year 1999, TRAI examined the accounts of the service providers and found out that under the 1999 licensing regime there was healthy competition and the service providers were providing mobiles services at price, below the TRAI ceilings.

Tariffs	DoT ceiling on tariffs under National Telecom Policy, 1994 (in rupees)	TRAI ceilings on tariffs under the New Telecom Policy, 1999 (in rupees)	Industry rates under the New Telecom Policy (in rupees) – average rates
Call Rates (peak-time)	16.80 per minute	6.00 per minute	2.03 per minutes
Rental	156	600	195
Security	3000	-NA-	-NA-

2000: The government issued licence for national long distance telephony (NLDO). There was no restriction on the number of operators to whom the licence was granted. The licence was issued for a period of 20 years on a non-exclusive basis and could be extended upto a period of 10 years once. The entry fee for NLDO licence is Rs. 2.5 crore.[6] There are 32 companies other than BSNL, the incumbent, which have been granted licence for national long distance services. This has facilitated healthy competition in the market.

2001: Licence for basic telephone services using wireless in local loop (WLL). This was the first time that the first-come-first-serve scheme was implemented for issuing licences.

2001: A bid for cellular licence for a fourth operator was introduced in January 2001. The auction was carried out in three stages. The fourth licensee had to pay a sum of 17 per cent of the revenue in addition to the entry fees.

2002: DoT issued licence to private operators for International Long Distance Telephony (ILD) services. The entry fee for ILD licence is 2.5 crores.[7] The licence was valid for a term of 30 years. Currently the annual licence fee on ILD service is 7 per cent on the adjusted gross revenue. However, DoT has revised it to a uniform rate of 8 per cent on the adjusted gross revenue from the year 2013-2014.[8]

2003: Introduction of calling party pays (CPP). Under CPP, no charges can be levied on receiving a call in the home circle.

2003: Unified Access Service Licensing (UASL) regime was introduced by DoT on the recommendation of the TRAI. The UASL “permitted an access service provider to offer both fixed and/or mobile services under the same licence, using any technology.”[9]

The country was divided into 23 service areas, 19 telecom circles and 4 metro circles for the purpose of implementing unified access services (UAS).

TRAI announced the guidelines for migration to the UASL regime on November 11, 2003.[10] An operator under the UASL was allowed to provide for free within its own area of operation, service which cover collection, carriage, transmission and delivery of voice and/or non-voice messages over licensee’s network by deploying circuit and/or packet switched equipment.

Licence Fees: The licence fee for the service operator was two-fold. Fee was charged for migration from Cellular Mobile Telephone Service (CMTS) licence to UASL. This fee was equal to the amount paid by the fourth licensee introduced in the market in the year 2001. Apart from the migration fee, an annual licence fee is also levied according to the circle in which the service provider is operating. The annual licence fee is 10 per cent, 8 per cent and 6 per cent on the adjusted gross revenue in the circles A, B and C respectively.

2007: DoT allowed issuing of licences for operating on dual technologies that is CDMA and GSM. DoT also allowed single licence to Internet Service Providers (ISP) but restriction was put in VoIP.

2011: The government introduced mobile number portability (MNP) which injected further competition in the telecom market. Under the MNP, a cellular subscriber can avail services of another service provider while keeping the same mobile number. Previously, change of mobile number used to be the biggest deterrent to change service provider, this was done away with the MNP scheme.

2012: National Telecom Policy, 2012 introduced Unified Licensing Regime. Under the regime, service operators can provide converged services. The spectrum has been delinked from the licence.

[1]. Tata Cellular v. Union of India, 1994 SCC (6) 651.
[2]. Para 9, National Telecom Policy, 1994 available at http://bit.ly/N4dlEk
[3]. In first price sealed bid auction, the bids are kept secret; the bids are then compared and the highest bidder wins and pays a sum equal to the bid amount.
[4]. Ashok V. Desai, India’s Telecommunication Industry: History, Analysis, Diagnosis, Sage Publication, 2006, pp. 83-84.
[5]. A licensee's adjusted gross revenue usually refers to the total amount of its gross revenue (including all charges, sees, sale proceeds, and miscellaneous revenue) minus interconnection and roaming charges paid to other licensees and service taxes paid to rhe government. See Model Cellular License, Schedule-II, at paragraph 20.1.
[6]. Department of Telecommunication, Annual Report 2011-12 pp. 18
[7]. Id. At pp. 19.
[8]. Notification no. 10-54/2010-CS-11 dated 28^th June, 2012 available at http://bit.ly/Q5nI5O
[9]. Recommendations on Spectrum Management and Licensing Frampework, TRAI, 11th May, 2010.
[10].Unified Access Services available at http://bit.ly/lOQZW7

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/telecom/resources/licensing-framework-for-telecom

DoT — Its Powers and Responsibilities

snehashish — 2013-03-15T06:24:19Z

The Department of Telecommunication (DoT) works under the aegis of the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology. DoT is headed a secretary, who is a senior member of the Indian Administrative Services. The secretary of the DoT reports to the Union Minister for Communications and Information Technology.

DoT used to provide basic telecommunication services. This function was shifted to BSNL after its formation in October, 2000. Presently, the main powers and responsibilities of the DoT as laid down in the Government of India (Allocation of Business) Rules, 1961 are:

Formulation of policy, allocation of licence and co-ordination with matters relating to telegraphs, telephones, wireless, data, facsimile and telematic services and other like forms of communications.
Co-operation with international bodies on matters related to telecommunication
Promotion of standardization and research and development in the telecom sector.
Promotion of private investment in telecommunication industry
Allocation of spectrum mobile and radio communications.
Administration of laws with respect to any of the matters specified in this list, namely: The Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (13 of 1885); The Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1933 (17 of 1933); and The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 (24 of 1997).
Supervision over the functioning of the following organizations: Telecom Commission, Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, Telecom Disputes Settlement Appellate Tribunal, Centre for Development of Telematics, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited, ITI Limited, Telecommunication Consultants (India) Limited and Administrative office of the Universal Service Obligation Fund.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/telecom/resources/dot-its-powers-and-responsibilities

Transcript of the Plenary 1, WCIT-12

snehashish — 2012-12-03T13:58:08Z

Rough live-transcript of the first plenary session of the World Conference on International Telecommunications, 2012 (WCIT-12) held on December 3, 2012.

Raw transcript

World Conference on International Telecommunications
Dubai, United Arab Emirates
03 December 2012
14:30
Plenary 1

Services provided by:
Caption First, Inc.
P.O. Box 3066
Monument, CO 80132
1-877-825-5234
+001-719-481-9835
Www.captionfirst.com

********
This text is being provided in a rough draft format. Communication Access Realtime Translation (CART) is provided in order to facilitate communication accessibility and may not be a totally verbatim record of the proceedings.
********

RCC 14 A 1 roiing. roiing. roiing

(Please stand by. The meeting will begin momentarily)
And X irt. irts. Tell phony. ICT. Mobile telephony. Multi-stakeholder shareholder. Multi-shareholder. WCIT-12 WCIT. World Conference on International Telecommunications capita. Axis.

Raw transcript

World Conference on International Telecommunications
Dubai, United Arab Emirates
03 December 2012
14:30
Plenary 1

Services provided by:
Caption First, Inc.
P.O. Box 3066
Monument, CO 80132
1-877-825-5234
+001-719-481-9835
Www.captionfirst.com

********
This text is being provided in a rough draft format. Communication Access Realtime Translation (CART) is provided in order to facilitate communication accessibility and may not be a totally verbatim record of the proceedings.
********

(Please stand by. The meeting will begin momentarily)
.
>> He can Len sees. Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats. The first plenary will begin in a few minutes. Thank you.

(Please stand by. The meeting will begin momentarily)

.
>> Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen.
I'm very happy to begin with you this first plenary session of the WCIT.
Ladies and gentlemen, in arc cord dance with the regular rules of procedure for conferences, meetings, and Committees of the union and rule 51, the United Arab Emirates have nominated Mr. Tarek Alawadi to open the first session. He comes from the am telecommunications regulatory agency and it is he who will be proceededing over the first heart of this meeting. Could I ask you to come up and join us on the Ross strum, please, and may I ask you to welcome him. Thank you.
(Applause)
*

>> TAREK AL-AWADI: In the name of God, the merciful, may the peace and blessings of a God be upon our prophet and his companions.
Dr. Hamadoun I. Toure', Secretary-General of the International telecommunications union, your Excellency, ladies and gent, guests, may I convai my greetings to you on behalf of the United Arab Emirates and welcome you here. We are now beginning our work at this first plenary session of the WCIT. I should like to wish you a very pleasant stay here in the United Arab Emirates and particularly in this wonderful City of Dubai.
We have in front of us document ADM/5. That is containing the agenda of the first plenary meeting of WCIT.
Do you all have a copy of the document? Are there any observations to be made on the agenda?
Document ADM/5.

Iran, please.
>> IRAN: I thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, congratulations to the United Arab Emirates for its 41st anniversary of establishment of the UAE and congratulations to you Chairman and to your self.
Chairman, we have some point to make with respect to document addendum -- sorry, ADM/5. Item 15.
D C4, examination and discussion of proposals from Member States.
We understand that according to the -- to today's morning session, this is a document allocated to the plenary. Before adopting the agenda, we would wish to request, if possible, German, some clarification with respect to the origin of this document and the rationale and argument by which this element would put -- have been put together to come to the plenary.
Mr. Chairman, we fully agree that on some principal issues it would be appropriate that plenary decide on that, and possibly come to some sort of consensus, and that would reduce the over load of the Committees and sub Working Groups. We fully agree with that. However apart from the logic and rational base which this document has been assembled, we would like also to know the working arrangements that should this or similar type of dock ument principal issue be discussed at the plenary and if we could not reach a consensus, what would be the subsequent action. Would it be given to a Committee? Would it be given to an ad hoc group of plenary or would it be given to different entities?
Having said that, because of the nature of this document, which is principles, once we agree on the content, any mechanism by which the subsequent discussion would be carried out needs to be totally transparent and open to all Member States.
As I have mentioned, ad hoc group of plenary one one solution. Another solution et would be assigned to other entities. But from the outset discussing this principle issue in some consultation which may not be open to all Member States may not be appropriate.
So before approving the agenda, we seek some clarification on the matter as I have suggested and I thank you very much, Chairman.

>> CHAIR: Thank you, Iran.
Mr. Secretary-General, you want to say some?
>> Secretary-General: Frankly, this is not the type of start I wouldn't for this conference. So discussing whether this issue is on the table, you took five minutes and the whole world is listening to us.
And I beg you, please, this document is about whether you like this point 5 on the agenda or not. Then when we come to discussing the agenda item, you raise your points.
That's what this is about here. So I urge you, all delegates, let's try to be kind to one another and not waste the conference time in explanation, long explanations on these issues.
The point of the agenda here is whether point 15 should be on the agenda item. Then the DT 4 will be discussed and the sub stajs of it will be discussed then. That's how we present these documents. Therefore I don't want to go over explanations that I will go over in going over DT 4. So I'm sorry.

>> CHAIR: Thank you, Secretary-General. I may switch to English right now just to say that before going for approval of the agenda, I just want to have a request to all of you, we are in the afternoon starting the first day here. Just a request from my side to all of you, so please if you can bear with me, I want all of you to be smiling. Real smiling.
You are here in the beautiful City of Dubai and I want all of you to be really happy. We would like to start the conference together, smoothly, and the issues have been raised and the principles so this one can be discussed during the conference. And there we can come with a solution for each one of them.
Algeria asked for the floor. Can you press...
>> ALGERIA: Thank you, sir.
Sir, the fact that we're not smiling doesn't mean that we don't want to smile, it means that many of us are tired. We have had long trips in order to come here. We haven't slept very much. Our planes were late, and that may explain why we haven't got a big smile on our faces. However, we are still very happy to be here in Dubai. It is, indeed, a city which is known for its hospitality, which is very faithful to its traditions and faithful to the Arab tradition of hospitality. I would therefore, sir, like to support what Mr. Aresti said and convey to you Algeria's best wishes on the 41st anniversary of the founding of the United Arab Emirates.
Having made those points, sir, we cannot at this stage I think preJudge what a general da item 15 will -- agenda item 15 will involve. I don't think we can ask you to put it within brackets as of now. We do, however, think that 15 will include documents from Member States. And I see that agenda item 10 also deals with documents, including documents submitted by Member States.
It's entitled allocation of documents to Committees, so I think we can assume that it will also cover agenda item 15. Therefore, as far as I can see it, agenda item 10 is sufficient of itself at this stage in our conference. And here I agree with the Secretary-General, I do not think we should waste our time singling out one document over any other documents.
We are going to consider agenda item 10, which as I say is the allocation of documents to Committee, and in my opinion that will also cover agenda item 15.
Thank you.
>> CHAIR: I thank the representative of Algeria. Thank you for your proposal.
I would like to ask the Secretariat to be kind enough to provide us additional information on DT 4 then we will take the appropriate zition.
>> Secretariat: DT 1 contains all of the proposals that have been made to this conference. As the Distinguished Delegate from Algeria mentioned, DT 3 is the allocation of documents, and we will of course come to that in the course of this first plenary meeting.
DT 4 was prepared on the basis of DT 3. But of course DT 3 needs to be approved first. And what DT 4 is, is it's an extract of the proposals that are contained in DT 1 that are allocated into this plenary.
So I hope that that clarifies. But as the delegate from Algeria mentioned, we do have to first agree on the respective allocation of proposals.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

>> CHAIR: Thank you very much. If I understand this document DT 4 is an information document, showing how the proposals are allocated or distributed.
We will first of all discuss agenda item 10, allocation of documents to Committees, and I think that will be sufficient to deal with the issue.
Once again, could I urge all of us to approve the agenda as it currently stands in ADM/5 draft agenda of the first plenary meeting? Do I have your approval?
Any comment?

In that case, the agenda is adopted. Thank you.

The agenda of the first plenary meeting of the World Conference on International Telecommunications is there by adopted.
I would like to move on to agenda item number 3. Election of the Chairman of the conference. I would like to ask the Secretary-General, doctor Hamadoun I. Toure', to be kind enough to make the nomination. Thank you.
>> HAMADOUN TOURE': Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The heads of delegations meeting met this morning, and we propose the nomination of Mr. Mohamed Nasser Al-Ghanim, Director General of the ITU United Arab Emirates to be elected Chairman of the conference.
I would like to submit it for your approval.
(Applause)

>> CHAIR: In the name of God the merciful. Secretary-General, Dr. Hamadoun I. Toure', Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, peace be upon you and God's mercies and blessings.
I would should like to extend my thanks to the entire ITU and the Secretary-General and representatives of the Member States on the precious trust you have shown me to head the World Conference on International Telecommunications 2012.
Ladies and gentlemen, WCIT occupies a special place in the telecommunications industry, and information technology, because of developments and changes witnessed by the industry during the past two decades.
That has not been matched by modifications of the International telecommunication regulations governing the industry at the levels since it was since in 1988 at the conference in Melbourne, Australia. We have moved from voice communications to video and data communications, from fixed to mobile communications. And greater reliance on infrastructure and applications that run according to Internet Protocols is being seen.
This has necessary stated the need to modern size and develop these regulations to reflect this evolution.
The regulations will be the general principles of International communication operation and interconnection and interoperability globally. And they will be pillars of balanced development and operation of the technical facilities that everyone needs.
This is important for the development of societies on many levels, particularly in terms of economic, cognitive, cultural, social and other types of development.
Ladies and gentlemen, the topics to be discussed at this conference are particularly important. There are sensitive issues here which require us to cooperate fully to find a compromise. We need compromises, I repeat. A consensus in the interests of all the countries of the world. So I'd like to call upon you to cooperate with me through your experience and skills in the domains with which we're dealing.
I will need advice as well from you. We should all cooperate to achieve our common goals, namely to make this conference a success. Through the efforts which have been made since the first agreement was signed in 1988.
Colleagues, this conference will discuss important topics in a very limited timeframe and so we need to strive to adopt the following principles, if you agree with this, to achieve the desired goals in time.
First of all, optimal use of time. Secondly, we need to work in order to reach consensual decisions that will satisfy all parties. I repeat conceptual decisions that will satisfy all parties.
Thirdly, we need to make sincere efforts to overcome the outstanding issues. And we need of course to demonstrate flexibility and hear others' opinions.
I myself will be present with you to determine and follow the course of the discussions. I wish you a full measure of success and stand convinced that close cooperation will lead us to appropriate solutions for all.
Thank you very much.
(Applause)

>> CHAIR: Thank you. And now we will go to the election of the Vice Chairman of the conference. And I give the floor to the Secretary-General of the ITU, to Hamadoun I. Toure'.
>> HAMADOUN TOURE': Thank you, Mr. Chairman. From meeting of the heads of delegations meeting today, the vice Chairs for the conference are as following.
Mr. Edgardo Cabarios, Phil peens. Ambassador, his excellence Nikolai Nikiforov, Russian. Mr. Gift, and Dr. From Egypt. Prove I give you this list for approval and for approval of the conference.

>> CHAIR: Thank you, Mr. Secretary-General vrnl the names and proposals for the Vice Chairmans of the conference is put forward for you for approval.
(Applause)
*
And now we move to item number 6 of the agenda of the first plenary, the address by the Secretary-General. Mr. Toure', you have the floor.

>> HAMADOUN TOURE': Thank you. Good afternoon again. Excellencies. Ministers, Mr. Chairman, distinguished delegates, ladies and gentlemen and friends.
I would like to thank you for this opportunity to speak in some detail about the work we are engaged in here in Dubai over the next two weeks.
Firstly, however, I would like to take a moment to honor the achievements of the original ITRs which came out of the Melbourne conference in 1988. The 1988 ITRs were negotiated by publicly minded civil servants and telecom engineers who were in those days one and the same.
They acknowledged the tremendous public benefit inherent in communications networks and services. As a result, the original ITRs paved the way for the phenomenal growth we have witnessed across the information and communication technology sector. The original ITRs established milestone principles of public service. Acknowledged the right of users to communicate by accessing networks. Recognized the right to operate free from the harm to technical facilities, and enabled the transition from the traditional settlement system to the new bilateral commercial agreements that have served us well for the past two decades, and which set the stage for the stellar growth in the exchange of International telecoms traffic, encompassing both voice and data. The original ITRs paved the way for the liberalization of the ICT sector, for which we should all be grateful. They paved the way for the explosive growth we have seen over the past two decades. In 1988, there were just 4.3 million mobile cellular subscriptions worldwide. Today there are over 6 billion, representing growth of over one thousand fold.
In 1988, hardly anybody was online. Today we are approaching 2.5 billion users of the Internet.
In proposing for this conference, we have seen and heard many comments about ITU or the United Nations trying to take over the Internet. Let me be very clear one more time: WCIT is not about taking over the Internet. And WCIT is not about Internet governance. WCIT is about making sure that we connect the billion people without access to mobile telephony, and that we connect the 4.5 billion people who are still off line.
The 1988 ITRs were instrumental in enabling rapid growth in the ICT sector. They also made possible the global deployment of the Internet and many other ITU activities continue to be essential components of Internet growth.
I can congratulate our friends from Canada at this point. I remember much respected Secretary-General of the time, the much missed Dick butler, who passed away at the end of last year.
At the time, we knew that the same tensions which we see today were a source of of tension at that time as well. But at the time we were undergthe Cold War and I'm surprised there are those who wish to bring that Cold War back here today.
I'd like here today to mention some of the aspects of the ITU, the standards of the ITU, which are used every day on the Internet and which didn't involve control.
Standards for end-user access equipment, such as modems, including XDLS and cable modems.
Compression standards. Security standards, including standards to combat spam. Standards for backbone networks, including fibre optics. And of course the radio frequencies used to implement WiFi, which you are no doubt using here in this room today.
None of this meant that the ITU was controlling anything or contributing to such control. In this second decade of the 21st Century, ICTs play an increasingly central role in our lives not just as a means of communication, but also as a source of news and, entertainment, information, and education.
For an increasing percentage of the global population, ICTs are also a vital source of income, saving, and employment opportunities.
Demand for ICTs continues to grow everywhere in the world. And deshould congratulate ourselves for successfully serving humanity so well. We managed to survive two world wars and a Cold War and a series of economic depressions and recessions.
This is not a fluke or a coincidence, it is a credit to the hard work each and every one of your Administrations has put in.
The practicing made in ICT growth over the past 25 years is the most extraordinary achievement and it has happened thanks at least in part to the principles and ground rules enshrined in the ITRs.
The Internet is no longer an innovation whose scope and benefits are limited to the developed world. It is a global phenomenon. I think we can all agree that the Internet is a valuable global public resource which every citizen in the world should be able to benefit from.
I hope we will reiterate that here.
I hope that in the 2012 version of the ITRs, we will manage to achieve certain goals.
As Ban-Ki moon the Secretary-General of the United Nations said this morning, the digital diindividual has no place in the knowledge economy of the 21st Century.
Distinguished Delegates, ladies and gentlemen.
I think we can also agree that continued progress in bringing the world online can only be assured by continuing to practice a multi-stakeholder approach. Here at WCIT-12, you can see an excellent demonstration of ITU as the original multi-stakeholder organisation. This is achieved here in Dubai by the composition of civil society, Government, as well as technical and legal experts gathered here today to work toward the common good.
ITU hation made every effort in the run up to this conference to ensure that everyone can have a say and that everybody's voice is heard. Indeed over the past weeks and months we have heard from all sides and all stakeholders. There has been a very healthy debate which spread online and through print media and across the Web and flew blogs and social media sites. This is an opportunity for me to thank all of those who have even criticized the event because their views were position positions that we all needed to hear.
And we appreciate everybody, every contribution that everyone has made here to the debate. I'm personally pleased to have been able to meet and to listen to so many representatives of civil society over the past months and to hear their concerns and their hopes for the future.
Here with us in the room, let us welcome the participation of civil society organisation, including International organisations such as art 19, public knowledge, IT for change and ISOC, and regional organisations such as CAPTA and ACSIS, coming all the way from Cameroon and central Africa.
As well as many others. So let me give a special welcome to ICANN, also, whose President and CEO, Mr. Fadi Chehade', addressed us this morning, and to whose Chairman, Chairman of ICANN, doctor doctor Steve Crocker is also here as a special guest and I look to exciting opportunities that lie ahead and can be achieved by ICANN and ITU together in a positive spirit of collaboration.
The work of ICANN and ITU can be and should be fully complementary. And we should note quite clearly that ITU has no wish to -- or desire to play a role in critical Internet resource such acidomain names and that ITU does not in any mandate to challenge ICANN's role and competency.
I believe under the Chairman's leadership, Mr. Fadi Chehade''s leadership, I am confident that a new season of cooperation will unfold and a new season that will benefit our connected world. This is a good demonstration of how wick ket 12 is very much an open door meeting.
We have on site participation through various delegations of all stakeholders. But we also welcome the presence of the world's media and members of the public, both here in Geneva as well as around the world through remote participation online. Such as things that we do in all of our plen potentiary conferences and our council meetings in Geneva.
We have heard many stakeholders over the past month, both in the form of formal contributions from Member States and formal contributions from our wider audience and of course through many articles and blogs that have been published. Indeed, there has been quite a lot of buzz and noise around the conference, which is the way it should be. But let me add a word here about silence. There is an old African saying: "Sigh silence is also a language, but not everybody speaks it. And certainly not everybody understands it, but it is a powerful language that we should all value." This is why it's also so important to know that the silent majority, what the silent majority also thinks. There will be some people who are voiceless. There are so many things we put online, but remember we only have one-third of the human population that is online. Two-thirds, large majority, who have not connected them and therefore they are not following our debates online. This is the silent majority. We have to listen to silence.
And it's powerful.
So while we welcome and indeed look forward to hearing many individual contributions over the next two weeks, we should also bear in mind one of Gandhi's great sayings: "Speak only if it improves upon the silence."
"Speak only when it improves upon silence."
Distinguished colleagues, you are here to negotiate a Treaty. Member States become parties to Treaties because they expect the benefits of signing the Treaty, whether commercial, moral, or potential benefits to outweigh any potential disadvantages.
My hope and conviction and I'm sure that this is shared by all of us here and out there, is that by coming here voluntarily to negotiate, you seek win-win solutions that benefit everyone, because there is so much to be gained.

Ladies and gentlemen, the most important goal to achieve is to bring the benefits of broadband to all the world's people. It is easy, here in Dubai, where we are provided with excellent facilities and connectivity, to forget that the Internet is still just a dream for two-thirds of the world's population. Most people in most of ITU's Member States still have no access to what could arguably be the greatest public good ever made available to humanity. In 1988, the ITRs led the way to ubiquitous mobile connectivity. How can we make sure that the ITRs 2012 do the same thing for broadband?
As Ban-Ki moon, the United Nations Secretary-General mentioned earlier this morning, "I trust that together, Governments, industry and civil society will rise to this occasion."
Here in Dubai, we will be looking at a number of areas where there is a great promise of being able to achieve compromise text-based on member state proposals, and in doing so set the stage for increased ICT infrastructure roll out and access around the world. And it includes broadband investment, energy efficiency, accessibility, security, the networks, the impact of unsolicited content or spam on the networks. Number misuse, roaming. When was the last time you came back home and had a very unpleasant surprise of higher roaming costs? Reducing taxation is a key issue, price transparency, nondiscriminatory pricing, the fostering of competitive and liberalized telecommunications markets, and freedom of expression. Let me remind you that we need to stick to high level principles, which drive continuous competition, innovation and growth.
I'm pleased to note that a number of contributions to WCIT-12 have reminded us of some key ITU declarations regarding these issue, and let me cite some of these. The report of the fifth world telecommunications development conference in 2010, Hyderabad, which highlighted the importance of telecommunications infrastructure and technology development, particularly in developing countries.
The Geneva declaration of principles adopted at WSIS which recognized that policies creating a favorable climate for stability, predictability and fair competition at all levels should be developed and implemented in a manner that attracts more private investment in telecommunications infrastructure.
The policy recommendations of the ITU/UNESCO broadband Commission for digital development for encouraging broadband infrastructure development, which were published in the State of broadband 2012 publication, achieving digital inclusion for all."
And it is just in this spirit that I graeted the broadband Commission for development in 2010 and I invited UNESCO to join me, because my considerations B will be dealing with the infrastructure, and UNESCO will be dealing with content regarding education, science or culture. So the two can come together and meet.
Our expectation in this room is not in the content business or in the infrastructure, how can we make it available, there is a lot of information out there and it needs to be online and so that everyone can access it in their languages, no matter what circumstances there, whether they are People with Disabilities or not.
Distinguished colleague, we all know that the discussions regarding Article 6 of the ITRs, dealing with financial matters will be delegate.
But we all agree, I'm sure, on the need to foster the continuing development of broadband and we all agree on the importance of competition in promoting investment, as recognized in the broadband Commission.
In light of those two points, I would urge you to consider how best to adapt Article 6 so that it will help to achieve the desired goals, to bring the benefits of broadband to all the world's people.
I keep reminding you on that. Because that's the basis, the fundamental, the objective, the final objective of this conference.
So some have said that broadband is a national matter, and therefore not within the scope of the ITRs.
It is hard to share this view, however, in a global village. In a village -- global village where commerce goes quickly beyond national borders and where we can all choose to buy products and services from other countries to suit our tastes and our pocket books. In a global village where my grandchildren can watch videos online at their home in New York, which have been uploaded by their friends in Europe or Africa or Asia. In a global village where health workers in even the remotest regions can consult the vast wealth of information and even other specialists online when making diagnoses and prescribing treatment. If a country does have adequate ICT infrastructure, and that must include broadband in this 21st Century, then it simply cannot participate in the global market.
That penalizes the citizens of that country, but it also penalizes the citizens of the other countries who cannot benefit from interacting with them. So access to modern high speed telecommunications is not merely a national matter. On the contrary, it's one of the most important International matters, something we have seen or been aware of since 1865, when Governments founded ITU, to address issues of International interconnection.
Different distributions from Member States have given us different views on what a revised framework might look like and I would like to thank all of our membership for this. So let's work together to find what the difference views have in common and find the consensus that will help drive growth in ICT networks over the next decades.
Distinguished Delegates, ladies and gentlemen, over the months leading to the WCIT, some incorrect information regarding this conference has been published in various media, and my staff and I have worked hard to try to correct them, the misinformation has not been helpful in terms of clarifying the plain facts and the enormous benefits we can hope to achieve here in Dubai over the next two weeks. But I would like nonetheless to thank all of those who have published material about WCIT-12, including the detracttors, who have done so much in just a few months to bring this important issue to the public eye, all around the world.
They have participated their way, in their fashion. It's a way of participating. But we have to listen to them as well. They made some relevant points, we may disagree with them, but we have to take them on board here.
Thanks to them, the ITRs have never been so much talked about, and as the Irish playwright Oscar Wildee once said "The only thing worse than being talked about, is not being talked about."
Let me take this opportunity to address some of the myths that have been created around WCIT-12 and to clarify several matters.
Freedom of Expression. And it has been suggest that had this conference might in some way act to restrict the open and free flow of information. In Article 33 of the ITU's constitution, however, Member States recognize the right of the public to correspond by means of the International service of public correspondence and the ITRs cannot contradict that provision, or indeed any of the articles in the ITU constitution.
This concept is paralleled in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which I will quote here in full.
"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."
Clearly, there is universal agreement on this matter and these freedoms are not up for negotiation, every word has been negotiated carefully. It's not up for negotiation. We make reference of that in the preample of our Treaty here. So that nothing, nothing in this conference can contradict that.
Here in Dubai, we're not going to be challenging art 19 or any other is Article of the u verse sal declaration of human rights. I want to make sure that all of you out there are listening.
I welcome the proposal from Tunisia. It comes at a perfect time.
Fears also were expressed that new provisions in updated ITRs might have to legitimate tiz Government Ken soreship and I agree that this should not happen.
This conference will not stand in the way of the need to protect the right of the freedom of expression, the right to communicate, and the right to privacy.
But we must recognize that none of these freedoms can exist without security. Especially the online -- in the online world.
If you, your personal information, your banking details, or even your identity are not secure, then how can you use ICTs with trust and confidence?
Since the World Summit on Information Society, we have seen widespread support for greater recognition of the importance of security in the use of ICTs.
This delicate issue was assigned by WSIS in Tunisia, 2005, to ITU, and we understand very clearly that there is a fine line which must not be crossed, a fine line which must not be crossed, in balancing the needs for freedom and privacy, on one hand, and security on the other.
We have to keep that in mind. So let me urge you to work together in good faith to achieve a sound, reliable and Honorable compromise so that we all can benefit from cyberresilience instead of cyberthreats. Cybersecurity instead of cybercrime and cyberpeace ind stead of cyberwar. As I said before, the only way to win any war is to avoid it in the first place and in this conference is a very good place to start making peace.
Distinguished Delegates, let's talk about affordability. The simple Question of affordability remains the biggest single barrier faced by the billions of people around the world who are still off line. We all know that the cost of connectivity is too high in most developing countries, and not just in developing countries. Recently, in a New York hotel, I had to pay 76 dollars for three days' Internet access. That is the equivalent of 760 US dollars a month. How can anyone afford that? And yet the same connectivity is given to ever citizen in the U.S. At 999. 9.99. That is one of the successes of the national broadband plan in the United States. They have succeeded doing so.
Government has no control over what hotels will be doing, it's the same thing, they have no control over what the private sector does. We may encourage them to do something good so that everyone can benefit.
We are also aware of -- that International room roaming praises are in many parts of the world still too high. Let's discuss it. Find ways, but let's not go -- let's not cross the line and give them in detail what they should do, how they should do it. We should keep some key principles in here of transparency, affordability, of equal treatment, nondiscriminatory treatment, and full openness so that consumers know what they are paying for when they are paying it, before they use it. These are there principles I would like us to agree here and put it in a Treaty that will last long enough. We want to see greater Internet usage across the world and I presume that we want consumers to feel that they are getting good value for the money as they roam. We look forward to our -- to these discussions and debates over these issues over the next two weeks. And I'm sure that a consensus view will be found. In the true tradition of ITU, but let's disagree sometimes in the start of the discussion, let's not take anything personal. Let's debate, let's convince one another and let's understand one another's problems. Let's define them when you define a problem is half solved. And most of the time we may not agree on things simply because we don't have the same understanding of it. We're speaking after all in different languages. And that's normal. And from friction comes light. We will find ways to bring down the cost of Internet connectivity while ensuring sufficient revenues for operators to deploy broadband infrastructure. We will find ways that both consumers and operators feel that roaming places are fair and reasonable. And by conscientious, I mean consensus in the true tradition of ITU. We have done that all the time. It works here.
To reach consensus, delegates will need to show willingness to compromise, so I urge you to work together for the common good, again, in the true tradition of ITU.
In conclusion, ladies and gentlemen, dear colleague, we must not be complacent in taking the benefits of online world for granted. One-third of the world's people, including those here in Dubai, expect to be able to access information easily online. One-third of the world's people expect to be able to give their children a proper education, and for their children to be able to access all the academic resources they need online. One-third of the world's people expect to be able to provide themselves and their families with decent healthcare and for their doctors and healthcare workers to provide the necessary access to the full wealth of medical information online.
But we all know that two-thirds of the world's people today do not have these privileges. And if we stay unconnected to the Internet, they will never have these privileges.
All people from all regions of the world have a right to participate in this knowledge society and the dawning digital economy:this includes people, no matter where they come from. This includes people, no matter what their personal circumstances. And this includes the 650 million people worldwide living with a disability of some kind.
So let me urge you to recognize the vital importance of measures to promote access to broadband around the world, in all countries, and in all region, and to help deliver total inclusion.
This is a moral duty. It's our moral duty. And George Washington, one of America's founding fares and great high minded public servant once said "Happiness and moral duty are inseparably connected."
This conference has the power to ensure continuing innovation, the free flow of information, an investment in network, services and applications. Ladies and gentlemen, I have no doubt that the work ahead of us at this conference will be intense. Constructive, and productive, and that, however, long denied the down will break. I have no doubt that we will sometimes struggle to find agreement, indeed, we will welcome differences of opinion and as we have always done here in Dubai, we will not see clashes between people, but friction between minds. Again, from friction comes light. And as we all know, the light, that light will help us see our common goal. *
To build a knowledge society, where everyone, whatever their circumstances, can access, use, create, and share information, that's what we need to do. We have the power to do this, together. We have the power to make the world a better place, together.
We have the power to create a brave new world, where society, social and economic justice prevails, together. So let's work together.
Thank you.
(Applause)

>> CHAIR: Thank you, Mr. Secretary-General, now we move to agenda item number 7. Structure of the conference, you can find it in DT 2. And I'll give now the floor to Mr. Secretary-General to present the document.

>> HAMADOUN TOURE': Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The document DT 2 as presented here has been again looked at by the informal hetz of delegations and the formal one. And we present it as a Committee here to the plenary for final approval. You have in this document the terms of reference of the different -- of the five Committees and two Working Groups. And I'm presenting this to you for your approval, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you.
The document DT 2 right now is put forward for your approval.
Thank you. The document is approved. I see no comments.
We move now to agenda item number 8. Election of the Chairman and advice Chairman of the Committees. And I give the floor to the Secretary-General to present the document.
>> HAMADOUN TOURE': Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Committee one is composed by the vice Chair, the Chairman and the Vice Chairman of the conference and the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Committees. Committee 2 is proposed Chairman Mr. Ravindra Jha. And vice Chair Mr. Bruno Ramos and Sameera Mohammad. Committee 2 is the credentials Committee. Committee 3 is the budget control.
Chairman, Mr. Bruce Gracie, from Canada. And Vice Chairman, misNurzat Boljobekova, from Kyrgyzstan. Committee 4. Editorial Committee. Chairman, Ms. Marie-Therese Alajoujanine, France.
Vice chairmen, Mr. Sami Salih Sudan.
Mr. Xue Fei Wang, China. Mr. Chris Woolford, United kingdom. Ms. Blanca Gonzalez Spain. Mr. Vladimir Minkin, as you can see, those are the representatives for the six official languages of the ITU, frens, and then the vice Chairs for Eric, Chinese, English, Spanish and the Russian languages.
Committee 5, review Committee. Proposed to have Chairman, Mr. Joshua Peprah from Ghana, and the following vice chairmen, Mr. Albert Nalbandian, Armenia, Mr. Luis Lucatero, Mexico. Mr. Frederic Riehl, Switzerland. Mr. Bob Horton, Australia, and Mr. Al-Mashakbeh Alansari, Jordan.
And the two Working Groups of that Committee 5 are as follows: Working Group come 5-1. That will be covering everything including Article 6 and 9, Chairman Bernadette Lewis, Trinidad and Tobago, and vice Chair Selichi Tsugawa, Japan.
And Mr. Fahid Al Fahasd. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Working Group come 5-2. Chairman Fabio Bigi of Italy and vice Chair Gertrude Aka. So far those are the names that we received Mr. Chairman and I propose this for approval of this Assembly.

>> CHAIR: Thank you. And now I ask the meeting to approve the names of the chairmen and vice khir men of the Committees and Working Groups.
(Applause)
Thank you, and I wish the chairmen and vice Chair mens of the Committees and Working Groups all the best for the conference.
Now, going to agenda item 9. Composition of the conference Secretariat and I give the floor to the Secretary-General again.
>> HAMADOUN TOURE': Thank you. The secretary of the conference is myself, Hamadoun I. Toure', Secretary-General of ITU.
The executive secretary, by the way, I don't know why they should not address something to secretary. I'm always secretary, never general, so we should probably find a way to change secretary into general. I'm just joking, because I see people... of practice secretary, Doreen Bogdan-Martin, administrative secretary, Mr. Sumaki. Legal affairs, plenary and come 1 steering, Doreen Bogdan-Martin. Committee two credentials, (?)
Committee 3. Budget control. Committee 4. Editorial Committee. Committee 5, review Committee, we have Richard Hill and Alexander Toko. Committee 5-1, we have again Richard hill and Mario Minavich. Working Group 5-2, articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10E and related matters, we have Petom Malure and Ms. Young. * I would also like to inform you that as I started the tradition, during the plenipotentiary conference after my election. I also assigned the elected officials to some of those Committees during the conference, so each and every official has been assigned a task. What did I have that detail here?
I have Mr. -- myself for the plenaries. And there Zhao is in charge of the budget Committee. Francois is Committee 2. And Malcolm Johnson, I'll be taking also Working Group 5. But the two Working Groups -- Committee 5, but the two Working Groups under that will be Malcolm Johnson for group 1. And
>> BRAHIMA SANOU: Subpoena for the Working Group 2. And they will be reporting to me during the course of the conference to facilitate the work here. I have experimented that in the past two plenipotentiary conferences it worked very well and I intend to continue to do so.
So please notice all of that. But of course beyond those humble people who have been appear .ed here, I can assure you that all ITU staff present here and those in Geneva working for us online will be at your disposal to make and facilitate the work of this conference.
So I present that for your information shall Mr. Chairman.
Thank you. *
>> CHAIR: Thank you. And I'm sure that those people have been working very, very hard and can tell you before the conference and I'm sure they will be of great assistance to everyone here.
Now we can move to agenda item 10, allocation of documents to Committees. And I want you to pull DT 3 and I give the floor to the Secretary-General.
>> HAMADOUN TOURE': Thank you, Mr. Chairman, the recommend DT 3 which proposals an initial allocation and I repeat initial allocation of documents.
But if you allow me, I would like to point out that DT 3 proposals and allocation of proposals received from Member States as well as reports by the Working Group, the Working Group to propose for WCIT. New documents will be referred by the conference Chairman to Committees and plenarys, in plenary, as appropriate in accordance with the general rules number 82.
For contributions, recently received and committed, the secretary jath I can't tell is doing his best to ensure timely processing and publication. When a document comes, we make sure that it's available as soon as possible in all of the six official languages. It's published in the original language first for efficiency. But please forgive us if there is a small delay between the original publication of the original document and the translator -- translated ones. Our people are working in different parts of the world for us to expedite that.
So I present this for your approval, Mr. Chairman. Of course, membership may as usual suggest some modifications in this, and we I think it is the tradition of the unit. Thank you very much.
>> CHAIR: Thank you. And I submit this document to the meeting for approval with the understanding that this document is going to be updated by the Secretariat as necessary when the Member States wish to add, modify their proposals.
I see that the Russian Federation is asking for the floor. Russian Federation shall you have the floor.
>> Russian Federation: Distinguished ladies and gentlemen, first of all I want to congratulate the Chairman of the conference on the selection. We looked at the allocation of document s care feely and wree want number 27 one to be looked at, at the plenary meeting. The federation is suggesting additions to the ITRs, the purpose of which is to formulate an approach and understanding of Internet and ICT as a new global communications infrastructure and also as part of the national communications infrastructure of each individual Member State. The document contains proposals to Article 2 definition and a new Article 3 A Internet work. Our proposal on 3 A and 5 A is not referred to anywhere in the documents in the plenary, and we do have a exam 6 examples of other contribution were contributions were taken into account. In order to ad sure that we have the contribution of all States and after discussion of these documents at the plenary, we think that the more detailed proposals could be considered in the working parties of Working Group 5.
These proposals echo what we have already heard, the need for transparency, the need for openness, the need to -- through doors and Windows open. The need to open ourselves up to the Oasis rather than close ourselves off into a council or effort.
Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you, the Russian Federation.
The document is going to be updated, so document 27 to be allocated to the plenary and the Secretariat is going to update this document and present it, it will be uploaded for the delegates' information.
United States?
>> UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And we wish to join with the Russian Federation in congral grat lateing you on your selection as Chair and we would of course wish you and all colleagues a successful conference.
Mr. Chairman, as we look at this document, a number of questions occur. As this is a document that allocates by proposals, in addition to document number, there may be a greater clarification needs to be brought to the document.
For example, this document we are to understand this document in what manner in terms of method of proceeding. For example, in the plenary sessions, there are a number of proposals that are listed against the plenary. Is it the proposal or view, Mr. Chairman, that we would take each of those proposals in succession, starting from the top and proceeding to the last item? That's the first Question.
Secondly, Mr. Chairman, there was an indication by the Secretary-General that this document includes contributions from the council Working Group, Member States, and the Secretariat. At least that is what we understood him to say.
Mr. Chairman, we would ask that you would confirm that at a Treaty conference, only proposals from Member States can be considered. And if, for example, a proposal that had ar ris CEN during the council Working Group has not been adopted by a Member State, then it cannot be introduced into the Treaty conference. That needs to be confirmed, Mr. Chairman.
So if we could, we would ask your clarification as to how we are to read this document, in terms of working method, and secondly we are to ask that you confirm that a Treaty conference pursuant to the constitutional Convention and ITU practice, only Member States can make a contribution to a Treaty conference.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank
>> CHAIR: Thank you, United States.
First of all, thank you for your very good questions. On the plenary, I would propose not to take the documents number in order. We will come to it when it comes to examination and discussions of proposals by Member States.
And that's going to -- we will put at least, to start with, but we will come to it, at a later stage. And first discuss the principles for the conference and then take issues as we go in terms of priority.
To set the tone right for the conference and the complexity of issues that we have, and we have at hand.
On the second issue, your understanding is correct. The conference -- the council Working Group for the preparatory process of WCIT is gost going to be presented only for information and only Member States proposals are purt forward and will be considered by the conference.
China and then Japan. I'll take them both and then we will... then we will get back to this. China.
>> CHINA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We are very happy to come to the beautiful City of Dubai. The flower in the desert. This is the first time for us to speak, we send, then, congratulations to you and we will work together with you and make efforts to make this conference a success.
Mr. Chairman, regarding to DT 4 document, we have several questions through you to the Secretariat for clarification. DT 4, how come that DT 4 has come to the plenary session? What is the nature and status of this document and what is the relationship between this DT 4 and other documents. DD 2 1 and 4, what is the relationship between DT 1 and 4? Maybe there is some overt lap.
I -- maybe there is some overlap. As to DT 1 and 4, is that a summary of all of their proposals, either we say that DT 4 is not a complete document. For an example, some of the ACP proposals are not included. For example, 5 A 1, concerning the security issues, it's not included in the DT 4 document.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
>> CHAIR: Thank you. Japan?
>> JAPAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Our Question is concerning DT 3. When I look at this DT 3,s I was surprised to see that many items are are listed against the plenary and I believe that all the proposals concerning this provision of ITR should be first reviewed in Committee 5. And when I look at this, each number, carefully, it's all the proposals concerning the preamble and Article 1 is listed there. And besides, all proposals concern the name of each Article, like Article 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Only the title is listed there. So I really don't understand what is their idea of this listing of the preamble, Article 1, and just the name of the Article there, of the document to be allocated in the plenary.
Thank you very much.
>> CHAIR: Thank you. First of all, I wanted to answer to China's Question.
DT 1 includes all proposals, so it's a complete document. DT 3 is just allocation of documents to the plenary, to Committees, and to Working Groups.
DT 4 is just items that were put together by the Secretariat to be addressed by the plenary. And as you know, there are issues that need to be addressed first by the plenary before it goes to the Working Group. And coming to Japan's Question, you are right. There has been a careful selection so that we make some progress on the conference, and there are things that already have been put to the plenary so that -- and consideration was taken to all the proposals that come to the table to this conference, which some of them have majority agreement, and some major principles and some major differences that have to be resolved by the plenary. And that's why it was put to the plenary.
I hope my explanation is clear.
With that, can we approve DT 3? Thank you very much.
The document is approved, again with the understanding that this document is going to be updated by the secretary as necessary.

Sorry States and Mexico.
>> UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, we can go along with the consensus, but we should note that we remain confused as to exactly how we are to interpret DT 3 with respect to, in addition DT 4. It is not clear at all at this point how these documents are going to be taken in plenary. We would understand that today you are not going to address these documents in plenary. But that may need to be clarified, if you are going to address these documents in plenary.
If you are going to address these documents in plenary, which document comes first? Which document comes first and in which order of the proposals? If you are to take the first document that is listed in DT 3, there are six proposals against that document. Are they to take each of their proposals and present them to the plenary? If that's the principle, then by the time we goth get to other colleagues' proposals, there are two lines listed for proposals. At this rate, we certainly may not have what modestly could be called "Progress" in the conference.
But Mr. Chairman, we would again ask you to consider the difficulty that colleagues may be having in understanding exactly what this document means. This is not a document that is -- has clear precedence to other documents in this area that we have seen at Treaty conferences. So Mr. Chairman, we don't want to stand between the consensus, colleagues in consensus, but we do remain confused as to how we are to interpret this DT 3. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
>> CHAIR: Mexico?
>> MEXICO: Thank you, Chairman.
I'd like, firstly, to echo the congratulations which have been uttered on your election.
We would also like to congratulate the United Arab Emirates on their 41st anniversary.
I'd like now to say that we agree somewhat with what was said by the United States concerning how to interpret DT 3. We understand that this has now been approved and we done see any drawback to that. But we have a number of proposals in our document 20 for the plenary, and they do not appear in the work of Committee 5. So our Question is in what form will they be submitted to the plenary and what certain principles have been determined by the plenary, what will happen to the proposals which have been assigned to the plenary?
So if they have been determined how will they be built into the Working Groups?
Thank you very much.
>> CHAIR: Thank you, Mexico. And I'll try one more time.
The intention when we get to the examination -- and I'm planning to do it today, if I can -- and we will try to push to reach to this item. -- is to group key issues in plenary. For example, general principles. There are a number of Administration/regional groups who plented proposals for general principles. The preamble, the use of the term "Operating agency" or "Recognized operating agency."
The overlap with CS and CV, new proposals for Article 1, the binding nature of the ITU recommendations and basically finishes. So we will be taking those in groups. And once we come to the right group we will ask Administrations to submit their proposals.
For example, after moving from general principles and preamble, we will get into the operating agency and recognizable operating agency, because this is critical for the conference and we need to resolve it.
So we will group the the issues, and then we will allow Administrations to present their proposals and have some discussions.
I hope I'm clear United States and Mexico.
United Arab Emirates first and then United States of America.
>> UNITED ARAB EMIRATES: Thank you, Chairman. Indeed, you have actually summarized in your last intervention exactly what I wanted to say. There are some issues that are genetic by nature, as you can see, the two Working Groups at least one of them discuss more towards financial matters, and the other one is more about operational matters. However, these other issues that are genetic, and as you mentioned, the preamble, generals principles, maybe ROA versus AO, these are genetic issues that fall into the Working Groups and then we decide on them on something higher than the two works groups or the Committee itself and covers it by the plepnary in order to save time for the Working Groups and their discussions.
So the Question I think that was raised by the United States was more about we should find out what will be the mechanism that the plenary is going to use on discussing this, and I think this is something that we can discuss, whether we create an ad hoc group or is it something that the Chairman of the plenary prepares something for us? So this is something that I think we should take into account, what would be the mechanism on how we're going to discuss this, because it's definitely a valid point. The plenary wants to be as direct as possible.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
>> UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: We wish to express our appreciation to the United Arab Emirates who has stated very clearly for us the issue that we are trying to understand in terms of working procedures. Mr. Chairman, we can certainly can proceed in the fashion that you have laid out. We would ask as a first step in clarity if we could see exactly if writing what are the key principles that are to be addressed and when and what order will they be addressed and against which documents are the principles to be discussed?
Secondly, Mr. Chairman, we would note in that regard and you have correctly mentioned at least one of the subjects, that we have document 31 that seeks to address as a matter of some urgency of the conference the preamble, definition of telecommunications and the issue of ROA and OA. As you were providing clarity to how we're going to proceed, we will be very interested to know exactly then when document 31 would appear on the agenda.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
>> CHAIR: Thank you. And I think as soon as we reach the urgent item to be concerned, I will lay down exactly, it will be very difficult to print it right now and distribute it, but I'll just lay down an order, as I just said, general principles, preamble, ROA and OA, overlap with CSCV, binding natures and others. I know this cannot be reached in plenary 1 but we will try to reach them today and I'm optimist particular to the OA/ROA issue before tomorrow's plenary.
With that, can we proceed?
Thank you.
I'll take two items before we have -- we have coffee break and try to be quick.
The agenda item 11, date of submission of the report of the Committee.
>> HAMADOUN TOURE': Pursuant to the 11 provisions of the Convention and the procedures adopted at the previous plenipotentiary conferences, the plenary must decide on the date for submission of the report of the credential Committee.
* the preliminary draft time plan proposes that the first meeting of the Committee be on December 5. It is noted that the date of the Commission of the report of the Credentials Committee be Wednesday, 12 December.
I'm asking for your approval. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you. And it's put for the meeting for approval.
I see no comments --
Thank you. The document is approved.
>> HAMADOUN TOURE': Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I forgot to mention an exception that was requested by the delegation of Mexico to have their approval on the 13th of December. This is due to national elects taking place in the country and therefore they have requested that and presented that to the heads of delegations meeting, and we should present this also, the delegates of the conference for allowing Mexico to present their credentials up to the 13th of December.
Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you.
Is the proposal bisect general approved? It's put for your approval.
Thank you.
We move to agenda item 12. Working hours of the meetings of the conference. I give the floor to the Secretary-General.
>> HAMADOUN TOURE': Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to propose the following schedule in line with our past practices. 9:30 to 12:30 and 14:30 to 17:30 on weekdays.
On Friday, work will begin at 9 o'clock. And end at 12 o'clock. And the afternoon session will resume as usual at 14:30.
The Steering Committee will of course -- the work of the Steering Committee will be updated every time, but the first one will be meeting tonight. And I would like to present this for your approval and the Steering Committee will approve the general schedule of the work of the conference as well as a detailed timetable for the first week. And as we move along, the Steering Committee will report to you any changes made.
I present this for your approval, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you. The time plan is -- the working hours of the commet meeting of the conference is put forward to you for approval and the steer Committee for today is going to start immediately after plenary.
So with that, I see no comments. So the working hours of the meeting of the conference is approved.
And the last thing before we break for coffee, I would ask the Secretary-General to present the participation request by International organisations.
Secretary-General?
>> HAMADOUN TOURE': Thank you, Mr. Chairman. According to number 279 of the Convention, ITU Convention, observers of International organisations other than those referred in numbers 269 A, 269 D, in this Convention, are invited in accordance with the 1 1 provisions of chapter 1 of the general rules of conferences. And Assemblies and meetings of the union. And those should be admitted to participate in the conference in an advisory Committee. See also annex resolution. Councilor-at-Large, International Academy and I would like to propose this conference approval for them to be accepted as observers -- advisers commast capacity in this conference. Thank you. kurj, ooun ooun ooun and International telecommunication Academy.
>> CHAIR: This is clear. They have asked to join in an advisory capacity and it's put forward for your approval.
I see no one is asking for the floor and the three entities have been approved. * and now, we will adjourn the meeting for coffee, 15 minutes, please, Secretary-General?
>> HAMADOUN TOURE': Mr. Chairman, just allow me to ask all delegates when you are taking the floor, we hope that the first speaker will congratulate the Chairman for his election and congratulate our host country for hosting us, and thank them on behalf of everybody. And so that, to save time of the conference, as the tradition in ITU, you don't have to repeat that every time you take the floor or even the first time for taking the floor for delegations. You can save it. We ask kindly the host -- our Chairman to accept that from all of you. I believe that saves tremendous time.
And also if you allow me, I will send a letter from this conference -- from this conference to His Highness here, the President of United Arab Emirates, thanking them and congratulating them also upon their 41st anniversarye so all of that will be done as a conference, so we will save valuable time and resources.
Thank you very much.
(Applause)

>> CHAIR: Thank you. And we will have a coffee break right now and we will come back at 4:40 sharp and we will start. We have lots of work for us in front of us, and we hope that we finish today by 5:30. So please enjoy your coffee break. (Break)

>> CHAIR: Seems I'll start the meeting without the Secretary-General.

>> CHAIR: Ladies and gentlemen, if you can resume your seat. resuming the plenary. And we will go straight to agenda item 14. Examination of the output of of the preparatory process. And I'll give the floor to Armenia, to present the document. Please.
>> ARMENIA: Thank you, Chairman.
Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, the Chairman of the council Working Group to prepare for the 2012 World Conference on International communications, Mr. Krustovyv has been unable to attend the conference which is why I've been requested to report the final report of the Working Group. Which now I'm doing.
The work to prepare for the 2012 World Conference on International communications was set up in accordance with council resolution 13 19. -- 13.12. The interpreter apologizes.
The plenipotentiary conference of 20 10 -- in 2010 in Guadalajara in its resolution, 17.01, 171.
Stipulated -- resolution 171 stipulated that the Working Group should continue to prepare for the 2012 WCIT.
That the agenda and the dates for the holding of the conference should be those which was stipulated in counsel resolution -- council resolution 137.
furthermore, the Working Group was to consider and study the results of the work done by ITU on the regulations. Discuss and consider all the proposals which are being made in the revision and review of those regulations, provided those proposals were in accordance with the goals of the union as set forth in Article 1 of the constitution of the organisation, were in accordance with the goals of the regulations as set forth in their Article 1 and then the Working Group was able to consider the proposals being made and the revision and review of Article 1 of the regulations.
It was also necessary to take into account technical progress, and the need for these proposals to be a topical for -- a topic and ripe for inclusion in an International Treaty.
Furthermore, the work of the Working Group was to prepare four months before the beginning of the conference a final consolidated report, and that so that the Member States particularly the developing Member States would be able to use it in their preparations for the WCIT 2012. The Working Group acting in accordance with council resolution 1317, and plenipotentiary conference resolution 171 held 8 meetings, and prepared a final consolidated report for WCIT 2012, so that the Member States could use it in their preparation of their own proposals to WCIT 2012.
The report for WCIT 2012 is now in document 4 for this conference, and that contains three addenda.
Addenda one is a quite volumenous document and that is the completion of proposals with options for revisions to the ITRs. Addendum two contains the draft of the future ITRs, including A proposals and review of resolutions, recommendations and continues of the conference in 1988.
Addendum 3 contains the text of the regulations 1988 in the Arabic, Chinese and Russian versions with selected changes. I would like to point out in this connection that as a result of the work of the council working group, it was pointed out that the versions of the texts of the regulations of 1988 in the Arabic, Russian and Chinese languages were not agreed to the Drafting Committee of the 1988 conference. These versions were prepared after the conference. The group agreed that the text reflecting the drafting changes, if delegates agreed, were to be included in the addendum to the report. And that is, indeed, what has been done.
Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, at its session in 2012 council has discussed the Question of opening access to the draft of the future ITRs, and it was decided that an ITU Web Page would be set up and that this would be accessible from the 15th of August through to the 7th of November. During that time we received and published 28 comments. Furthermore, it was decided that 4800 accesses to the draft regulations had been made and I think the figures speak for themselves.
So the council Working Group in preparing for WCIT 2012 completed its work which it did on schedule and has submitted its final report to WCIT. It was submitted by the Secretary-General to this conference and is now published as I said in document number 4.
Thank you very much, Chairman.

>> CHAIR: Thank you very much. And with that, the meeting can take note of this document.
And now we can go to agenda item 15, and DT 4. And before I start I just wanted to also put some clarifications for the meeting. Because it has been questions raised during coffee break, on the selected items that were put in DT 4. And I just want to repeat that DT 4 is a sub set of DT 1, to Claire if I any confusion. And -- to clarify any contusion fusion. The reason it was put there were because they were items to be considered by plenary. And this is either items that have serious disagreement between Member States that requires intervention of the plenary or items that they have majority agreements that can be agreed by plenary and move forward. And of course the issues regarding general principles that we will start with.
So these contributions were grouped into key issues, and we will start the first key issue, and that's general principles now; with DT 4. And the Member States' contribution, and I'll start with the CITA proposal. CITA, you have the floor to present general principles only. I have give the floor for CITA to present their proposal, and please I want to limit the presentation by three minutes.
CITA?
Sorry. I'll be specific in your contribution. Proposals 1, 2, 10 and 12 of your contribution.
That's related to general principles.
If you are not ready, we will go to Asia Pacific for the sake of time. Is that okay?
.
>> Mr. Chairman?
>> CHAIR: Yes?
>> Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The first document is the American proposal number 1. And if you give me just a second to bring it up in my computer, it's a proposal --
>> CHAIRPERSON: Just to --
>> It's a proposal to review and revise the --
>> CHAIRPERSON: Just to help the meeting. It's page 80 of DT 4.
.
>> At the WCIT 2012. The essence of this proposal, Mr. Chairman, the proposal presents a background on the WCIT, some principles that are embedded in resolution 171, but most importantly, Mr. Chairman, the proposal reflects the views of the region in regards to the enormous changes that have happened between 1988 and 2012, changes that are clearly reflected by the technological evolution and by the liberalization of markets worldwide.
It is the view reflected in this interAmerican proposal, Mr. Chairman, that what we require is not necessarily regulatory provisions but that regulatory environment that promotes competition, investment, and entrepreneurship and innovation.
Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, the proposal, the views of the region clearly articulate that establishing detailed regulatory provisions would be detrimental to achieving and maintaining the goals of a regulatory environment that has proven to be successful, one that promotes competition, investment, entrepreneurship and innovation.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
>> CHAIR: Thank you.
I'll take now Asia Pacific proposal. Page 82 for reference in DT 4.
I give now the floor to Asia Pacific.
>> Asia Pacific: --
>> CHAIR: India will present the Asia Pacific proposal.
>> INDIA: Mr. Chairman, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Actually, it's not the Asia Pacific proposal that we are presenting. India has made a separate submission. So I think there is a little bit of confusion here.
>> CHAIR: Okay. Then can you hold and try to find who is going to present the Asia Pacific proposal and then we will come to the Indian proposal.
>> INDIA: Okay.
>> CHAIR: I cannot see any flag of... Japan? Will you present the Asia Pacific proposal? Japan?
>> JAPAN: Yes, Chairman. I understand that now we are now dealing with the part -- the last part of the DT 4, right? And the ACP has principles there concerning the issues of -- for the -- over ITR revisions.
The first one is that whenever CCITT appears in the text, that should be replaced by ITU-T. The second one is whenever there is a member, it will represented by the Member State, and if there is a demonstration, that should be replaced by Member States, whether operating agencies, or -- we, in the APT we discussed these issues about this in the operating agencies. And there are divergent views concerning whether we should use the operating agencies or ROAs, and we come to some compromise that, to adopt the operating agencies with asterisks. It shows that if Member States prefer to use this, they can do that, and if they want to limit the scope of this application to the ROA, they can do that.
We would like to have -- to see this kind of flexibility in the operating agencies A with asterisks. And if you see the asterisks, maybe some people thinks that there needs to be some modification to make the more clear. But our intention is that accord ring to the -- according to each situation that the member -- of the Member States, that can be the scope can be just ROA, or operating agency, according to each country's case. This is the idea.
And having said that, I have to add that there are diver gent views among the AP countries. And we, Japan, believe that just the operating agencies, without any restriction is too broad.

>> CHAIR: Japan, I'm sorry to interrupt you. But we are not discussing OA or ROA right away. We will get to it. But if you have any comments on general principles, I would love to put it to the meeting. Otherwise, we will come to the ROA/OA proposal at a later stage.
>> JAPAN: Chairman, I thought that we are now at the end of the DT 4. And if you see this DT 4, there are three parts concerning these principles. But if it's not appropriate, I will stop here. Thank you very much.
>> CHAIR: Thank you, Japan.
We will take right now Canada and US proposal on general principles. So document 31. And I'll give the floor to whoever wants to take it. US or Canada. Thank you.
U.S. You have the floor.
>> UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Mr. Chairman, we have submitted document 31, which contains three of the principles for consideration at this plenary.
This document 31 seeks an agreement on the scope issues as they relate to the ITRs' classification of operating agencies or recognized operating agencies, as well as retaining the existing definition of telecommunications. Should we reach an agreement on these issues, we will bolster the likelihood of a successful outcome to the conference, and ensure there is consensus from the beginning of the conference on what will be the reach of the ITRs.
As a Member State, we prefer to know the impact of the proposals to revise the ITRs before we agree to those proposals. With a common understanding of the scope issues at the start of the conference, those issues will not have to be addressed and debated in the context of each Article.
The proposals concerning scope fall into one of three categories. First revision of the preamble and Article 1. Second, application of ITRs to operating agency, operating agencies, or some other category of entities. And finally, the definition of telecommunications. As a contribution States, the preamble and Article 1 set forth the principle and scope of the ITRs, and it is essential to agree on those fundamental issues before considering specific proposals to amend provisions of these ITRs.
In addition, WCIT-12 should agree whether the ITRs should apply to recognized operating agencies, operating agency, or some other category, and whether to revise the definition of telecommunications.
These are threshold issues that we believe will affect the scope and application of the ITRs as well as their relationship to the ITU constitution and Convention and we seek a conversation about these issues as early as possible.
Member States as positions on these issues will allow the conference to develop a common understanding of the impact of the proposals to revise the scope, in this way the implications will be clear to everyone as we advance on specific proposals.
I reserve the right later on to describe each of these three proposals in detail.
Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you. And I think also we -- your proposal focusing on the ROA and OA issue and primarily on some of the definitions. But we will come to that soon, very soon.
I'll now give the flur to the European common procedure, and again focusing on the general principles.
So... Portugal. You have the floor.
>> PORTUGAL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon to all of you. Contribution 16 and its addendum 1 presents the European common proposals for WCIT-12. These were developed by the European confor instance of telecommunications Administrations in several meetings that took place throughout 20111 and 2012.
Europe recalls that one size fits all and proscriptive solutions are not advisable. In fact, the revised International Telecommunications Regulations are ekts expected to be applicable, helpful and meaningful in every region and country of the world.
This will not be achievable if is there an intention to micromanage the International telecommunication services as a positive position to a given country may be meaningless or even harmful to its neighbor.
Europe considers that WCIT shall find win/win solutions as the Secretary-General correctly said in his opening speech.
For that hand, Europe agreed on a set of criteria which, in our opinion, should guide the ITR revision. First, in accordance to this criteria, which have a legal basis and in our opinion are bald criteria, -- are balanced criteria, as an International treat Treaty, the ITR should address high level strategic policy issues related to international telecommunications services and facilities. The basis for this criteria is laid down in resolution 171, preparations for the 2012 World Conference on International Telecommunications, Guadalajara 2010.
Secondly, consistent with ITU-T -- with ITU constitution, and in particular the preamble and Article 1, Europe considers that ITU constitution does not prescribe that ITU-T recommendations are binding, and therefore the ITR's revision should not be used to change the nature of ITU recommendations.
Consistent with International agreements and legislation, adopted by CPT Members, under this criteria calls that the large number of Europe countries are EU, UAE members and also (inaudible) members. The same way that Europe respects different market landscapes and different regional and nationals, throughout the scope, we expect that the International agreements were made by a large number of -- respects the International agreement that were made by a large number of Members.
Third, Europe will consider proposals related to national defense, national content, and cybercrime issues in the context of results free of resolution 1 30, revised in Guadalajara 2010.
Finally, exclusionings of areas not related to the purpose and scope of the ITRs. Europe considers that proposals concerning national or regional telecommunications service or transport should not be included in the ITRs. The compliance with this criteria is also linked to the preambles of both the ITU constitution and the ITRs, which fully recognize the sovereign right of each state to regulate its telecommunications. Takening into consideration the above criteria, Europe estimated a number of proposals for amending each Article of the existing ITR and is also proposing a revision of appendix 2 of this Treaty
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
>> CHAIR: Thank you. And now I open the floor for any comments. And before I forget, after -- South Africa is asking for the floor, but before giving South Africa the floor, India asked the Question, is it on general principles or do you want to comment on the general principles before giving the -- before giving South Africa the floor? India?
>> INDIA: Thank you, Chairman. Our contribution was not on the subject of general principle, so we will come in at the appropriate stage. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you. South Africa? You asked for the flo
So under general principles and the comments on the presentation of documents by the different groups, is there any comment from the meeting?
I see none and I can summarize the general principles here. As we did in terms of consultation with the regional groups and looking at proposals as well, I can say that the general principles that the way I can summarize it, the ITRs, the outcome of this conference and the ITRs shall contain high level guiding prince pels. I think there is an agreement on this -- principles. I think there is an agreement on this. And the ITRs should be technology neutral. And I think there is an agreement on this.
And there has to be -- the ITRs have to be consistent with the preamble and Article 1 of the constitution. And there is an agreement on this.
And the ITRs should belong lasting, without the need of frequent revision.
Would that -- if there is agreement that we move on general -- on these general principles for the conference, we can move right now -- there -- if there is an agreement we can move right now to the discussion of a more specific subject, which is ROA, OA.
Thank you very much.
So we will take a lot of these general principles, and I wanted to give the floor, we have Algeria on the general principles or the ROA/OA?
Algeria?
>> ALGERIA: Thank you, Chairman.
Chairman, which the Secretary-General took the floor he stressed and reminded the International community of the fact that the ITRs were established in 1988. 24 years ago at an administrative conference. And yet the title is very revealing. Since 1988, significant changes have occurred, revolutions we might say, radical change.
Radical change has marked the telecommunications context, letters compare the current -- let us compare the current situation. Looking at technology, looking at the difference between the situation in 1988 and that which we face in 2012, if we believe that the ITRs shouldn't reflect those radical changes, we might wonder what the role of this WCIT is.
It is important for us, for the International community of today and tomorrow that we understand what purpose should be given to this conference, this first conference of its kind, which is another thing we must stress.
If this conference, which is the first of its kind were not to tackle this radical change which has affected telecommunications and information technologies, future generations will fail to understand what our role in Dubai in 2012 was.
And we would not like to be judged by those future generations in that way. On the temporary, we must emerge from this conference with a sense that we have acquitted ourselves of our duties with the awareness that we have completed the line of work which involved updating those ITRs and bringing them in line with the current time and the progress which the telecommunications and information technology sector has undergone.
Chairman, I say this in my general principles, we're talking about general principles here. These regulations shouldn't talk about a particular type of technology. That's not what I'm saying, no. They should take into account the radical change which has affected telecommunications.
Thank you, Chairman.
>> CHAIR: Thank you. And when we said that these ITRs should contain high level principles, we talk about all the issues that were put on the table as contributions from Member States. So basically, we are saying the same thing. And it will be discussed during the course of the conference.
Now, we have full presentation from United States on the ROA/OA and I will come back to Japan and ACP proposal and I will give now the floor to Japan. Japan, you have three minutes because we need to have some discussions before the end of the meeting.
Japan, you have the floor.
>> JAPAN: Thank you, Chairman.
Now, I think it's the appropriate time to have some discussion concerning whether we should use these operating agencies or ROA issues. ROA. According to my understanding, the issue of the -- now, if we see the current text of ITR, the Administrations of my peers, these admin straition is a private recognized operating agencies. And now I understand this PROA is now ROA, as defined in the constitutions of this ITU.
And if I look -- we look at this constitution number 38, it says that the Member States have an obligation to impose the application described in this ITR to the operating agencies, which the Member States authorized to operate. And so we can see -- we can understand that when we talk about these obligations contained in ITR, maybe it's not appropriate to understand this obligation can be imposed to all the operating agencies. Maybe there should be some limitations concerning whether Member States will import these obligations to these operating agencies.
So I understand that maybe in the context of RO -- in the context, ROA is a better wording to replace this Administration with the private operating agencies. Private recognized operating agencies.
*
In the APT proposal, we had divergent views concerning of use of OA and ROA and we just presented as the APT proposal to say operating agencies asterisk, and allowing Member States to have some flexibility concerning the scope of ITR, and we have divided views. I'll stop here. Thank you very much.

>> CHAIR: Thank you. I'll give the floor to Sweden. Australia. Please be brief, because we are very close to the end of the day, working day.
I'll take Sweden first and then Australia.
>> SWEDEN: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I asked for the floor in order to provide support for the proposals in document 31, which in our reading does not only deal with the Question of ROA and OA, it also deals with the general issue of the scope of the ITRs, and the definition of telecommunications. And we believe that is important and it has to be resolved before we discuss the matter of sub substance.
With record to the ROA or OAs, we are in favor of using the word recognized operating agencies, in order not to change the context and the application of the ITRs.
Thank y

>> CHAIR: Australia?
>> AUSTRALIA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Given the range and number of proposals that have been put forward to this conference, it's important that we decide on certain matters early in our discussion, otherwise we risk creating a situation where text that has been agreed for inclusion will later become unacceptable.
For this reason, Australia wishes to speak in support of the proposals put forward to this conference by the United States and Canada, specifically, Australia agrees that any revisions to the ITRs should be considered with full knowledge of whether they would apply to recognized operating agencies, operating agencies, or other entities.
Australia would refer to use the term recognized operating agencies to remain contis tent with the definitions in the current ITU constitution. This will provide clarity for subsequent discussions to know that we are talking about an entity that operates a public telecommunications network. We also agree that the definition of telecommunications should be consider ed before this conference moves to to discussing specific proposals to revise the ITRs.
Considering these underlying elements of the ITRs before moving on to other discussions is a sensible approach, which always Australia supports. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: I have three requests, and I want to stop the floor.
I have Brazil, Russia, UAE, and Portugal on the ROA/OA issue. And I would like to ask the interpreters if they can stay with us for ten minutes.
>> INTERPRETER: We will give you ten minutes, gentlemen, Chair.
>> CHAIR: Sorry, Argentina, that is the end of the list, Brazil, UA, Argentina, tlooes please be brief. CostaRica wants to have the floor. Brazil first.
>> BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Brazil supports -- the use of both terms. OA is not a new concept. It's established in the base instruments of the union. OAs more over are users and providers of International telecommunication services. They currently and due to convergence of market and technology shall providing important telecommunications services, and therefore must be covered by this Treaty.
But it's appearance has to be analyzed in-depth and in on case-by-case basis. As Europe, we don't think that one size fits all solution is advisable at this moment.
Brazil should like to enforce the concept of having OAs and ROA according to the views of each Article. Thank you. Mr. Chairman.
>> CHAIR: UAE, briefly.
>> UNITED ARAB EMIRATES: Thank you, Chairman. I will try to be very brief. First of all, the general principles, maybe we haven't submitted as proposal a document 7 Rev 1. But we have our principles and we have discussed it many times almost in line with the same that you have mentioned.
However, with regard to the ROA and OA, the Arab group also has submitted their proposals. In regard to this one, we have supporting that to cover OA instead of ROA, in the ITR and the reason for that one if we go to the definitions of the ROA, it has to have two things, which is the head Office of this company and the country will provide service or authorized by a Member States to provide the services.
And ROA always we are thinking that it is recognized by one country but it's not really recognized by other countries. houvsh, the operating agency, it is covered both.
Mr. Chair man, I graev with all, that these are important issues and they are reflected in all ITRs, and we have to find a way how we can proceed further with this one. And I'm sure that you have a solution on this issue and I'll be happy to explain our position.
Thank you very much.
>> CHAIR: thank.
Russia.
>> Russia: I'd like to thank that I'm speaking on behalf of the RCC. In our proposals we have suggested the use of the term agency, which we prefer to retain, because many developing countries, including Member States of the RSS continue to have agencies playing a very important role in the area of communications within the framework of their organisation.
We also believe that the use of the term operating agency as a general understanding, a general definition, would include state and private organisations, and that brings our proposal I think closer to the proposal made by our colleagues from the Arab countries.
In these two points, if you bring them together, in the text of the ITUs, we will be using roughly the construction Administration/operating agency.
Now, as far as document 31 is concerned, it is of course extremely interesting, although having said that we would like to return to our understanding if we might be able to do so later, as I think suggested by the USA. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Portugal, please, briefly.
>> PORTUGAL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'll be brief.
First of all, we would like to support the methods described in contribution 31. We think -- Europe thinks that it's important to generally agree in the scope of the ITRs and on crucial matters, such as ROA, OA issue, as well as the telecommunication definition before we proceed to the remaining provisions.
In relation to the ROA/OA issue, Europe has run a legal analysis on this Question. And as a conclusion, we noted that Article 1, 1 A of the ITRs says that the ITRs establish general principles, which relate to the provision and operation of International telecommunication service offered to the public, and I underline the word "Public."
And in line with this, the definition which better suits for the purpose of the ITRs is, in our opinion, the recognized operating agents. Thank you very much.
>> CHAIR: Thank you, Argentina, please brief. We have to close the meeting.
>> ARGENTINA: Thank you very much, Chairman. I will indeed try and be brief. I simply wanted to make the point that we agree with the methodology which is proposed in document number 31. We think we need to reach agreement on the fundamental principles before we actually embark upon the rest of our discussions.
Thank you.

>> CHAIR: Costa Rica, please brief as well.
>> COSTA RICA: Yes, Chairman, thank you very much. Like the delegation of Argentina we want to offer our support to the proposal made in document 31 and introduced by the United States. We believe that it's essential that we sort this out before we make any further progress and move on to consider all the other specific proposals relating to the ITRs.
First of all, we have to have this matter sorted out. And therefore Costa Rica also believes that recognized operating agency is probably the most appropriate definition.
Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you. I have closed the list. Philippines and Brazil, for the is a sake of time. So I will really ask you to bear with me.
With the issues at hand, this is one of the issues that was seen from the contribution that it will have a serious disagreement. I hope we will agree at end of the day.
I propose that an informal discussion takes place and I suggest that I will lead this discussion and I will ask the regional representatives to be with me tomorrow at 8 o'clock, in a meeting that we will get right now, to discuss this fundamental issue before us on the conference.
If you are in agreement with this, then we will have this discussion in an informal meeting, chaired by the Chairman of the conference, starting from tomorrow at 8, before the plenary.
I see still Philippines and Spain are asking for the floor. And Mexico.
And we are running out of time. We have four minutes before the interpreters... Philippines? I'll give the flar to the Philippines and then Spain.
>> PHILIPPINES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Philippines would like to express its positions on the various issues raised, particularly on the term "Operating agency", "Recognized operating agency, Member State and Administration."
It is our position that these terms may be used interchangeably, but within the context of a provision these different words may, in fact, have different meanings.
So we also are amplifying the position of the AP community, we say that the term "Administration" when it refers to a provision in the ITR, which in fact refers to the state as parties to the seing in atory or a party by ak seing, then the term Administration must be replaced by the word Member State. Because in the Treaty, it is the Member State which has the obligations, where the Administration only has operational obligations.
>> CHAIR: Philippines, I'm sorry, I hate to interrupt you. But we are -- we have two minutes. And if you can join us in the informal meeting and discuss this, this critical issue, I would really appreciate it.
We have to close the meeting in two minutes.
>> PHILIPPINES: We will. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you. With that, I see no objection on establishing an informal meeting. And I really need the representative from the regional groups and Philippines and we will have that discussion tomorrow morning at 8 o'clock. I will announce the meeting soon.
With that, we are coming to the last agenda item that is other business.
Is there any other business?
.
>> Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to make a few announcements. Ass with previously mentioned, the first meeting of the Steering Committee will take place immediately at the end of this session. And that meeting will take place in room B.
I'd also like to just say a brief word about document distribution. In line with ITU's commitment to reduce its carbon footprint and in accordance with the plenipotentiary recommendations and practice, the conference will work as far as practicable in a paperless manner. And so in that regard, Mr. Chairman, we will be limiting document distribution to two sets per delegation and that will be on request.
Also, Mr. Chairman, we have made available an application which is called SYNC. You can get that from the ITU website and the I encourage you to download it and you will have access to all of the documents and then you just need to update it each day.
Also, we have made available a number of laptops for those delegates that were not able to come with their laptops. So please contact a member of the ITU Secretariat. We have a number of colleagues in the back of the room, wearing blue ITU caps, should you need any technical assistance. And then finally, Mr. Chairman, we are piloting a mobile Web app for this event. It's a new feature for ITU conferences and I welcome delegates to try out the app. And if you have comments, please share them with the Secretariat. Thank you very much.
>> CHAIR: Thank you. And I think there is a social event today. UAE you can announce that.
>> UNITED ARAB EMIRATES: Thank you. In order to invite all delegates to a dinner, which will be in the Jumara beach hotel. The buses will start moving from here at 6:30. So I'd like to request everybody to take the buses, which will be at the registration area, at 6:30. And please enjoy yourselves there and bring your family also. So I would like to see you there at 7:30 we will be available.
Thank you very much.
(Applause)

>> CHAIR: The informal meeting is L in room E at 8 o'clock. Mexico is asking for the floor. Are you insisting on on taking the floor? Mexico?

>> MEXICO: Yes, Chairman thank you very much. I just wanted to ask if Mexico could be included in this informal group, since I think you had requested the presence of the regional presenttives. We -- representatives. We think this is a very important point and we would like to be present and I'd like some clarification if possible on the scope of these discussions.
That way we can be absolutely clear about the specific issues that are going to be dealt with. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you. You are welcome to join the meeting.
With that, I will close... United Arab Emirates? Do you still -- UAE?
>> UNITED ARAB EMIRATES: Sorry, Chairman. But because I have to say it, this social event it's sponsored by our telecom operator. If I will not say that, they will not be happy with me. So I have to say it here.
(Applause)

>> CHAIR: Thank you. The meeting is adjourned, and I'll see you tomorrow at 9:30 for the plenary and for the informal meeting at 8, in room E. Thank you.
(End of meeting,

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/transcript-of-the-plenary-1-wcit-12

Section 66-A, Information Technology Act, 2000: Cases

snehashish — 2012-12-06T09:20:51Z

In this blog post Snehashish Ghosh summarizes the facts of a few cases where Section 66-A, Information Technology Act, 2000, has been mentioned or discussed.

There has been numerous instances application of the Section 66-A, Information Technology Act, 2000 (“ITA”) in the lower courts. Currently, there are six High Court decisions, in which the section has been mentioned or discussed. In this blog post, I will be summarizing facts of a few cases insofar as they can be gathered from the orders of the Court and are pertinent to the application of 66-A, ITA.

Sajeesh Krishnan v. State of Kerala (Kerala High Court, Decided on June 5, 2012)

Petition before High Court for release of passport seized by investigating agency during arrest

In the case of Sajeesh Krishnan v. State of Kerala (Decided on June 5, 2012), a petition was filed before the Kerala High Court for release of passport seized at the time of arrest from the custody of the investigating agency. The Court accordingly passed an order for release of the passport of the petitioner.

The Court, while deciding the case, briefly mentioned the facts of the case which were relevant to the petition. It stated that the “gist of the accusation is that the accused pursuant to a criminal conspiracy hatched by them made attempts to extort money by black mailing a Minister of the State and for that purpose they have forged some CD as if it contained statements purported to have been made by the Minister.” The Court also noted the provisions under which the accused was charged. They are Sections 66-A(b) and 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000 along with a host of sections under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (120B – Criminal Conspiracy, 419 – Cheating by personation, 511- Punishment for attempting to commit offences punishable with imprisonment for life or other imprisonment, 420 – Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property, 468 – Forgery for purpose of cheating, 469 – Forgery for purpose of harming and 201 – Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender read with 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860)

Nikhil Chacko Sam v. State of Kerala (Kerala High Court, Decided on July 9, 2012)

Order of the Kerala High Court on issuing of the summons to the petitioner

In another case, the Kerala High Court while passing an order with respect to summons issued to the accused, also mentioned the charge sheet laid by the police against the accused in its order. The accused was charged under section 66-A, ITA. The brief facts which can be extracted from the order of the Court read: “that the complainant and the accused (petitioner) were together at Chennai. It is stated that on 04.09.2009, the petitioner has transmitted photos of the de facto complainant and another person depicting them in bad light through internet and thus the petitioner has committed the offence as mentioned above.”

J.R. Gangwani and Another v. State of Haryana and Others (Punjab and Haryana High Court, Decided on October 15, 2012)

Petition for quashing of criminal proceedings under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973

In the Punjab and Haryana High Court, an application for quashing of criminal proceeding draws attention to a complaint which was filed under Section 66-A(c). This complaint was filed under Section 66-A(c) on the ground of sending e-mails under assumed e-mail addresses to customers of the Company which contained material which maligned the name of the Company which was to be sold as per the orders of the Company Law Board. The Complainant in the case received the e-mails which were redirected from the customers. According to the accused and the petitioner in the current hearing, the e-mail was not directed to the complainant or the company as is required under Section 66-A (c).

The High Court held that, “the petitioners are sending these messages to the purchasers of cranes from the company and those purchasers cannot be considered to be the possible buyers of the company. Sending of such e-mails, therefore, is not promoting the sale of the company which is the purpose of the advertisement given in the Economic Times. Such advertisements are, therefore, for the purpose of causing annoyance or inconvenience to the company or to deceive or mislead the addressee about the origin of such messages. These facts, therefore, clearly bring the acts of the petitioners within the purview of section 66A(c) of the Act.”

Mohammad Amjad v. Sharad Sagar Singh and Ors. (Criminal Revision no. 72/2011 filed before the Court of Sh. Vinay Kumar Khana Additional Sessions Judge – 04 South East: Saket Courts Delhi)

Revision petition against the order of the metropolitan magistrate

In a revision petition came up before the Additional Sessions Judge on the grounds that the metropolitan magistrate has dismissed a criminal complaint under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code without discussing the ingredients of section 295-A, IPC and 66-A, IT Act.

In this case, the judge observed that, “...section 66A of Information Technology Act (IT Act) does not refer at all to any 'group' or 'class' of people. The only requirement of Section 66A IT Act is that the message which is communicated is grossly offensive in nature or has menacing character.” He also observed that the previous order “not at all considered the allegations from this angle and the applicability of Section 66A Information Technology Act, 2000 to the factual matrix of the instant case.”

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/section-66-a-information-technology-act-2000-cases

Transcripts from WCIT-12

snehashish — 2012-12-03T14:00:21Z

We are archiving copies of the live-transcripts from the World Conference on International Telecommunications, 2012 (WCIT-12) which is being held in Dubai from 3–14 December, 2012.

This is an unedited rough transcript of the discussions/sessions at the WCIT,2012 which is live-streamed and made available by the ITU. We are hosting the live-streamed text for archival purposes:

Day 1 - WCIT-2012: Opening Ceremony (December 3, 2012)

Day 1 - WCIT-2012: Plenary 1 (December 3, 2012)

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/transcripts-of-wcit-2012

Transcript of the Opening Ceremony, WCIT-2012

snehashish — 2012-12-03T13:57:52Z

Rough live-transcript of the Opening Ceremony of the World Conference on International Telecommunications, 2012 (WCIT-12) held on December 3, 2012.

World Conference on International Telecommunications
Dubai United Arab Emirates
Opening ceremony
03 December 2012
11:00

Excellencies. Ladies and gentlemen. I request you to take your seats. The conference will begin in a few moments. You will need to use your headsets as this is a silent meeting.
There will be simultaneous interpretations in the six languages of the United Nations. On channel 1 you will find English. French 2. Spanish on channel 3. Russian on channel 4. Chinese on channel 5. And Arabic on channel 6.
For any assistance with WiFi connections, please feel free to call upon the staff wearing blue caps.
The ITU staff of koshs is available to assist you in any other matters.
We will begin very shortly. Please take your seats. Thank you.

(Please stand by. The meeting will begin momentarily)

.
>> Ladies and gentlemen. Would you please be up standing for the national anthem.
Thank you.
(Music) (Applause)
Honorable Ministers, excellency, ladies and gentlemen. On behalf of the ITU oying and the telecommunications regulatory authority of the United Arab Emirates, it is my great pleasure too welcome you here today to the World Conference on International Telecommunications, here at the World Trade Center in the wonderful City of Dubai. We have almost 2000 delegates assembled here, from 160 of the 1934 Member States, of the -- 193 Member States of the ITU. Many old and new friends from NGO, and the general public, you are all truly very welcome.
Over the preceding months, the world has expressed a great interest in the outcomes of this conference.
its collective eyes and ears are focusing a tentatively on us, but I feel very confident that we will not disappoint them.
The United Nations Secretary-General, Mr. bn can I moon, has shown a particular interest in the outcomes of this conference, and we are honored today to commence this opening ceremony with an address which we will share with you now.
Thank you.

>> BAN-KI MOON: Excellencies. Secretary-General Toure', Distinguished Delegates, ladies and gentlemen.
I'm pleased to address the ITU World Conference on International Telecommunications. I thank the United Arab Emirates for hosting.
Information and communications technologies are transforming our world, opening doors, educating, and empowering people, saving lives. The Arab Spring showed the power of ICT to help people voice their legitimate demands for human rights and greater accountability.
As we strive to achieve Millennium Development Goals and shape the post 2015 development agenda, expanding the benefits of ICTs will be crucial.
In the coming days, you will review the agreement that underpins how we communicate with each other across the globe.
Our over all objective must be to ensure universal access to information and communication technology, including for the two-thirds of the world's population currently not online.
A digital divide has no place in the information age, and 21st Century knowledge economy.
The management of information and communication technology should be transparent, Democratic, and inclusive. I'm great fied that you have -- I'm gratified that you have taken steps to open the process, including the vital voices of society and the -- civil society and the private sector. The U naitions systems hand between an open Internet. The right to communicate is essential to the ITU U Commission, the of declaration of human rights guarantees freedom of expression across all media and all frontiers. As a World Summit on Information Society, the free flow of information and ideas is essential for peace, development, human rights, and our common progress.
These freedoms are ind Spes sabl. We must continue to work together and find consensus on how to effectively keep cyberspace open, accessible, affordable and secure for all. I trust that together Governments, industry and civil society will rise to this occasion.
I wish you a successful conference.
(Applause)
. I would like to thank Mr. Ban-Ki moon in his absence for his message.
The United Arab Emirates has been a very generous host firstly WTSA which concluded last week and now to this WCIT. I want to invite the Director General of the regulatory authority to give an address on behalf of the United Arab Emirates.
(Applause)
.
>> In the name of God, the merciful and compassionate doctor Hamadoun I. Toure', Secretary-General of the ITU, excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, please be upon you in God's mercy and blessings.
It is an honor for me to welcome you to the World Conference on International Telecommunications. We are very proud to be able to welcome you here in the Middle East especially in Dubai. The United Arab Emirates have always been very honored to host such events. We would like to mention the fact that we hosted ITU Telecom World 2012 in October. And we hosted the world telecommunications standardization Assembly and now we are meeting for the World Conference on International Telecommunications.
We are very grateful for the trust that the ITU has demonstrated in us. The United Arab Emirates throughout its history has always been a living example of coexistence between different cultures and races. And from the ideal destination to embrace everyone without exception.
The foundations of the union were laid by late His Highness sheikh p Zayed bin Sheikh Khalifa Bin Zayed Nahyan. He solved a great men issues in the interests of all. This conference was held at a timeline line when we are celebrating the 41st anniversary of our be loved country. We celebrate this under the spirit of our father, the late sheikh. The spirit which establishes our close ties and enable unity and solidarity and reflected spaes and love in our relations with the world and we hope this spirit will prevail in the work of this conference. We aspire today that the same spirit of oush union will facilitate the work of the world conference of the International Telecommunication Union and contribute as much as possible to play the role of consensus between the parties.
The UAE was among the first countries in the region and in the world investing in extensively in ICTs. We would like to provide the best possible services in this area, and we believe that the time has come today to take opportunities before us to ensure that we build a sound knowledge based economy.
We organized a forum on Next Generation Networks in order to accelerate the process of turning the telecommunications sector in the country into a very solid sector and to improve the communications systems and provide enterprises with the next-generation technology.
In this context and in support of the development plans for the state to support the knowledge based economy, it was announced by His Highness, sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid, Vice President and prime Minister and ruler of Dubai to further develop intelligent networks which will depend on the technical skills to acquire knowledge and exchange information using fourth generation networks based on IP, which represents backbone of the initiative. Ladies and gentlemen, we would like to share with you that according -- this recording that we are -- that this conference is being held, where the last conference was held in 1988, in Melbourne, Australia.
So this conference will be a new starting point to redefine our responsibilities and all the people of the world are looking at what we are doing today. Governments, service providers, and users, and we must rise to this challenge and assume our responsibilities.
Ministers, decision makers, and experts have all come together here to discuss the most important ICT issues, which are the very backbone and life blood of the world economy.
This will enable us to build on our achievements so far. The United Arab Emirates are hosting this conference as a stakeholder in this development. And I would like to welcome you yet again to our country.
I hope we will be able to make this into a better world with the tools at our disposal. And I hope that society will not be disappointed. I hope the global community will not be disappointed in us.
I hope we are successful in our work to further prosperity and well being for our people.
Thank you.
(Applause)

>> I now call about Mr. Fadi Chehade', President and CEO of the ICANN to address the delegates. His presence embodies the multi-stakeholder spirit of greater collaboration and coordination between ITU and ICANN and of the Internet ecosystem in general. We really thank him for accepting the Secretary-General's invitation as well as the UAE invitations to join us here today. Mr. Fadi Chehade', please.
(Applause)

>> FADI CHEHADE; Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mohammed Sheikh Khalifa Bin Zayed Nahyan. Dr. Toure', excellencies, Minister, and heads of delegations. Ladies and gentlemen. I am deeply honored to address your distinguished conference today.
Responding to a truly most gracious invitation from Mr. Mohammed the Chairman of the conference, and the ITU Secretary-General, doctor Hamadoun I. Toure'. Thank you.
I sincerely thank both of them on behalf of myself and Dr. Steve Crocker, Chairman of the board of ICANN, who is here with us today, for their invitation to this historic opening ceremony.
I am here because I believe in the power of engagement.
Engagement starts with listening and I'm here for that.
It's a new season of engagement at ICANN and it's a new season of cooperation between ICANN and the ITU, which started recently at a meeting with Dr. Toure' at the IGF in Baku.
I recognize the ITU's deep impact on the development of the telecommunications industry and the broadband infrastructure of which we all benefit every day. Especially in the developing world, the world I come from.
The ITU and ICANN have complementary roles, and moving forward we shall cooperate in good spirit while clearly respecting our distinct roles. I therefore join my fellow organisations, the ISOC, the IETF, the regional Internet registries in our continued deep commitment to service the world's needs for Internet governance.
Allow me to address you now in my mother tongue, Arabic.
When we initiated cooperation with colleagues and brothers in the Arab world, I was delighted to meet the leaders of the Arab delegations here. It was a very fruitful meeting. And we committed ourselves to a period of cooperation and coordination on my own name and on behalf of ICANN. I would like to thank you all for that cooperative spirit, which is extremely positive and I should, too, like to take this opportunity to express my satisfaction and pride to see such an important conference being held in an Arab country, this brother country, the UAE. It is certainly a matter for great pride for all of those of us working in ICTs.
I thank the following. When I started at ICANN, I said we can build organisations either as fortresses or as Oasis.
I invite you to join me in making our organisations open Oasis. The Oasis is welcoming. It's open, it's vital. And that's what I intend to do. Remove the walls. Open the Windows. So that we can all participate together in building organisations that are welcoming, that are transparent, and I'm committed to that in front of all of you.
I wish you the best with your conference. Thank you.
(Applause)
.
>> And thank you to Mr. Fadi Chehade' for sharing his wishes of transparency and working together for the success of the conference.
On this very special time as we celebrate the 41st anniversary of the union of the Arab Emirates, let's take a few minutes to learn something about the history of the union.
Thank you.
(Video)
On December 2, 1971, the trution States gave way to the knewly born United Arab Emirates. Meeting in what was known as the guest palace, the rulers of abby, Dubai, Shaza, Umar quand and Suzara established the independent state of the UEA.
Ras Alqimi joined in February of the following year. Ruler of abda be was elected President of this new country.
Sheikh rach shid been Zayed Maktoum ruler of Dubai was appointed as the UAE's first Vice President and Minister. Together the dignitaries and guests gathered under the world's newest national flag. Today union house stands as a reminder of this successful federation shall with a much larger national flag now flying over this historic landmark.
Looking back, it's amazing how far the United Arab Emirates have progressed in such a short space of time.
It began with pearls. The perl industry was a major source of income for communities on the Arabian peninsula. Tribes men would migrate to the coast during the perling season to work on the fleets putting to sea. The perling Dows would spend many weeks and months gathering oyster s from the sea bed. The industry collapsed in the 19 30 due to the artificial pearls. Coastal communities dependent on fishesing and perling had to find new sources of income. It was shortly after this that the first air links to the region were established. Shaza became a stop over for aircraft enrule from GB, India and on to Australia. Passengers stayed overnight in the Almahada for the. It was practical. Necessary to protect against occasional raids by Bedoinn. Today the site is an aviation museum, displaying aircraft that served the region.
And Shaja has grown from its humble beginnings into a major city. (Sharjah)

These oorj dusty air Industrial Properties evolved into gleaming modern airports, linking the UAE to every major city in the world. Oil was discovered in commercial quantityness 19 58. Development of this abundant resource begin shortly thereafter, 196 2 the SO Dublin loaded the first cargo of crude oil.
In addition to exporting oil, the need to be self sufficient led to the opening of the Ruas oil refinery. On shore and offshore oil production continued to develop throughout the 1960 s.
The oil wealth was put to use improving infrastructure. The City of Abu Dhabi embarked on a wave of construction that saw the island's shoreline dramatically change.
The city's oldest building, Al Hausin or the white forth elected in 1798 was the most prominent landmark in the city. Today the Fort now undergoing restoration is surrounded by the sky scrapers of Abu Dhabi. The city is still growing, worthy of its place among the world's capitals.
With pearls now no longer able to supply vital income, the resilient City of Dubai turned to trade to restore its fortunes. It became a base for commerce throughout the Gulf region. The Dubai creek, tradition assistive technology alley the centre of business was dredged in the early 1960 s to allow larger Dows to navigate the water way. This allowed the city to continue to grow as an important commercial hub. Dows laden did goods are still seen, and an historical link between the old and new. Increasing demand led to the world's largest manmade port ceeing created. The docks are testament to the value role it now plays at centre of regional trade. These successful commercial links brought great change to the City of Dubai. Once crowded narrow alleyways, hardly wide enough to accommodate cam pels and donkeys have turned into highways. And there are record breaking sky scapeers and developments that are the Icons of the city.
In land, in the em RIT of abda by lies the oasis of Laine. It was the base for the p Omani skouts who set out on camel to police the area. They were based at Al Jehili forth which was used as sheikh Zayed the first. Surrounding the forth, the Houses were made from mud brick or palm fronds. Today the forth stands restored and is a popular tourist attraction.
The modern City of Alain and surrounding district expanded to be home to over 380,000 people.
Throughout the country, constant reminders of these links with the past can be found sitting side by side with modern wonders.
Practical has given way to recreational. Forts stand restored as museums. Construction methods have changed. Some things, however, remain the same.
The people of the UAE still remember and honor their past as they move into the future. A reminder of how much has been achieved in such a short space of time.
(Applause) vrnlts Honorable Ministers, excellency, ladies and gentlemen. It is as always a very great pleasure for me to invite the gentleman hose untiring energy has brought us all here together today, the International Telecommunication Union Secretary-General, Dr. Hamadoun I. Toure', to give his inAugust url speech. Dr. Toure, please.
(Applause)

>> HAMADOUN TOURE': Thank you. Request morning to you all.
Excellencies, my dear brother, Mohamed Nasser Al-Ghanum, distinguished Ministers, delegates, my colleagues, elected officials of the union, the Secretary-General Houlin Zhao, directors. Director of Ability, Mr. Brahima Sanou, Director of TSB Mr. Malcolm Johnson, ladies and gentlemen.
What a great history we have seen here today. I would like to congratulate our host for all they have achieved in this 41 years of great history. Ladies and gentlemen, distinguished guests, welcome to the official opening of the World Conference on International Telecommunications, WCIT 12. We are very grateful to be here in Dubai and I would like to thank the Telecommunications Regulatory Authority of United Arab Emirates for the tremendous facilities and efficient staff and support that they have provided to us.
Dubai is one of the most modern cities in the world, a city which has grown to become a wonderful symbol of Emirati culture and progress and a city which can rightly claim to be one of the greatest symbols of human achievement in the modern world.
So let me congratulate the United Arab Emirates on the 41st anniversary, yesterday, on its foundation on 2 December 1971.
Let me take the opportunity to again thank my good friend Fadi Chehade', President and CEO of ICANN, and Dr. Steve Crocker, Chairman of ICANN, who have accepted my invitation to come here. I have invited Fadi to recognize here the impact of ICANN on the development of Internet, and I've said this, this morning in our heads of delegations meeting that I believe we should be reaching out and them accepting here means that they are on the same road. I think if you help us, we can walk the talk and I believe I can count on you and the words that I received when I heard of the acceptance of Fadi Chehade' to this meeting was a testimony of everyone here, believing that it's time to start working together to be complementary and to work together. And I believe we have started the first step of that.
And I would like to count on you here to help us continue in that direction.
I believe it's the right direction. I believe it's the direction that will help us achieve great things for the humanity. The users out there in the world are not waiting for fights among us here. They are looking for results, so that we can help them be together in this knowledge society that we are all dreaming of.
On that note, I would like to take the opportunity to thank my good friend Minister and Senateter Steven conRoy, Minister of Telecommunications in Australia for his presence. Why I'm sing blink out Senator Conroy not only because of the achievement he made in his country, not only because of his contribution to the broadband Commission for the Internet development, but also balls Melbourne was the place for the last conference of the nature. 1988.
I would like to tell Senator Conway that the Melbourne conference has served its purpose. Thanks to the ITRs in 1988, the stage was set. The foundations were laid for the information society we are in today. Because thanks to the ITRs in 1988, the deregulation, privatization, competition, and innovation and growth that came in the 1990 s, ways were founded, and therefore I would like to thank Australia for being the host of such a big conference. This event, the WCIT 12 will bring to a close a most important year, ladies and gentlemen, for ITU. A year which has proved that consensus is the very foundation of harmony. It was a year we started with the world conference in Geneva, an event which achieved consensus on issues vital to the continued advancement of the global ICT sector.
And it was a year which just last week wrapped up in the world telecommunications standardization Assembly here in this room, an event which also successfully demonstrated the true might and power of consensus.
WCIT 12 as the resulting today will fulfill the promise not just of this year but of the entire century and a half of consensus building which makes ITU's history so unique.
Distinguished Delegates, we are here to explore the best ways to ensure that all the world's people can benefit from affordable, equitable access to ICTs.
I will take more time this afternoon of course to discuss this in more detail. But let me just list a few of the most important subjects for discussion where I can see in the proposals made that it is a great promise of being able to achieve compromise based on those proposals made here.
It includes broadband investment, we need to make sure that there is enough investment in the infrastructure to carry the traffic that we see that is going on -- growing in an expo nen shal way, voice, video and data, including the Internet.
Energy efficiency, accessibility, security, how the consequences of unsolicited content, misuse of numbering, roaming, reducing taxtation, how can this industry continue to be heavily taxed while it's the basis for all other industries in times of economic crisis?
Price transparency, the fostering of competitive, and Freedom of Expression that has been mentioned that was a risk of blocking the Freedom of Expression. So we made sure that we are addressing this issue in the very beginning of this conference * so that everyone understands that nothing can stop Freedom of Expression in this world today.
And nothing in this conference will be about that. On the contrary, what we do today here in this conference will enable the access to those people who want to express their Freedom of Expression.
Ladies and gentlemen, what you will notice in this list is that I have not mentioned one thing. Controlling the Internet. I did not mention that. Indeed, we have heard this morning from the President and CEO of ICANN, Fadi Chehade', who was invited as a special guest, along with the Chairman of the board. And I'm pleased that they are here so that we can start working together.
I'm very pleased to see that all stakeholders are very represented here with national delegations comprising representatives from Government, industry, and civil society as well as technical and legal experts and others, making this a fully inclusive conference.
Distinguished Delegates, this is a historic occasion and it is a hisser Rick opportunity asthma hat ma Gandhi said, the future depends on what you do today."
Gandhi also said you must be the change you want to see in the world."
In our debates and deliberations here in Dubai, let us remember the opening words of the charter of the United Nations. "We the people of the United Nations determined to save succeeding generations from the Scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorry to mankind. And to these ends, to practice tolerance and to live together in peace with one another as good neighbors and to unite our strength to maintain peace and security."
And we heard from Ban-Ki Moon, whose work is to ensure that there is peace and stability in this world. We share our desire for security, for our society. Peace for all peoples of the world and prosperity for our children and future generations.
Everyone here has a vital role to play. The Member State delegations include representatives of all stakeholders. There are some very large delegations here and some very small ones. To those smaller delegation, let me remind you of an old African proverb. "If you think you are too small to make a difference, then you have never spent a night with a Mosquito:"
Ladies and gentlemen, this is the most important two weeks in the history of IC it is and it's time for us to work together and we can. Over the past six years, as Secretary-General of ITU, I have had the chance, the privilege, to travel widely across the globe. I have visited countries large and small and I have visited countries rich and poor, and everywhere, everywhere I have traveled, I've dishavediscovered that we all share the same hopes, dreams and aspirations. We are united, wherever we are, wherever we were born or whenever we came from, by a desire for progress. We want to grow. We want to develop. We want to innovate. To aspire to a better life for ourselves, certainly, but even more so for our children and our children's children.
And someone like me, who is lucky to be a grandfather can dream more, better, than the good life for my grandchildren.
We plant the tiny seeds that will grow into mighty trees. We look up to the stores. When you see, you know, there is a saying when you see a blutful flower up there, the roots of the tree are in the mud. * someone needs to do the work. And this has loads of progress and it's part of what makes us human. So Distinguished Delegates, we are here in did you boy to chart the course toward a better future. We are incredibly fortunate to have such a great membership bringing together great minds to a great meeting. We are also incredibly fortunate to be working in a sector, the information and technology sector that does so much to improve the lives of people across the world and which drives sustainable social and economic development. It is true, in the 21st Century, access to communication and information is ee vengs and invaluable. And this is true in the developed world and it is true in the developing world as well. I traveled to some of the world's most underserved countries and I have seen what ICTs really mean for the lives of those who have so little and the opportunities it can create for their children and for future generations. ICTs give people the power to totally transform their lives through education, healthcare and everything else on the online world we can deliver.
We have linked access bing broadband to Millennium Development Goals, to sustainable growth. ICTs also deliver a clear macro and microeconomic benefits. The at the macro economic level, we know that increasing mobile Tele dense see leads to additional GDP growth. This is even more true for increases in broadband penetration which deliver a multiplier effect. We have seen the difference of what can be made by mobile banking N and to the lives of people in southern India, where profits rose by 8 percent and consumer prices fell by 4 percent on average once the fishermen had mobile phones. When you transform individuals, you also transform whole societies and whole economies. *
75 years ago, during the second Inaugural address, President Franklin D. Roosevelt put it very wisely when he said "The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much, it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little."
Ladies and gentlemen, I look forward to the successful outcome of this conference in 12 days' time. I look forward to knowing that we have done the right thing and created an enduring framework to ensure that all the world's people have access to ICTs.
lastz week, I made the statement when the telecommunications mobile infrastructure and Internet work were cut off in Syria. I condemd those actions. I demanded that the Government restore those back immediately. For some of the opponents of this conference, I received from some of them, I received a nice, for the first time, a nice note saying Hamadoun thanks for saying what you said about the Internet. They ignored what I said about the telecommunication and the mobile infrastructure. It was a nice gesture from them, their side, to understand that we are worried about that. I did the same message a year ago when it happened in Egypt. And four years ago, when it happened in Myanmar. I was first to do that.
But what's -- what they have not noted is the fact that there was -- in Syria, the mobile penetration was close to 70 percent. sbu but the Internet penetration is 20 percent. For the 80 percent of the people in Syria, Internet was not cut off because it was simply not there. And tutors of the Hugh -- two-thirds of the human population don't have access to the Internet. And that access, the people here are involved in ensuring that we have that access. That's what this conference is about.
Thank you.
(Applause)

Ladies and gentlemen, I look forward to sharing with you that in the knowledge that we can hold our heads up high for the future generations. Distinguished Delegates, I firmly believe that there are three keys to the success of this conference. They are: Consensus. Consensus. And consensus.
Just last month, I was reminded that while elections are by definition win-lose successful negotiations are always win-win. And that's what this conference is about. Win-win. In the true tradition of ITU. I look forward to seeing how the spirit of consensus, the spirit of compromise and the spirit of multi-stakeholderism will come together to deliver that win-win solution. And I'm confident that each one of us here will do our best to ensure security for our soy site, peace for all nations and prosperity for our children and future generations. Let me close with a quote from Mandella. The time for the healing of wounds has come. The moment to bridge the chasms that divide us has come. The time to build is upon us."
Indeed, the time to build is upon us. We shall succeed.
I thank you very much.
(Applause)
.
>> Thank you very much for that uplifting speech. Our final presentation today will bring to the forefront the global advances made possible by the ICT industry. I hope you enjoy this presentation. Thank you.
(Video) information and communications has come a long way since the first message sent over the Atlanta in 1844 by Sam sul Morris. The need to be in constant touch with our family, colleagues and friends and business associates across the globe has accelerated technology development.
The digital revolution has made the telephone, Internet and social networking an integral part of modern life. Today 86 percent of the global population uses mobile phones. It's interesting that developing countries are fueling the drive for this uptake. There are more than 1.1 billion mobile broadband subscribers now. One-third of the world's population is online. That's a staggering 2.3 billion people. 45 percent of them are below the age of 25. What turns me on about the digital age is that you have closed the gap between dreaming and doing. Bono of YouTube said that, information and communications technology, ICT, helps individuals and organisations at different levels. In fact, ICT has purveyeded all facets of our personal and business life. For starters, it keeps us connected. ICT enables effortless exchange of ideas. It facilitates learning at one's own pace, place and time. Networking is yet another benefit. It makes shopping and eCommerce possible. Travel is easier than ever before. Entertainment is virtually at your finger tips. Businesses are able to function more efficiently and profitably, fueled by timely information.
Even fields such as healthcare, banking, security, transportation, and echo conservation have benefited from ICT. The UAE has always been an early adapter of technology. It has built a vibrant communications environment by providing infrastructure, competitive service providers, and set up a regulatory authority, the TRA, since 2003.
The UAE currently has 2 million fixed lines and that figure is increasing. Mobile subscriptions total 13 million subscribers. Information and communications technology, ICT, has played an important part of the average growth and development. The United Arab Emirates is proud to be Heralding in the information and communications realm. Why we're bringing the world together, to define the future of ICT in the last quarter of 2012.
Welcome to the future! Welcome to the UAE. Welcome to Telecom World Dubai. 2010.
(Applause).
>> Honorable Ministers, excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, the opening ceremony is coming to a close. Before taking leave, I would like to remind the press that there is a press conference at 12:30 in room D. That is room D for Dubai. At 2:30 we will invite everyone back to this room for the first plenary session. And finally, we look forward to seeing you all this evening at Jumar beach hotel for the welcoming reception. Honorable Minister, excellency, ladies and gentlemen, on behalf of the ITU and TRA, I would like to wish you all a very successful conference.
Thank you ever.
(Applause)

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/transcript-of-the-opening-ceremony-wcit-2012

List of Chairman and Members of CRAC

snehashish — 2012-12-02T06:22:25Z

Notification on the constitution of the "Cyber Regulation Advisory Committee"

LIST OF CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF CYBER REGULATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE

NOTIFICATION[1]

17th October, 2000

In exercise of the powers conferred by section 88 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000) the Central Government hereby constitute the “Cyber Regulation Advisory Committee”, consisting of the following, namely: –

1. [2][Minister, Communication and Information Technology] - Chairman

2. Secretary, Legislative Department - Member

3. Secretary, [3][Ministry of Communication and Information Technology, Department of Information Technology] - Member

4. Secretary, Department of Telecommunications - Member

5. Finance Secretary - Member

6. Secretary, Ministry of Defence - Member

7. Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs - Member

8. Secretary, Ministry of Commerce - Member

9. Deputy Governor, Reserve Bank of India - Member

10. Shri T.K. Vishwanathan, Presently Member Secretary, Law Commission - Member [sic]

11. President, NASSCOM - Member

12. President, Internet Service Provider Association - Member

13. Director, Central Bureau of Investigation - Member

14. Controller of Certifying Authority - Member

15. Information Technology Secretary by rotation from the States - Member

16. Director General of Police by rotation from the States - Member

17. Director, IIT by rotation from the IITs - Member

18. Representative of CII - Member

19. Representative of FICCI - Member

20. Representative of ASSOCHAM - Member

21. [4][Scientist “6”, Department of Information Technology] - Member Secretary

2. Travelling Allowance/Dear Allowance, as per the Central Government rules, for non-official members shall be borne by the Ministry of Communication and Information Technology, Department of Information Technology.

3. The Committee may co-opt any person as member based on specific meetings

_______________________

[1] Vide G.S.R. 790(E), dated 17th October, 2000

[2] Subs. by G.S.R. 839(E), dated 23rd December, 2004 for “Minister, Information Technology”.

[3] Subs. by G.S.R. 839(E), dated 23rd December, 2004 for “Minister, Information Technology”.

[4] Subs. by G.S.R. 839(E), dated 23rd December, 2004 for “Senior Director, Ministry of Information Technology”

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/chairman-and-members-of-crac

Comments on the Science, Technology and Innovation Policy (Draft)

snehashish — 2012-12-01T15:36:38Z

The Department of Science and Technology invited public comments on the Science, Technology and Innovation Policy (Draft). Accordingly, the Centre for Internet and Society has made the following comments on the draft policy document.

Department of Science and Technology,
Ministry of Science and Technology,
Government of India

Subject: Comments on the Science, Technology and Innovation Policy (Draft)

Dear Sir/Madam,

We at the Centre for Internet and Society commend the drafting of the Science, Technology and Innovation Policy 2013 (Draft). It is a well rounded policy which will pave the way for further informed policy decisions on innovation and research and development in the country.

Few of the notable and welcome policy statements are:

The Policy aims at ‘inclusive innovation’ and takes into consideration the “need to ensure access, availability and affordability of solutions to as large a population as possible”. It also aims at building a conducive environment for research and development by modifying the IPR policy to include marching rights with respect to social goods funded by public. This in line with the aim of the policy to provide access new technologies. The use of government funding in commercially viable research would not only assure better access to medicine and other technological innovations but also ensure knowledge transfer.

The policy decision to "foster data sharing and access" is most welcome and will act as a catalyst for further research and development through open and collaborative research and development.

Policy also lays emphasis on open source discoveries for "public and social good" and it is indeed a pleasure to note that the Policy wishes to build knowledge commons by collaborative generation of IPR. This will definitely go a long way in encouraging further innovation in the country.

It is also appreciated that the policy will aim at "increasing accessibility, availability and affordability of innovations" and will establish a fund for innovation in this direction.

The Policy also states that the "people" and "decision makers" should be made aware of the implications of emerging technologies, including their ethical, social and economic dimensions. Implementation of such policy is a necessity and will enable the government to make informed policy decisions in the future.

Suggestion:

It is submitted that the policy document should take into account that in order ensure ‘inclusive innovation’ and accessibility, the policy should specifically include mandates to encourage and foster innovation in technology related to accessibility tools for persons with disabilities.www.dst.gov.in/sti-policy.pdf

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/comments-on-science-technology-and-innovation-policy-draft

Section 66F of the Information Technology Act, 2000

snehashish — 2012-12-02T09:39:01Z

Section 66F: Punishment for cyber terrorism.

1[66-F. Punishment for cyber terrorism.—(1) Whoever,—

(A) with intent to threaten the unity, integrity, security or sovereignty of India or to strike terror in the people or any section of the people by—

(i) denying or cause the denial of access to any person authorised to access computer resource; or

(ii) attempting to penetrate or access a computer resource without authorisation or exceeding authorised access; or

(iii) introducing or causing to introduce any computer contaminant,

and by means of such conduct causes or is likely to cause death or injuries to persons or damage to or destruction of property or disrupts or knowing that it is likely to cause damage or disruption of supplies or services essential to the life of the community or adversely affect the critical information infrastructure specified under Section 70; or

(B) knowingly or intentionally penetrates or accesses a computer resource without authorisation or exceeding authorised access, and by means of such conduct obtains access to information, data or computer database that is restricted for reasons of the security of the State or foreign relations; or any restricted information, data or computer database, with reasons to believe that such information, data or computer database so obtained may be used to cause or likely to cause injury to the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence, or to the advantage of any foreign nation, group of individuals or otherwise,

commits the offence of cyber terrorism.

(2) Whoever commits or conspires to commit cyber terrorism shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to imprisonment for life.]

1. Inserted by Act 10 of 2009, Section 32 (w.e.f. 27-10-2009)

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/section-66f-of-the-i-t-act-2000