Centre for Internet and Society

Where's My Data? Submission for Knight News Challenge 2015

sumandro — 2015-10-05T15:00:16Z

We are very excited to be contribute to a join submission with DataMeet and Oorvani for the Knight News Challenge 2015. We are proposing "an application for users to search for locally-relevant data, discuss missing data, demand data, explore and respond to data demands by others, and start data crowd-sourcing exercises." Please go to the submission page and support our project. The text of the proposal is available below. It was prepared by Nisha Thompson of DataMeet, Meera K of Oorvani, and I. The 'Where's My Data' banner is created by Nisha using icons from the Noun Project.

Please support our project by visiting and 'applauding' it on the Knight News Challenge website: https://www.newschallenge.org/challenge/data/entries/where-s-my-data. You will have to log in to the website though, apologies for that.

Where's My Data? Search, Demand, and Collect Data

In one sentence, describe your idea as simply as possible.

An application for users to search for locally-relevant data, discuss missing data, demand data, explore and respond to data demands by others, and start data crowd-sourcing exercises.

Full Description

The proposed application aims to solve two key problems in accessing reliable data faced by citizens, journalists, and researchers. The first problem is knowing where a required data set can be found, and the second problem is collecting the required data set if it does not exist in the first place.

Many individual initiatives have been developed to collect specific data. For example, Powercuts (http://powercuts.in/) was a Ushahidi installation to crowd-source data using Twitter, Kiirti (http://www.kiirti.org/) was used to map complaints about auto drivers, IChangeMyCity (http://www.ichangemycity.com/) is a platform that collects general complaints from around Bangalore. However, these apps were either short lived because they could not sustain their one premise or they do not give insight into what people want to know and what data is important to them. Also, they often did not open up this data to be used by others, beyond visualisations offered on the sites.

Citizens have many questions regarding their urban surroundings - how much water is coming to the neighbourhood daily, where are the waste pick up trucks, what is the status of a road repairing process, etc, the answers require data that either is difficult to get or doesn't answer their query in the way they want. Journalists and researchers are also interested in collecting and analysing these same data sets. A one off platform for one issue won't properly represent the demand for information in modern day (data starved) India.

For example, a local residents’ group wanted to impress on their elected rep the seriousness of the incidence of a disease, as the local government was not taking concrete steps to manage the emerging epidemic. In the absence of official data on suspected cases of illness, this application could help them to reach out through e-mails and social media networks to do a quick survey on how many residents or their family members have got affected.

The application will not only make it easier to undertake such crowd-sourcing efforts, but also to share the data back and make it open for usage by others, including journalists and researchers.

We are already building an Urban Open Data Platform for Bengaluru, India. The application will allow searching this portal and any other such portal, especially if any is developed by the municipality. It will also pipe the crowd-sourced data to this Urban Open Data Platform.

This tool will reduce duplication of data gathering, gives data a longer shelf life and acts as a source of public data that feeds into a city-wide urban Open Data Portal under development by a consortium that we are part of.

How will the Application Work?

The application will allow the user to search for data across the data catalogues connected to the application.
If the data is not found, the user can post details about the required data, which other users in her/his networks can see and comment on. They can either point the person towards an existing data set, or support the need to collect the data being demanded.
When the user finds out that the data set s/he needs does not exist, the application will allow her/him to start a crowd-sourcing exercise, using various channels such as e-mails, social media posts, web-based questionnaires, etc.
For each of these channels, a separate plug-in will be developed so as to open up the software development process. For this project, we will focus on developing plug-ins for two channels: 1) questionnaires integrated with the Citizen Matters website, and 2) use tweets to collect replies using a unique hashtag.
User can share the crowd-sourcing request within her/his own social networks, or use one of the groups (say, the Citizen Matters group focusing on local journalism, or the DataMeet group focusing on open data enthusiasts in the city) to share their calls for data collection.

Briefly Describe the Need that You're Trying to Address

A common cry in Indian cities is the lack of datasets required to understand issues, either at local or at national scales. This tool will be the place to voice demands, ask others about potential sources, or an easy way to create data sourcing activities.This will enable journalists, advocacy organisations, and researchers to search for data and help others to find the data they are looking for. It also records demands for non-existing data and helps take initiatives to collect such data.

What Progress have You Made so Far?

The team is already working on an Urban Open Data Platform, that will host public data, and a data catalog. We have already executed a few crowd-sourcing projects, and helped develop tools for journalists and researchers interested in civic issues.A data source search tool has been in development in the form of Open Data JSON <https://github.com/datameet/opendata.json>. A Bangalore focused data catalog has been in use for awhile as well and provides a base of data to use for people’s search <http://openbangalore.org>.

What would be a Successful Outcome for Your Project?

Success for this project means having a better understanding of what information is needed most by people and what data is required. We will gain detailed evidence regarding what kind of data people want. This entails a collection of questions, who is asking and from where, and what data gaps exist. The number of crowdsourcing projects initiated shows the intensity of the need, and how comfortable citizens are asking for data and proactively starting a data collection project.

Please List your Team Members and their Relevant Experience/Skills

Meera K, Oorvani Foundation, a media group who will provide editorial support to curate data, dissemination of data or queries, and audience reach. Nisha Thompson and Thejesh GN, from DataMeet, open data community, who will provide the technology and community aspects of the tool. Sumandro Chattapadhyay of the Centre for Internet and Society, will help planning the project and linking the effort with other Indian and global initiatives in open data and development.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/raw/wheres-my-data-submission-for-knight-news-challenge-2015

APU Grant Proposal 2015 - Isochrene

sumandro — 2015-10-01T05:53:20Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/raw/apu-grant-proposal-2015-isochrene

International Open Data Charter: Comments by CIS

sumandro — 2015-09-08T11:01:01Z

The second meeting of Stewards of the International Open Data Charter is in progress in Santiago, Chile, where the revisions made to the Charter based on the comments received during the public consultation period that ended on July 31, 2015, are being re-discussed and finalised by the Stewards. Here we are sharing the comments submitted by us on the first public draft of the Charter published during the International Open Data Conference in Ottawa, Canada, in May 2015. The comments include those submitted by Sumandro and Sharath Chandra Ram.

The draft International Open Data Charter and all the submitted comments can be accessed here: http://opendatacharter.net/charter/

Comments on the Public Draft

Note: The text below contains excerpts from the public draft of the Charter, followed by submitted comments in bold.

1) The world is witnessing the growth of a global movement facilitated by technology and digital media and fuelled by information – one that contains enormous potential to create more accountable, efficient, responsive, and effective governments and businesses, and to spur economic growth.

The word ‘movement’ can perhaps be replaced by ‘transformation.’ ‘Movement’ tends to suggest some kind of unity of purpose or objective, which is not perhaps what is meant here. Also, is it possible to add ‘transparent’ to ‘accountable, efficient, responsive, and effective’?

Open data sit at the heart of this global movement.

Perhaps ‘transformation’ and not ‘movement’.

2) Building a more democratic, just, and prosperous society requires transparent, accountable governments that engage regularly and meaningfully with citizens. Accordingly, there is an ongoing effort to enable collaboration around key social challenges, to provide effective oversight of government activities, to support economic development through innovation, and to develop effective, efficient public policies and programmes.

Perhaps insert ‘sustainable’ before ‘economic development’. In the second sentence, none of the action phrases (‘enable collaboration’ and ‘effective oversight’ and ‘innovation’ and ‘develop effective, efficient’) are speaking about either democracy or justice. The focus seems to be completely on effectiveness. Phrases like ‘transparent’, ‘accountable’, and ‘participatory’ should be introduced here.

Open data is essential to meeting these challenges.

The above point clarifies why ‘data is essential’ but not why ‘open data is essential’. The connection between democracy and justice on one hand, and open data on the other is not yet articulated clearly.

3) Effective access to data allows individuals and organisations to develop new insights and innovations that can generate social and economic benefits to improve the lives of people around the world, and help to improve the flow of information within and between countries. While governments collect a wide range of data, they do not always share these data in ways that are easily discoverable, useable, or understandable by the public.

Along with allowing ‘insights’ and ‘innovations’ to develop, can it also be highlighted that open data make decisions and processes transparent?

This is a missed opportunity.

I agree with above comments that it is perhaps better to articulate this not as ‘missed opportunity’ but to highlight this as the very ‘opportunity’ that the open data agenda is interested in capturing.

4) Today, many people expect to be able to access high quality information and services, including government data, when and how they want. Others see the opportunity presented by government data as one which can provide innovative policy solutions and support economic and social benefits for all members of society. We have arrived at a point at which people can use open data to generate value, insights, ideas, and services to create a better world for all.

This point may also mention that some people are interested in using government data to open up government decisions and processes and make them transparent, which is a necessary condition for making the government accountable.

6) Providing access to government data can drive sustainable and inclusive growth by empowering citizens, the media, civil society, and the private sector to identify gaps, and work toward better outcomes for public services in areas such as health, education, public safety, environmental protection, and governance. Open data can do this by:

Perhaps ‘democratic participation’ can be added after ‘sustainable and inclusive growth’. That is: ‘Providing access to government data can drive sustainable and inclusive growth, and democratic participation, by empowering citizens…’

7) Open government data can be used in innovative ways to create useful tools and products that help to navigate modern life more easily. Used in this way, open data are a catalyst for innovation in the private sector, supporting the creation of new markets, businesses, and jobs. These benefits can multiply as more private sector and civil society organisations adopt open data practices modelled by government and share their own data with the public.

The incentive for private sector and CSOs to open up data is not clear. Overall benefit may rise with them opening up data, but how does a private company / CSO benefit by opening up its data?

8) We, the adherents to the International Open Data Charter, agree that open data are an under-used resource with huge potential to encourage the building of stronger, more interconnected societies that better meet the needs of our citizens and allow innovation and prosperity to flourish.

Along with ‘stronger’ and ‘more interconnected’, please mention ‘more transparent’ and ‘more democratic’. Also it is not clear what is meant by ‘stronger’. ‘[B]etter meet the needs of our citizens’ does not necessarily suggest a more democratic or just society, but a more effective welfare distribution system. Please add ‘… and empower the citizens to ensure accountability of the government.’

9) We therefore agree to follow a set of principles that will be the foundation for access to, and the release and use of, open government data. These principles are:

Open Data by Default;
Quality and Quantity;
Accessible and Useable by All;
Engagement and Empowerment of Citizens;
Collaboration for Development and Innovation

Does it makes sense to remove the ‘Quantity and Quality’ point and merging it with ‘Accessible and Usable by All’? Data quantity and quality issues, along with those related to publication of data, can all logically follow under the topic of data access and use. For example, highly aggregated data published once a year without documentation is not really usable data.

10) We will develop an action plan in support of the implementation of the Charter and its Technical Annexes, and will update and renew the action plan at a minimum of every two years. We agree to commit the necessary resources to work within our political and legal frameworks to implement these principles in accordance with the technical best practices and timeframes set out in our action plan.

We (at CIS) strongly feel that the Charter should also prescribe that along with the national Action Plan, Open Data Citizen’s Charters are created for various levels and verticals of the government. This will clarify data publication responsibilities and targets at ministerial and sub-national (including city) governmental levels, and will allow for much more effective monitoring (national and international) of the Action Plan implementation process.

‘[A]t a minimum of every two years’ reads a bit unclear. Does it mean that the Action Plan should be renewed only after two years and not before, or that the Action Plan should be renewed every two years or before that?

11) We recognise that free access to, and the subsequent use of, government data are of significant value to society and the economy, and that government data should, therefore, be open by default.

Along with clarifying the scope of ‘government data,’ the idea of ‘open’ in the context of data needs a clear definition as an independent point. The document is getting into ‘open by default’ without clarifying what is ‘open’, including both necessary and sufficient conditions.

12) We acknowledge the need to promote the global development and adoption of tools and policies for the creation, use, and exchange of open data and information.

I agree with Mike Linksvayer. This is a great opportunity for the Charter to connect the open data agenda with the wider open agendas, especially that of free and open source softwares. It is very important that this point promotes ‘global development of free and open source tools’.

Extending the comment by Jose Subero, along with ‘tools’ and ‘policies’, it will be great to have a mention of ‘standards’ here, which is critical for ensuring ‘interoperability’ and thus ‘harmonisation’.

13) We recognise that the term ‘government data’ is meant in the widest sense possible. This could apply to data held by national, federal, and local governments, international government bodies, and other types of institutions in the wider public sector. This could also apply to data created for governments by external organisations, and data of significant benefit to the public which is held by external organisations and related to government programmes and services (e.g. data on extractives entities, data on transportation infrastructure, etc).

It is wonderful that the point promotes a wide understanding of ‘government data’ but at the same time it should also define a necessary core understanding of data, just to ensure that governments do not interpret this point too narrowly.

Further, a focus only on data created by public agencies can perhaps be too narrow (for the necessary/core understanding of ‘government data’). With public services delivered increasingly by private agencies and public-private-partnerships, it is crucial that ‘government data’ should explicitly include any data coming out of a process funded by public money (the process may be carried out by a public agency or not). This is an extremely important point from a developing country perspective.

14) We recognise that there is domestic and international legislation, in particular pertaining to security, privacy, confidentiality, intellectual property, and personally-identifiable and other sensitive information, which must be observed and/or updated where necessary.

From a developing country perspective, it is very important that the Charter does not keep this critical point dependent on domestic and international legislations. International legislation may not be very developed for all of the mentioned topics, and many countries may not have existing domestic legislations on these topics either. The Charter should mention an internationally acceptable list of concerns / criteria for not opening up data. The list may include the topics mentioned here, like privacy and national security. This need not be a list of sufficient criteria, but of necessary ones.

15) We will:

develop and adopt policies and practices to ensure that all government data is made open by default, as outlined in this Charter, while recognising that there are legitimate reasons why some data cannot be released;

'Administrative reforms’ are most often crucial to make government data ‘open by default, and the same should be mentioned along with ‘policies’ and ‘practices’.

provide clear justifications as to why certain data cannot be released;

This is a great point. Perhaps it can be added that all government agencies should produce a list of all data assets maintained by them, point out the ones that cannot be made open, and provide clear justification as to why those cannot be released. This comment pre-empts 19.1. Perhaps this point about providing justification for not releasing data can be merged with 19.1.

develop the leadership, management, oversight, and internal communication policies necessary to enable this transition to a culture of openness.

Along with ‘leadership, management, oversight, and internal communication’, is it possible to add ‘incentives’? This is often overlooked in implementing open data policies.

16) We recognise that governments and other public sector organisations hold vast amounts of information that may be of interest to citizens, and that it may take time to identify data for release or publication.

17) We also recognise the importance of consulting with citizens, other governments, non-governmental organisations, and other open data users, to identify which data to prioritise for release and/or improvement.

18) We agree, however, that governments’ primary responsibility should be to release data in a timely manner, without undue delay.

Points 16-18 seem to suggest that the ‘quantity and quality’ issue is mostly one of prioritisation. This can be misleading. This is perhaps the ‘quantity’ issue, but not at all the ‘quality’ issue.

19) We will:

...
release high-quality open data that are timely, comprehensive, and accurate in accordance with prioritisation that is informed by public requests. To the extent possible, data will be released in their original, unmodified form and at the finest level of granularity available, and will also be linked to any visualisations or analyses created based on the data, as well as any relevant guidance or documentation;

Please add ‘human- and machine-readable’ along with ‘timely, comprehensive, and accurate’.

Put ‘, and’ between ‘, and accurate’ and ‘in accordance’.

‘Relevant guidance or documentation’ should be mentioned before, and not after, ‘visualisations or analyses’.

ensure that accompanying documentation is written in clear, plain language, so that it can be easily understood by all;

Add that the documentation should be ‘comprehensive’, along with being written in plain language.

make sure that data are fully described, and that data users have sufficient information to understand their source, strengths, weaknesses, and any analytical limitations;

Regarding ‘Full description of data’ — Aggregate data must be accompanied by low level raw data along with details of analytical methods used to arrive at figures. This allows for verification as well as alternate views and detection of statistical anomalies.

ensure that open datasets include consistent core metadata, and are made available in human- and machine-readable formats under an open and unrestrictive licence;

Is this the necessary definition of ‘open data’? If so, it should be much higher up.

allow users to provide feedback, and continue to make revisions to ensure the quality of the data is improved as needed; and

This point should clarify if it is talking about making revisions of the data itself (its content), or how it is being published (its form), or both?

apply consistent information lifecycle management practices, and ensure historical copies of datasets are preserved, archived, and kept accessible as long as they retain value.

The ‘as long as they retain value’ part seems vague. Who is going to take this decision about value? Is it possible to rephrase this as ‘as long as they are demanded by data users’?

21) We recognise that open data should be made available free of charge in order to encourage their widest possible use.

Maybe ‘government data’ and not ‘open data’ (open data already means it is available gratis). Also, along with ‘free of charge’ maybe add ‘under open license’, as that is a critical requirement for ‘widest possible use.’

22) We recognise that when open data are released, they should be made available without bureaucratic or administrative barriers, such as mandatory user registration, which can deter people from accessing the data.

I strongly believe that this point should be removed. Registration of the data user can also be very useful for the government agencies to track demand and actual usage of their datasets. Instead of the government agencies doing such kind of tracking as a background process, it is much better if the data usage monitoring of all users is done transparently. Along with perhaps a public dashboard of data usages of the users of an open data portal. As long as the registration barrier does not involve an approval process by the government agency, it can be allowed.

A more general point should be added as part of this principle, regarding no-discrimination (or approval process) among data users interested in accessing and using of open government data.

23) We will:

release data in open formats and free of charge to ensure that the data are available to the widest range of users to find, access, and use them. In many cases, this will include providing data in multiple formats, so that they can be processed by computers and used by people; and

Please add ‘open license’ along with ‘open formats’ and ‘free of charge’.

24) We recognise that the release of open data strengthens our public and democratic institutions, encourages better development, implementation, and assessment of policies to meet the needs of our citizens, and enables more meaningful, better informed engagement between governments and citizens.

Perhaps add ‘, and makes them transparent’ after ‘strengthens our public and democratic institutions’. Please also add ‘monitoring’ along with ‘development, implementation, and assessment’.

25) We will:

implement oversight and review processes to report regularly on the progress and impact of our open data initiatives;

The functioning of these ‘oversight and review processes’ must be open and transparent themselves. The reporting should be public.

engage with community and civil society representatives working in the domain of transparency and accountability to determine what data they need to effectively hold governments to account; encourage the use of open data to develop innovative, evidence-based policy solutions that benefit all members of society, as well as empower marginalised groups; and

This must also include a point regarding the government proactively seeking data demands from citizens, CSOs, academics, and the private sector.

‘as well as empower marginalised groups’ is too vague. Perhaps it can be made into a separate point, and qualified with what kinds of empowerment is needed – from demanding data, to accessing and using data, to be aware of the data collected from such groups by the government agencies.

be transparent about our own data collection, standards, and publishing processes, by documenting all of these related processes online.

This should be part of point 19.

26) We recognise the importance of diversity in stimulating creativity and innovation. The more citizens, governments, civil society, and the private sector use open data, the greater the social and economic benefits that will be generated. This is true for government, commercial, and non-commercial uses.

The diversity point is almost already made with points 20-21 – widest possible users lead to widest possible use.

28) We will:

...
engage with civil society, the private sector, and academic representatives to determine what data they need to generate social and economic value;

This is also covered under the Principle 3.

provide training programs, tools, and guidelines designed to ensure government employees are capable of using open data effectively in policy development processes;

This should be part of Principle 1.

encourage non-governmental organisations to open up data created and collected by them in order to move toward a richer open data ecosystem with multiple sources of open data;

I agree with ABS. Why not ‘non-governmental organisations and the private sector’?

Also the document shifts back and forth between ‘civil society organisations’ and ‘non-governmental organisations’. If both mean the same in this document, then it should use only one.

General Comments on the Charter

1. Why not merge the Principle 4 and 5 so as to describe an overall situation of engagement and collaboration. The ends can be commercial acts or towards democratic practices, but the existing principles do not make much a difference between the two types of acts.

2. Further, can a new principle be added at the end that would address the implementation process of the Action Plan? Specifically, it should clarify how the implementation itself be an open process, with not only the Action Plan but annual reports regarding the status of implementation. This principle may connect to the work being done by the Implementation WG.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/international-open-data-charter-comments-by-cis

Blog

sumandro — 2015-08-30T06:52:42Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/blog

Research

sumandro — 2019-12-30T17:39:31Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/raw/research

Workshop on Open Data for Human Development - Sessions Report

sumandro — 2015-08-28T08:16:09Z

CIS facilitated a workshop on open data policy and tools for government officials from Sikkim, Meghalaya, and Tripura, and those from Bhutan and Maldives, in June 2015. The workshop was co-facilitated with Akvo, DataMeet, and Mapbox, and was supported by International Centre for Human Development of UNDP India. Here we share the workshop report and other related documents. The report is written by Sumandro, along with Amitangshu Acharya of Akvo.

Day 01, June 03, 2015

The first day of the workshop began with Mr. Prem Das Rai, Honourable MP, Loksabha, Sikkim, briefly addressing the participants. He contextualised the workshop against the background of technological changes and emerging opportunities of governance through effective usages of data. Dr. A.K. Shiva Kumar, Director of the International Centre for Human Development (IC4HD), UNDP India, welcomed the participants and initiated a panel discussion on data, ICTs and governance. The panel had three speakers: Mr. Srivatsa Krishna, IAS and Secretary, Department of Information Technology, Biotechnology, and Science and Technology, Government of Karnataka; Dr. B. Gangaiah, Additional Director General, Centre for Good Governance, Hyderabad; and Sunil Abraham, Executive Director, the Centre for Internet and Society, Bengaluru and Delhi.

Mr. Krishna spoke about the strategies adopted in setting up IT and ITES clusters in Cyberabad, Andhra Pradesh and in Bengaluru, Karnataka. He noted that tax cuts and accelerated land allocation are key to incentivising the private sector to set up IT and ITES units. Another major concern is that of ensuring supply of good quality IT workers. He also emphasised on the need for governments to build effective public facing electronic services - either in the form of Nemmadi Kendras, where people can physically go to access various government services, or in the form of mobile applications that bring different civic services into one digital interface, like Bangalore One and Karnataka Mobile One.

Dr. Gangaiah gave an extensive overview of the idea and applications of open data in the contexts of governance and development. He noted that government data (in India) often suffers from criticisms related to quality, as well as the lack of availability of the same in public domain. The key problems, he identified, for opening up government data in India are that most often the data is collected by a government agency for a very specific purpose, and the steps required to ensure wider circulation and use of the same is not taken (such as lack of documentation and interoperability of data); and that the government agencies most often consider the collected data as a source of power, and hence as something to be retained and not disclosed in full details. The slides from Dr. Gangaiah’s presentation can be accessed here.

Mr. Abraham’s presentation highlighted several areas of concern when deploying data-driven techniques and solutions for human development challenges. He described how the current phase of open data discussions by central and state governments in India represent the third phase of ‘openness’ in governance in India. While the first phase focused on usage of Free/Libre Open Source Softwares in building electronic governance applications and information systems, the second phase involved embracing of open software standards and formats across government information systems and IT solutions. It is very important to note that with the third phase of openness focusing on opening up of data and information, both of these earlier foci of free and open source softwares, and open standards and interoperability are returning as complementary components to ensure seamless publication of open government data. However, he argued, when deploying data-driven techniques and solutions for human development challenges, it is imperative to remember three things: 1) collection of data is a time- and effort-consuming task, and hence must be optimised so as to not to take away time and effort from actual developmental interventions, 2) bad quality of development data is a structural problem, often emanating from the data being not useful to the person actually collecting it, and 3) availability of data does not automatically change or open up the process of decision-making.

The second session of the day started with a detailed presentation by Mr. T. Samdup, Joint Director, Department of Information Technology, Government of Sikkim, on the context, the making, and the salient features of the Sikkim Open Data Acquisition and Accessibility Policy (SODAAP), 2014. He explained that the Policy mandates setting up of an online state data portal that will host all data sets generated by various agencies of the Government of Sikkim, and making such data available, subject to concerns of privacy and security, across all state government agencies and the citizens in general. The key needs driving this Policy have been that for availability of accurate and timely data on various aspects of human development in the state, as well as for reducing expenses and confusions due to duplication of data collection efforts. The slides from Mr. Samdup’s presentation can be accessed here.

The presentation by Mr. Samdup was followed by one by Mr. Sumandro Chattapadhyay of the Centre for Internet and Society on an initial set of questions and concerns that should be addressed by the implementation plan of the SODAAP. He took a detailed look at the four objectives mentioned in the Policy document, and discussed what tasks, decisions, and deliberations are needed to achieve each of those. In conclusion, he listed a set of core components of the implementation process that must also be discussed in the implementation plan document, namely: 1) governance and oversight structure for implementation, 2) incentivising government personnel for opening up data across departments, including financial support for the same, 3) metadata, documentation of data collection process, and implementing unique identifiers, and 4) developing processes of sharing of data between the Union and the state government, especially in reference to national Management Information Systems. The slides from Mr. Chattapadhyay’s presentation can be accessed here.

These presentations were followed by a general discussion on various aspects of the SODAAP and the challenges to be overcome during its implementation. This session provided a general introduction to the SODAAP, especially for workshop participants who are not from Sikkim, and also set up the key questions to be discussed and answered while preparing the first draft of the SODAAP implementation plan.

After the second session ended, the participants were asked to individually write down the key challenges they identify for the implementation process of SODAAP. These responses were compiled by Sumandro and made available as a reference document for the implementation plan. The chart below summarises these responses.

In the third session of the day, Joy Ghosh and Amitangshu Acharya of Akvo talked about the challenges of collecting structured born-digital data from the grassroots level, and how using mobile-based applications, like Akvo FLOW, can address such challenges. Akvo FLOW runs on all Android-based smartphones, and allows ground level development workers to directly feed data into the phone, as well as collect related materials like GPS location and photographs, based upon a form that is centrally designed and downloaded into their phones by the development workers. The data is then kept in the phone till it is sent back to the main server, where data coming from all different surveyors using the same form is shown on a map-based interface for easy navigation of the data across space and time. In this session, Mr. Acharya first introduced the participants to the issues around digital data collection, touching upon issues of ethics, capacity, prioritisation of data collection process along with tools. Mr. Ghosh then took over to describe the functioning of the tool, and then distributed several smartphones, pre-loaded with Akvo FLOW, among the participants for an applied data collection exercise where the participants walked around the NIAS campus and collected data using the FLOW interface. They returned to see their data mapped and analysed on the online dashboard. Their presentation can be accessed here.

Day 02, June 04, 2015

The second day started with two consecutive presentations by Mr. Thejesh GN of DataMeet, and Mr. Sivaram Ramachandran of Mapbox on the tools and techniques for working with statistical data and with geospatial data, respectively. The former presentation took the participants through the stages of working with statistical data: from collecting and finding data, to cleaning and validating, and finally analysing the data. Various free and open source tools for each of these stages were also discussed in brief, such as PDF Tables and Tabula for converting PDF tables to spreadsheets, Open Refine for cleaning data, and RAW and DataWrapper for generating web-based dynamic charts. The latter presentation explored the various ways in which geospatial data can be used to inform and support decision-making, and the tools that can be used to render and present geospatial data in forms that are accessible for decision-makers within government and also for individual users. Mr. Ramachandran presented the various free and open source tools available for working with geospatial data, such as Mapbox Studio, Quantum GIS, and Leaflet JS. He also gave a brief introduction to OpenStreetMap, the wiki-like user-contributed global map data platform. Both the presentations can be accessed here and here, respectively. After this session, the participants were divided into two groups. One group engaged further with tools and techniques of working with statistical and geospatial data. The second group took part in a series of exercises to identify and document the current data flows and bottlenecks thereof across several key departments of Government of Sikkim.

The group engaging in applications of various software tools for working with statistical and geospatial data was facilitated by Mr. Thejesh and Mr. Ramachandran. This group worked with a sample statistical data set, taking it across the stages of finding, cleaning, analysing, and visualising as discussed earlier. The participants used the online version of Tableau to create dynamic charts. Afterwards, they were introduced to various methods of contributing and downloading data from the OpenStreetMap, including directly adding data points through the online editor named iD. The participants went out in the NIAS campus to collect geospatial data about various natural and human-made features of the campus, such as trees, pathways, etc.

The second group working on documenting data flows and identifying bottlenecks was facilitated by Mr. Chattapadhyay, Mr. Acharya, and Ms. Rajashi Mukherjee from Akvo. The group was further divided into department-wise teams, one each for the Department of Health, the Department of Economic Statistics, Monitoring, and Evaluation (DESME), the Human Resource Development Department (HRDD), and representatives from Gram Panchayat Units. The exercise began with each of the teams discussing and drawing the flow of data for one of the major data set maintained by the agency concerned. The data flows were drawn by identifying key moments of its processing (such as primary collection, verification, digitisation, analysis, storage, reporting, etc.), the actors involved in that moment, the tools and data formats relevant for each moment, and which agency finally stores and uses the data. Once these processes were described on paper, the next part of the exercise focused on identifying which challenges exist at which part of these data flows. This was followed up by a ranking of all these challenges, in terms of how critically they affect the ability of the agency concerned to use and share the final data. All the teams worked separately, and conversed with the facilitators as needed, to develop the data flow diagrams and identify the key challenges.

The major common challenges noted by these teams were: 1) delays in collection, verification, and digitisation of data, 2) inability of state government agencies to access data collected as part of centrally-funded welfare schemes, and 3) parallel systems of data collection employed by different departments leading to duplication of efforts and data.

Several interesting insights came through in this exercise. For example, data related to education is collected both by the HRDD, and the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyaan (SSA). However, SSA data is not shared with the HRDD. Also, the HRDD publishes all its data, including the name of students, on their website, making it publicly available. One of the data challenges identified by the HRDD was their difficulty in tracking if scholarship money is reaching the suitable students. When a student moves from one school to another, the records do not get updated easily. This leads to different schools continuing to receive funds for the same scholarship. Aligning school records is important to prevent such leakages.

After these two grouped exercises, all the participants gathered back so that the data flows diagrams and identification of key challenges documented by departmental teams could be presented to the entire group. Each team presented their data flow diagram, and discussed challenges and opportunities. This created a context for different departments to discuss what kind of data they often needed from each other, and how there was neither a platform for inter-departmental discussion on such issues, nor systems that facilitate the same. There was an agreement that an open data platform could address this issue to a great extent. The discussion also highlighted that the most significant data collecting government agency in Sikkim is DESME, however, it does not publish any data in machine-readable formats, and does not even have a website.

This data flow and bottleneck exercise made it very clear that there are several data production and collection processes in place in Sikkim, and also systems that are digesting, processing, and reporting data. Hence, implementing the open data policy will need to negotiate with such complexity.

In the final session of the day, Dr. Shiban Ganju made a presentation on applications of open data in healthcare. His talk focused on how converting medical information about a patient being stored at various locations to a combined and shareable Electronic Health Record can save the patient as well as the medical practitioners from duplication of medical tests, easier mobility from one medical institute to another, and a clearer macro-level understanding of key public health indicators. Dr. Ganju discussed the open health data initiatives in the United States, in the United Kingdom, and in Sweden, before discussing the challenges faced in implementing interoperable standards for open health data in India. The slides from Dr. Ganju’s presentation can be accessed here.

Day 03, June 05, 2015

The final day started with a set of presentations from Mr. Garab Dorji, Deputy Chief IT Officer, Office of the Prime Minister, Thimphu, Bhutan of the Government of Bhutan, Mr. Birendra Tiwari, Senior Informatic Officer, Department of Information Technology, Government of Meghalaya, and Mr. Milan Chhetri of Melli Dara Paiyong Gram Panchayat Unit, Sikkim, on various technological solutions being explored, implemented, and practiced by the respective governments and administrative units.

Mr. Milan Chhetri’s presentation was on the operationalisation of Cyber Villages in Sikkim, which had been initiated in 2013 with support from the Honourable Chief Minister of Sikkim, Pawan Kumar Chamling. Cyber Villages aim to address digital divide, by empowering local village units with handheld data devices to collect data from every household and connect the same to a real time dashboard. All village related data is expected to be available in one place. At the same time as part of e-governance initiative, SMS based updates on Government programmes and services will be sent to all villagers. Mr. Chhetri ended his presentation with a short promotional video of the concept, which is embedded below.

The second session of the day started with a presentation from Mr. D. P. Misra, National Data Sharing and Accessibility Policy - Programme Management Unit (NDSAP-PMU), National Informatics Centre, Government of India. The presentation focused on the process of implementation of the National Data Sharing and Accessibility Policy approved by the Government of India in 2012. Mr. Misra has played a key role in the NDSAP-PMU that was trusted with development of the national open government data platform of India and in setting up the procedures and standards for publication of government data by various central and state government agencies through that Platform. His talk described the technical solutions designed by the NDSAP-PMU to make data accessible for the end-users in various file formats, to make visualisation of available data easy, and to make it possible for users to comment upon existing data and to request for data that is unavailable at the moment. Further, he emphasised the need for outreach initiatives by the government so as to build awareness and activities around the available open government data. The slides from Mr. Misra’s presentation can be accessed here.

The presentation by Mr. Misra was followed by a group exercise where various teams, self-selected by the participants, worked on different sections of the SODAAP implementation plan to put together ideas and plans for the first draft of the document. Five groups were formed and each of them worked on a separate section of the implementation plan: 1) Governance Framework and Budgetary Support, 2) Data Inventory and Negative List, 3) Data Acquisition and Open Standards, 4) Data Publication Process, Licenses, and Timeframes, and 5) Awareness, Capacity, and Demand of Data. The initial section titled ‘Introduction to the Policy and its Principles’ was put together by Vashistha Iyer on the basis of the SODAAP document. The technical section on the ‘Sikkim Open Data Portal’ was left out of this drafting exercise, as it was decided that the representatives of the Department of Information Technology will prepare this section on the basis of their interactions with the NDSAP-PMU later in June.

The drafting session was followed by presentations by each team working on a separate section, and quick feedbacks from all the participants. These drafts, along with the feedbacks, have been compiled together by Mr. Chattapadhyay, and is shared with the officials from the Government of Sikkim for their further discussion and eventual finalisation of the SODAAP implementation plan document.

The workshop ended with a round of final words and sharing of learning by the participants, and a vote of thanks on the behalf of the organisers.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/workshop-on-open-data-for-human-development-2015-06-report

Civil Society Organisations and Internet Governance in India - Open Review

sumandro — 2015-11-13T05:51:03Z

This is a book section written for the third volume (2000-2010) of the Asia Internet History series edited by Prof. Kilnam Chon. The pre-publication text of the section is being shared here to invite suggestions for addition and modification. Please share your comments via email sent to raw[at]cis-india[dot]org with 'Civil Society Organisations and Internet Governance in India - Comments' as the subject line. This text is published under Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International license.

You are most welcome to read the pre-publication drafts of other sections of the Asia Internet History Vol. 3, and share your comments: https://sites.google.com/site/internethistoryasia/book3.

Early Days

The overarching context of development interventions and rights-based approaches have shaped the space of civil society organizations working on the topics of information and communication technologies (ICTs) and Internet governance in India. Early members of this space came from diverse backgrounds. Satish Babu was working with the South Indian Federation of Fishermen Societies (SIFFS) in mid-1990s, when he set up a public mailing list called 'FishNet,' connected to Internet via the IndiaLink email network, (then) run by India Social Institute to inter-connect development practitioners in India. He went on to become the President of Computer Society of India during 2012-2013; and co-founded Society for Promotion of Alternative Computing and Employment (SPACE) in 2003, where he served as the Executive Secretary during 2003-2010 [Wikipedia 2015]. Anita Gurumurthy, Executive Director of IT for Change and one of the key actors from Indian civil society organizations to take part in the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) process, had previously worked extensively on topics related to public health and women's rights [ITfC b], which deeply shaped the perspectives she and IT for Change have brought into the Internet governance sphere, globally as well as nationally [Gurumurthy 2001]. Arun Mehta initiated a mailing list titled 'India-GII' in 2002 to discuss 'India's bumpy progress on the global infohighway' [India-GII 2005]. This list played a critical role in curating an early community of non-governmental actors interested in the topics of telecommunication policy, spectrum licensing, Internet governance, and consumer and communication rights. As Frederick Noronha documents, the mailing list culture grew slowly in India during the late 1990s and early 2000s. However, they had a great impact in organizing early online communities, sometimes grouped around a topical focus, sometimes functioning as a bridge among family members living abroad, and sometimes curating place-specific groups [Noronha 2002].

The inaugural conference of the Free Software Foundation of India [FSFI] in Thiruvananthapuram, on 20 July 2001, galvanized the Free/Libre and Open Source Software (FLOSS) community in India. The conference was titled 'Freedom First,' and Richard Stallman was invited as the chief guest. It was a vital gathering of actors from civil society organizations, software businesses, academia, and media, as well as the Secretary of the Department of Information Technology, Government of Kerala (the state where the conference was held). The conference laid the basis for sustained collaborations between the free software community, civil society organizations, emerging software firms in the state, and the Government of Kerala for the years to come. Two early initiatives that brought together free software developers and state government agencies were the Kerala Trasportation Project and the IT@School project, which not only were awarded to firms promoting use of FLOSS in electronic governance project, but facilitated a wider public dialogue regarding the need think critically about the making of information society in India [Kumar 2007]. The inter-connected communities and overlapping practices of the FLOSS groups, civil society organizations involved in ICT for Development initiatives, telecommunication policy analysts and advocates, and legal-administrative concerns regarding life in the information society – from digital security and privacy, to freedom of online expressions, to transparency in electronic governance infrastructures – have, hence, continued to shape the civil society space in India studying, discussing, responding, and co-shaping policies and practices around governance of Internet in India.

Key Organizations

IT for Change was established in 2000, in Bengaluru, as a non-governmental organization that 'works for the innovative and effective use of information and communication technologies (ICTs) to promote socio-economic change in the global South, from an equity, social justice and gender equality point of view' [ITfC]. It has since made important contributions in the field of ICTs for Development, especially in integrating earlier communication rights practices organised around old media forms with newer possibilities of production and distribution of electronic content using digital media and Internet [ITfC e], and in that of Internet governance, especially through their participation in the WSIS and Internet Governance Forum (IGF) processes and by co-shaping the global Souther discourse of the subject [ITfC d]. It has also done significant works in the area of women's rights in the information society, and have been a core partner in a multi-country feminist action research project on using digital media to enhance the citizenship rights and experiences of marginalized women in India, Brazil, and South Africa [ITfC c]. IT for Change has co-led the formation of Just Net Coalition in February 2014 [JNC].

Digital Empowerment Foundation (DEF) was founded by Osama Manzar, in New Delhi in 2002, with a 'deep understanding that marginalised communities living in socio-economic backwardness and information poverty can be empowered to improve their lives almost on their own, simply by providing them access to information and knowledge using digital tools' [DEF c]. DEF has contributed to setting up Community Information Resource Centres across 19 states and 53 districts in India, with computers, printers, scanners, and Internet connectivity [DEF]. DEF organises one of the biggest competitions in Asia to identify, foreground, and honour significant contributions in the area of ICT for Development [DEF d]. This annual competition series, titled 'Manthan Award' (Translation: 'manthan' means 'churning' in Sanskrit), started in 2004. It has alllowed DEF to create a detailed database of ICT for Development activities and actors in the South Asia and Asia Pacific region. Since 2011, DEF has started working with Association for Progressive Communications on a project titled 'Internet Rights' to take forward the agenda of 'internet access for all' in India [DEF b].

The Society for Knowledge Commons was formed in New Delhi 2007 by 'scientists, technologists, researchers, and activists to leverage the tremendous potential of the ‘collaborative innovation’ model for knowledge generation that has lead to the growth of the Free and Open Source Software community (FOSS) around the world' [Society for Knowledge Commons]. It has championed integration of FOSS into public sector operations in India – from electronic governance systems to use of softwares in educational institutes – and has made continuous interventions on Internet governance issues from the perspective of the critical importance of shared knowledge properties and practices for a more democratic information society. It is a part of the Free Software Movement of India [FSMI], an alliance of Indian organizations involved in advocating awareness and usage of FOSS, as well as a founding member of the Just Net Coalition [JNC].

The Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) was established in Bengaluru in 2008 with a research and advocacy focus on topics of accessibility of digital content for differently-abled persons, FOSS and policies on intellectual property rights, open knowledge and Indic Wikipedia projects, digital security and privacy, freedom of expression and Internet governance, and socio-cultural and historical studies of Internet in India [CIS]. In one of the key early projects, CIS contributed to the making of web accessibility policy for government websites in India, which was being drafted by the Department of Information Technology, Government of India [CIS 2008]. In the following years it took part in the Internet Governance Forum summits; submitted responses and suggestions to various policies being introduced by the government, especially the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008, National Identification Authority of India (NIA) Bill, 2010, and the Approach Paper for a Legislation on Privacy, 2010; produced a report on the state of open government data in India [Prakash 2011b], and undertook an extensive study on the experiences of the young people in Asia with Internet, digital media, and social change [Shah 2011].

Software Freedom Law Centre has undertaken research and advocacy interventions, since 2011, in the topics digital privacy, software patents, and cyber-surveillance [SFLC]. The Internet Democracy Project, an initiative of Point of View, has organised online and offline discussions, participated in global summits, and produced reports on the topics of freedom of expression, cyber security and human rights, and global Internet governance architecture since 2012 [IDP].

The first Internet Society chapter to be established in India was in Delhi. The chapter began in 2002, but went through a period of no activity before being revived in 2008 [Delhi]. The Chennai chapter started in 2007 [Chennai], the Kolkata one in 2009 [Kolkata], and the Bengaluru chapter came into existence in 2010 [Bangalore]. Asia Internet Symposium have been organised in India twice: 1) the Kolkata one, held on on 1 December 2014, focused on 'Internet and Human Rights: Empowering the Users,' and 2) the Chennai symposium, held on 2 December 2014, discussed 'India in the Open and Global Internet.' The newest Internet Society chapter in India is in the process of formation in Trivandrum [Trivandrum], led by the efforts of Satish Babu (mentioned above).

Global and National Events

The first World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) conference in Geneva, held on 10-12 December 2003, was not attended by many civil society organizations from India. Several Indian participants in the conference were part of the team of representatives from different global civil society organizations, like Digital Partners, Development Alternatives with Women for a New Era (DAWN), and International Centre for New Media [ITU 2003]. Between the first and the second conference, the engagement with the WSIS process increased among Indian civil society organizations increased of the WSIS process, which was especially led by IT for Change. In early 2005, before the second Preparatory Committee meeting of the Tunis conference, it organized a discussion event titled 'Gender Perspectives on the Information Society: South Asia Pre-WSIS Seminar' in partnership with DAWN and the Indian Institute of Management, Bangalore, which was supported by UNIFEM and the UNDP Asia-Pacific Development Information Programme [Gurumurthy 2006]. In a separate note, Anita Gurumurthy and Parminder Jeet Singh of IT for Change have noted their experience as a South Asian civil society organization engaging with the WSIS process [Gurumurthy 2005]. The second WSIS conference in Tunis, held on 16-18 November 2005, however, neither saw any significant participation from Indian civil society organizations, except for Ambedkar Centre for Justice and Peace, Childline India Foundation / Child Helpline International, and IT for Change [ITU 2005]. This contrasted sharply with the over 60 delegates from various Indian government agencies taking part in the conference [ITU 2005].

Two important events took place in India in early 2005 that substantially contributed to the civil society discourses in India around information technology and its socio-legal implications and possibilities. The former is the conference titled 'Contested Commons, Trespassing Publics' organized by the Sarai programme at the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies, Alternative Law Forum, and Public Service Broadcasting Trust, in Delhi on 6-8 January 2005. The conference attempted to look into the terms of intellectual property rights (IPR) debates from the perspectives of experiences in countries in Asia, Latin America, and Africa. It was based on the research carried out by the Sarai programme and Alternative Law Forum on contemporary realities of media production and distribution, and the ways in which law and legal instruments enter into the most intimate spheres of social and cultural life to operationalise the IPRs. The conference combined academic discussions with parallel demonstrations by media practitioners, and knowledge sharing by FLOSS communities [Sarai 2005]. The latter event is the first of the Asia Source workshop that took place in Bengaluru during 28 January - 4 February 2005 . It brought together more than 100 representatives from South and South-East Asian civil society organizations and technology practitioners working with them, along with several leading practitioners from Africa, Europe, North America, and Latin America, to promote adoption and usage of FLOSS across the developmental sector in the region. The workshop was organized by Mahiti (Bengaluru) and Tactical Technology Collective (Amsterdam), with intellectual and practical support from an advisory group of representatives from FLOSS communities and civil society organizations, and financial support from Hivos, the Open Society Institute, and International Open Source Network [Asia Source].

While the participation of representatives from Indian civil society organizations at the IGFs in Athens (2006) and Rio de Janeiro (2007) was minimal, the IGF Hyderabad, held on 3-6 December 2008, provided a great opportunity for Indian civil society actors to participate in and familiarize themselves with the global Internet governance process. Apart from various professionals, especially lawyers, who attended the Hyderabad conference as individuals, the leading civil society organizations participating in the event included: Ambedkar Center for Justice and Peace, Centre for Internet and Society, Centre for Science, Development and Media Studies, Digital Empowerment Foundation, Internet Society Chennai chapter, IT for Change, and Mahiti. The non-governmental participants from India at the event, however, were predominantly from private companies and academic institutes [IGF 2008].

IT for Change made a critical intervention into the discourse of global Internet governance during the Hyderabad conference by bringing back the term 'enhanced cooperation,' as mentioned in the Tunis Agenda for the Information Society [ITU 2005 b]. At IGF Sharm El Sheikh, held during 15-18 November 2009, Parminder Jeet Singh of IT for Change explained:

[E]nhanced cooperation consists of two parts. One part is dedicated to creating globally applicable policy principles, and there is an injunction to the relevant organizations to create the conditions for doing that. And I have a feeling that the two parts of that process have been conflated into one. And getting reports from the relevant organizations is going on, but we are not able to go forward to create a process which addresses the primary purpose of enhanced cooperation, which was to create globally applicable public policy principles and the proof of that is that I don't see any development of globally applicable public policy principles, which remains a very important need. [IGF 2009]

This foregrounding of the principle of 'enhanced cooperation' have since substantially contributed to rethinking not only the global Internet governance mechanisms and its reconfigurations, but also the Indian government's perspectives towards the same. It eventually led to the proposal made by a representative of Government of India at the UN General Assembly session on 26 October 2011 regarding the establishment of a UN Committee for Internet-Related Policies [Singh 2011].

Internet Policies and Censorship

One of the earliest instances of censorship of online content in India is the blocking of several websites offering Voice over IP (VoIP) softwares, which can be downloaded to make low-cost international calls, during late 1990s. The India-GII mailing list initiated by Arun Mehta, as mentioned above, started almost as a response to this blocking move by Videsh Sanchar Nigam Limited (VSNL), the government-owned Internet Service Provider (ISP). Additionally, Mehta filed a case against VSNL for blocking these e-commerce websites, which might be identified as the first case of legal activism for Internet-related rights in India [India-GII 2001]. During the war between India and Pakistan during 1999, the Indian government instructed VSNL to block various Pakistani media websites, including that of Dawn. Like in the case of websites offering VoIP services, this blocking did not involve direct intervention with the websites concerned but only the ability of Indian users to access them [Tanna 2004]. The first well-known case of the Government of India blocking digital content for political reasons occurred in 2003, when a mailing list titled 'Kynhun' was banned. Department of Telecommunications instructed all the But the previously deployed URL-blocking strategy did not work in the new situation of mailing lists. Blocking the URL of the group did not stop it from being used by members of the group to continue sharing email through it. Government of India then approached Yahoo directly to ensure that the mailing list is closed down, which Yahoo declined to implement. This resulted in imposing of a blanket blocking of all Yahoo Groups pages across ISPs in India during September 2003. By November, Yahoo decided to close down the mailing list, and the blanket blocking was repealed [Tanna 2004]. Further blocking of several blogs and websites continued through 2006 and 2007, where the government decided to work in collaboration with various platforms offering hosted blog and personal webpage services to remove access to specific sub-domains. In resistance to this series of blocking orders by the government, there emerged an important civil society campaign titled 'Bloggers Against Censorship' led by Bloggers Collective Group, a distributed network of bloggers from all across India [Bloggers 2006].

A few weeks after the IGF Hyderabad, the Government of India passed the Information Technology (Amendment) Act 2008 on 22 December 2008 [MoLaJ 2009], although it was notified and enforced much later on 27 October 2009 [MoCaIT 2009]. This amendment attempted to clarify various topics left under-defined in the Information Technology Act of 2000. However, as Pranesh Prakash of the Centre for Internet and Society noted, the casual usage of the term 'offensive content' in the amendment opened up serious threats of broad curbing of freedom of online expression under the justification that it caused 'annoyance' or 'inconvenience' [Prakash 2009]. The sections 66 and 67 of the amended Information Technology Act, which respectively address limits to online freedom of expression and legally acceptable monitoring of digital communication by government agencies, have since been severely protested against by civil society organizations across India for enabling a broad-brushed censorship and surveillance of the Internet in India. The section 66A has especially allowed the government to make a series of arrests of Internet users for posting and sharing 'offensive content' [Pahwa 2015].

In 2011, the Government of India introduced another critical piece of policy instrument for controlling online expressions – the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines) Rules, 2011 [MoCaIT 2011] – targeted at defining the functions of the intermediaries associated with Internet-related services and communication, and how they are to respond to government's directives towards taking down and temporary blocking of digital content. The draft Rules were published in early 2011 and comments were invited from the general public. One of the responses, submitted by Privacy India and the Centre for Internet and Society, explicitly highlighted the draconian implications of the (then) proposed rules:

This rule requires an intermediary to immediately take steps to remove access to information merely upon receiving a written request from “any authority mandated under the law”. Thus, for example, any authority can easily immunize itself from criticism on the internet by simply sending a written notice to the intermediary concerned. This is directly contrary to, and completely subverts the legislative intent expressed in Section 69B which lays down an elaborate procedure to be followed before any information can be lawfully blocked. [Prakash 2011]

The policy apparatus of controlling online expression in India took its full form by the beginning of the decade under study here. The 'chilling effect' of this apparatus was made insightfully evident by a study conducted by Rishabh Dara at the Centre for Internet and Society, where fake takedown notices (regarding existing digital content) were sent to 7 important Internet intermediaries operating in India, and their responses were studied. The results of this experiment demonstrated that:

[T]he Rules create uncertainty in the criteria and procedure for administering the takedown thereby inducing the intermediaries to err on the side of caution and over-comply with takedown notices in order to limit their liability; and as a result suppress legitimate expressions. Additionally, the Rules do not establish sufficient safeguards to prevent misuse and abuse of the takedown process to suppress legitimate expressions. [Dara 2012]

Reference

[Bloggers 2006] Bloggers Collective Group, Bloggers Against Censorship. Last updated on April 30, 2009‎. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://censorship.wikia.com/wiki/Bloggers_Against_Censorship.

[Dara 2012] Dara, Rishabh, Intermediary Liability in India: Chilling Effects on Free Expression on the Internet. The Centre for Internet and Society. April 27. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/chilling-effects-on-free-expression-on-internet.

[DEF] Digital Empowerment Foundation (DEF). Community Information Resource Centre. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://defindia.org/circ-2/.

[DEF b] Digital Empowerment Foundation (DEF). Internet Rights. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://internetrights.in/.

[DEF c] Digital Empowerment Foundation (DEF). Our Story. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://defindia.org/about-def/.

[DEF d] Digital Empowerment Foundation (DEF). Manthan Awards. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://defindia.org/manthan-award-south-asia-masa/.

[FSFI] Free Software Foundation of India. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://fsf.org.in/.

[FSMI] Free Software Movement of India. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://www.fsmi.in/node.

[Gurumurthy 2001] Gurumurthy, Anita, A Gender Perspective to ICTs and Development: Reflections towards Tunis. January 15. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://www.worldsummit2003.de/en/web/701.htm.

[Gurumurthy 2005] Gurumurthy, Anita, and Parminder Jeet Singh, WSIS PrepCom 2: A South Asian Perspective. Association for Progressive Communications. April 01. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from https://www.apc.org/en/news/hr/world/wsis-prepcom-2-south-asian-perspective.

[Gurumurthy 2006] Gurumuthy, Anita et al (eds.), Gender in the Information Society: Emerging Issues. UNDP Asia-Pacific Development Information Programme. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://www.genderit.org/sites/default/upload/GenderIS.pdf.

[India-GII 2001] India-GII, Status of VSNL Censorship of IP-Telephony Sites. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://members.tripod.com/~india_gii/statusof.htm.

[India-GII 2005] India-GII. 2005. Last modified on May 24. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://india-gii.org/.

[IDP] Internet Democracy Project. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://internetdemocracy.in/.

[ITU 2003] International Telecommunication Union (ITU), Geneva Phase of the WSIS: List of Participants. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/summit_participants.pdf.

[ITU 2005] International Telecommunication Union (ITU), List of Participants (WSIS) – Update 5 Dec 2005. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs2/tunis/final-list-participants.pdf.

[ITU 2005 b] International Telecommunication Union (ITU), Tunis Agenda for the Information Society. November 18. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs2/tunis/off/6rev1.pdf.

[IGF 2008] Internet Governance Forum, Hyderabad Provisional List of Participants. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/component/content/article/385-hyderabad-provisional-list-of-participants.

[IGF 2009] Internet Governance Forum, Managing Critical Resources. IGF Sharm El Sheikh, Egypt . November 16. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/2009/sharm_el_Sheikh/Transcripts/Sharm%20El%20Sheikh%2016%20November%202009%20Managing%20Critical%20Internet%20Resources.pdf.

[Bangalore] Internet Society Bangalore Chapter. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://www.isocbangalore.org/.

[Delhi] Internet Society Delhi Chapter. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://www.isocbangalore.org.

[Chennai] Internet Society Chennai Chapter. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://www.isocbangalore.org.

[Kolkata] Internet Society Kolkata Chapter. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://isockolkata.in/.

[Trivandrum] Internet Society Trivandrum Chapter. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/where-we-work/chapters/india-trivandrum-chapter.

[ITfC] IT for Change, About IT for Change. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://www.itforchange.net/aboutus.

[ITfC b] IT for Change, Anita Gurumurthy. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://www.itforchange.net/Anita.

[ITfC c] IT for Change, Gender and Citizenship in the Information Society: Southern Feminist Dialogues in Practice and Theory. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://www.gender-is-citizenship.net/.

[ITfC d] IT for Change, Internet Governance. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://www.itforchange.net/Techgovernance.

[ITfC e] IT for Change, Our Field Centre. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://www.itforchange.net/field_centre.

[JNC] Just Net Coalition (JNC). Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://justnetcoalition.org/.

[Kumar 2007] Kumar, Sasi V. 2007. The Story of Free Software in Kerala, India. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://swatantryam.blogspot.in/2007/08/story-of-free-software-in-kerala-india.html.

[MoLaJ 2009] Ministry of Law and Justice (MoLaJ), The Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008. The Gazette of India. February 05. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://deity.gov.in/sites/upload_files/dit/files/downloads/itact2000/it_amendment_act2008.pdf.

[MoCaIT 2009] Ministry of Communications and Information Technology (MoCaIT), Notification. The Gazette of India. October 27. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://deity.gov.in/sites/upload_files/dit/files/downloads/itact2000/act301009.pdf.

[MoCaIT 2011] Ministry of Communications and Information Technology (MoCaIT), Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules, 2011. The Gazette of India. April 11. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://deity.gov.in/sites/upload_files/dit/files/GSR314E_10511%281%29.pdf.

[Noronha 2002] Noronha, Frederick, Linking a Diverse Country: Mailing Lists in India. The Digital Development Network. May 22. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://www.comminit.com/ict-4-development/content/linking-diverse-country-mailing-lists-india.

[Pahwa 2015] Pahwa, Nikhil, A List of Section 66A Arrests in India through the Years. Medianama. March 24. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://www.medianama.com/2015/03/223-section-66a-arrests-in-india/.

[Prakash 2009] Prakash, Pranesh, Short Note on IT Amendment Act, 2008 . The Centre for Internet and Society. February. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/publications/it-act/short-note-on-amendment-act-2008/.

[Prakash 2011] Prakash, Pranesh, CIS Para-wise Comments on Intermediary Due Diligence Rules, 2011. The Centre for Internet and Society. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/intermediary-due-diligence.

[Prakash 2011 b] Prakash, Pranesh, et al, Open Government Data Study. The Centre for Internet and Society. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://cis-india.org/openness/blog/open-government-data-study.

[SFLC] Software Freedom Law Centre (SFLC). Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://sflc.in/.

[Shah 2011] Shah, Nishant. 2011. Digital AlterNatives with a Cause? The Centre for Internet and Society. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://cis-india.org/digital-natives/blog/dnbook.

[Singh 2011] Singh, Dushyant, India's Proposal for a United Nations Committee for Internet-Related Policies. Sixty Sixth Session of the UN General Assembly, New York. October 26. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://www.itforchange.net/sites/default/files/ItfC/india_un_cirp_proposal_20111026.pdf.

[SKC] Society for Knowledge Commons. About Us. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://www.knowledgecommons.in/about-us/.

[Asia Source] Tactical Technology Collective, Asia Source. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from https://tacticaltech.org/asiasource.

[Tanna 2004] Tanna, Ketan, Internet Censorship in India: Is It Necessary and Does It Work?. Sarai-CSDS Independent Fellowship. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://www.ketan.net/INTERNET_CENSORSHIP_IN_INDIA.html.

[CIS] The Centre for Internet and Society. About Us. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://cis-india.org/about/.

[CIS 2008] The Centre for Internet and Society. 2008. Annual Report. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://cis-india.org/accessibility/annual-report-2008.pdf.

[Sarai 2005] The Sarai Programme, Contested Commons, Trespassing Publics. January 12. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://sarai.net/contested-commons-trespassing-publics/.

[Wikipedia 2015] Satish Babu. Wikipedia. Last modified on June 25. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satish_Babu.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/raw/civil-society-organisations-and-internet-governance-in-india-open-review

Civil Society Organisations and Internet Governance in Asia - Open Review

sumandro — 2015-11-13T05:54:33Z

This is a book section written for the third volume (2000-2010) of the Asia Internet History series edited by Prof. Kilnam Chon. The pre-publication text of the section is being shared here to invite suggestions for addition and modification. Please share your comments via email sent to raw[at]cis-india[dot]org with 'Civil Society Organisations and Internet Governance in Asia - Comments' as the subject line. This text is published under Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International license.

You are most welcome to read the pre-publication drafts of other sections of the Asia Internet History Vol. 3, and share your comments: https://sites.google.com/site/internethistoryasia/book3.

Preparations for the World Summit on the Information Society

The World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) conferences organized by the United Nations in Geneva (2003) and Tunis (2005) initiated crucial platforms and networks, some temporary and some continued, for various non-governmental actors to intensively and periodically take part in the discussions of governance of Internet and various related activities towards the goals of inclusive development and human rights. Many of the civil society organizations taking part in the WSIS conferences, as well as the various regional and thematic preparatory meetings and seminars, had little prior experience in the topic of Internet governance. They were entering these conversations from various perspectives, such as local developmental interventions, human and cultural rights activism, freedom and diversity of media, and gender and social justice. With backgrounds in such forms of applied practice and theoretical frameworks, members of these civil society organizations often faced a difficult challenge in articulating their experiences, insights, positions, and suggestions in terms of the (then) emerging global discourse of Internet governance and that of information and communication technologies (ICTs) as instruments of development. At the WSIS: An Asian Response Meeting in 2002, Susanna George, (then) Executive Director of Isis International, Manila, succinctly expressed this challenge being faced by the members of civil society organizations:

For some feminist activists however, including myself, it has felt like trying to squeeze my concerns into a narrow definition of what gender concerns in ICTs are. I would like it to Cinderella’s ugly sister cutting off her toe to fit into the dainty slipper of gender concerns in ICTs. The development ball, it seems, can only accommodate some elements of what NGO activists, particularly those from the South, are concerned about in relation to new information and communications technologies. (George 2002)

The above mentioned seminar, held in Bangkok, Thailand, on November 22-24, 2002, was a crucial early meeting for the representatives from Asian civil society organizations to share and shape their understanding and positions before taking part in the global conversations during the following years. The meeting was organised by Bread for All (Switzerland), Communication Rights in the Information Society Campaign (Netherlands), Forum-Asia (Thailand), and World Association for Christian Communication (United Kingdom), as a preparatory meeting before the Asia-Pacific Regional Conference of WSIS, with 34 organizations from 16 Asian countries taking part in it. The Final Document produced at the end of this seminar was quite a remarkable one. It highlighted the simultaneity of Asia as one of the global centres of the information economy and the everyday reality of wide-spread poverty across the Asian countries, and went on to state that the first principle for the emerging global information society should be that the '[c]ommunication rights are fundamental to democracy and human development' (The World Summit on the Information Society: An Asian Response 2002). It proposed the following action items for the efforts towards a global inclusive information society: 1) strengthen community, 2) ensure access, 3) enhance the creation of appropriate content, 4) invigorate global governance, 5) uphold human rights, 6) extend the public domain, 7) protect and promote cultural and linguistic diversity, and 8) ensure public investment in infrastructure (ibid.).

Immediately after this Conference, several Asian civil society organizations attended the Asian Civil Society Forum, organised as part of the Conference of Non-governmental Organizations in Consultative Relations with the United Nations (CONGO), held in Bangkok, Thailand, during December 9-13, 2002. Representatives of Dhaka Ahsania Mission (Bangladesh), OneWorld South Asia (India), GLOCOM (Japan), Foundation for Media Alternative (Philippines), Korean Progressive Network – JINBONET (Republic of Korea), Friedrich Naumann Foundation (Singapore), International Federation of University Women (Switzerland), and Forum Asia (Regional) drafted a Joint Statement emphasising that a 'broad-based participation of civil society, especially from those communities which are excluded, marginalized and severely deprived, is critical in defining and building such a [true communicative, just and peaceful] society' (Aizu 2002). In the very next month, the Asia-Pacific Regional Conference was held in Tokyo during January 13-15, 2003, 'to develop a shared vision and common strategies for the “Information Society' (WSIS Executive Secretariat 2003: 2). The conference saw participation of representatives from 47 national governments, 22 international organizations, 54 private sector agencies, and 116 civil society organizations across the Asia-Pacific region. The Tokyo Declaration, the final document prepared at the conclusion of the Conference, recognized that:

[T]he Information Society must ... facilitate full utilization of information and communication technologies (ICT) at all levels in society and hence enable the sharing of social and economic benefits by all, by means of ubiquitous access to information networks, while preserving diversity and cultural heritage. (Ibid.: 2)

Further, it highlighted the following priority areas of action: 1) infrastructure development, 2) securing affordable, universal access to ICTs, 3) preserving linguistic and cultural diversity and promoting local content, 4) developing human resources, 5) establishing legal, regulatory and policy frameworks, 6) ensuring balance between intellectual property rights (IPR) and public interest, 7) ensuring the security of ICTs, and 8) fostering partnerships and mobilizing resources. It is not difficult to see how the focus of necessary actions shifted from an emphasis on concerns of community and human rights, and public investments and commons, towards those of legal and policy mechanisms, multi-partner delivery of services, and intellectual property rights. Civil society organizations, expectedly, felt sidelined in this Conference, and decided to issue a join statement of Asian civil society organizations to ensure that their positions are effectively presented. The first two topics mentioned in this document were: 1) '[c]ommunication rights should be fully recognized as a fundamental and universal human right to be protected and promoted in the information society,' and 2) '[t]he participation of civil society in the information society at all levels should be ensured and sustained, from policy planning to implementation, monitoring and evaluation' (UNSAJ et al 2003). The joint statement was endorsed by 30 civil society organizations: UDDIPAN (Bangladesh); COMFREL (Cambodia); ETDA (East Timor); The Hong Kong Council of Social Services (Hong Kong); Food India, IT for Change (India); Indonesian Infocom Society (Indonesia); Active Learning, CPSR, Forum for Citizens' Television and Media, JTEC, Kyoto Journal, Ritsumeikan University Media Literacy Project, UNSAJ (Japan); Computer Association Nepal, Rural Area Development Programme (Nepal); APC Women's Networking Support Programme, Foundation for Media Alternatives, ISIS International (Philippines); Citizens' Action Network, Korean Progressive Network – Jinbonet, Labor News Production, ZAK (Republic of Korea); e-Pacificka Consulting (Samoa); National University of Singapore (Singapore); Public Television Service, Taiwan Association for Human Rights (Taiwan); Asian-South Pacific Bureau for Adult Education, FORUM ASIA, and TVE Asia Pacific (Regional) (Ibid.).

Participation in the WSIS Process

The first WSIS conference was held in Geneva in December 2003. Through the processes of organizing this conference, and the second one in Tunis in November 2005, United Nations expressed a clear intention of great participation of actors from the private companies, civil society, academia, and media, along with the governmental organizations. During the first meeting of the WSIS Preparatory Committee (PrepCom-1) in Geneva, during July 1-5, 2002, the civil society organizations demanded that they should be allowed to co-shape the key topics to be discussed during the first conference (2003). There was already an Inter-Governmental Subcommittee on Contents and Themes, but no equivalent platform for the civil society organizations was available. With the approval of the Civil Society Plenary (CSP), the Civil Society Subcommittee on Content and Themes (WSIS-SCT) was instituted during PrepCom-1 (WSIS-SCT 2003b). At the second WSIS Preparatory Committee meeting (PrepCom-2) in Geneva, during February 17-28, 2003, the WSIS-SCT produced a summary of the views of its members titled 'Vision and Principles of Information and Communication Societies,' and also a one page brief titled 'Seven Musts: Priority Principles Proposed by Civil Society' to be used for lobbying purposes (Ibid.). This brief mentioned seven key principles of Internet governance identified by the civil society organization taking part in the WSIS process: (1) sustainable development, (2) democratic governance, (3) literacy, education, and research, (4) human rights, (5) global knowledge commons, (6) cultural and linguistic diversity, and (7) information security (WSIS-SCT 2003a).

Asian civil society organizations that took part in the PrepCom-2 meeting included United Nations Association of China (China); CASP - Centre for Adivasee Studies and Peace, C2N - Community Communications Network (India); ICSORC - Iranian Civil Society Organizations Resource Center (Iran); GAWF - General Arab Women Federation (Iraq); Daisy Consortium, GLOCOM - Center for Global Communications (Japan); Association for Progressive Communication, Global Knowledge Partnership (Malaysia); Pakistan Christian Peace Foundation (Pakistan); WFEO - World Federation of Engineering Organization (Palestine); Asian South Pacific Bureau of Adult Education, Foundation for Media Alternatives, ISIS International – Manila (Philippines); Korean Progressive Network - Jinbonet (Republic of Korea); IIROSA - International Islamic Relief Organization (Saudi Arabia); and Taking IT Global (India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, and Turkey) (ITU 2003a).

All these efforts led to development of the Civil Society Declaration to the World Summit on the Information Society, which was prepared and published by the Civil Society Plenary at the Geneva conference, on December 08, 2003. The Declaration was titled 'Shaping Information Societies for Human Needs' (WSIS Civil Society Plenary 2003). The Asian civil society organization that took part in the Geneva conference were BFES - Bangladesh Friendship Education Society, Drik, ICTDPB - Information & Communication Technology Development Program, Proshika - A Center for Human Development (Bangladesh); China Society for Promotion of the Guangcai Programme, Chinese People's Association for Friendship with Foreign Countries, United Nations Association of China (China); The Hong Kong Council of Social Service (Hong Kong); CASP - Centre for Adivasee Studies and Peace, Childline India Foundation / Child Helpline International, DAWN - Development Alternatives with Women for a New Era (India); Communication Network of Women's NGOs in Iran, Green front of Iran, ICTRC - Iranian Civil Society Organizations Training and Research Center, Islamic Women's Institute of Iran, Institute for Women's Studies and Research, Organization for Defending Victims of Violence (Iran); ILAM - Center for Arab Palestinians in Israel (Israel); Citizen Digital Solutions, Forum for Citizens' Television and Media, GLOCOM - Center for Global Communications, JCAFE - Japan Computer Access for Empowerment, Soka Gakkai International (Japan); LAD-Nepal - Literary Academy for Dalit of Nepal (Nepal); Asia-Pacific Broadcasting Union, Global Knowledge Partnership (Malaysia); PAK Educational Society / Pakistan Development Network, SMEDA - Small & Medium Enterprise Development Authority (Pakistan); Palestine IT Association of Companies (Palestine); Isis International – Manila, Ugnayan ng Kababaihan sa Pulitika / Philippine Women's Network in Politics and Governance (Philippines); Citizen's Alliance for Consumer Protection of Korea, Korean Civil Society Network for WSIS (Republic of Korea); Youth Challenge (Singapore); Association for Progressive Communications (India and Philippines), CITYNET - Regional Network of Local Authorities for the Management of Human Settlements (India. Mongolia, and Philippines), Taking IT Global (India and Philippines) (ITU 2003b).

As the preparatory meetings and consultations towards the second WSIS conference advanced during the next year, the Asian civil society organizations attempted to engage more directly with the global Internet governance processes on one hand, and the national Internet and ICT policy situations on the other. Writing about their encounters at and before the second Preparatory Committee meeting of the Tunis conference, held in Geneva during February 17-25, 2005, Anita Gurumurthy and Parminder Jeet Singh made several early observations that have continued to resonate with the experiences of Asian civil society organizations throughout the decade (Gurumurthy & Singh 2005). Firstly, they indicated that the government agencies present in the dialogues tend to take diverging positions in international events and domestic contexts. Secondly, there was a marked absence of formal and informal discussions between the governmental and the civil society representatives of the same country present at the meeting. The government agencies were clearly disinterested in involving civil society organizations in the process. Thirdly, the civil society actors present in the meeting were mostly from the ICT for Development sector, and the organizations working in more 'traditional' sectors – such as education, health, governance reform, etc. – remained absent from the conversations. This is especially problematic in the case of such developing countries where there does not exist strategic linkages between civil society organizaions focusing on topics of technologized developmental interventions, and those involved in more 'traditional' development practices. Rekha Jain, in a separate report on the Indian experience of participating in the WSIS process, re-iterates some of these points (Jain 2006). She notes that '[w]hile the Secretary, [Department of Telecommunications, Government of India] was involved in (PrepCom-1) drafting the initial processes for involvement of NGOs, at the national level, this mechanism was not translated in to a process for involving the civil society or media' (Ibid.: 14).

The frequent lack of interest of national governments, especially in the Asian countries, to engage with civil society organizations on matters of policies and projects in Internet governance and ICTs for development (Souter 2007), further encouraged these organization to utilise the global discussion space opened up by the WSIS process to drive the agendas of democratisation of Internet governance processes, and protection and advancement of human rights and social justice. The second WSIS conference held in Tunis, during November 16-18, 2005, however, did not end in a positive note for the civil society organizations as a whole. The sentiment is aptly captured in the title of the Civil Society Statement issued after the Tunis Conference: 'Much more could have been achieved' (WSIS Civil Society Plenary 2005). Apart from producing this very important critical response to the WSIS process, within a month of its conclusions, the civil society organization contributed effectively in one of the more longer-term impacts of the process – the establishment of the Internet Governance Forums (IGFs). Immediately after the publication of the Report of the Working Group on Internet Governance (Desai et al) in June 2005, the Center for Global Communications (GLOCOM), Japan, acting on behalf of the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus, came forward with public support for 'the establishment of a new forum to address the broad agenda of Internet governance issues, provided it is truly global, inclusive, and multi-stakeholder in composition allowing all stakeholders from all sectors to participate as equal peers' (WSIS Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus 2005: 3).

Asian Civil Society Organizations at the IGFs

In 2006, the WSIS Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus was reformed and established as a permanent 'forum for discussion, advocacy, action, and for representation of civil society contributions in Internet governance processes' (Civil Society Internet Government Caucus 2006). Representatives from Asian civil society organizations have consistently played critical roles in the functionings of this Caucus. Youn Jung Park of the Department of Technology and Society, SUNY Korea, co-founded and co-coordined the original Caucus in 2003. Adam Peake of the Center for Global Communications (GLOCOM), International University of Japan, was co-coordinator of the original Caucus from 2003 to 2006. Parminder Jeet Sing of IT for Change, India, was elected as one of the co-cordinators of the newly reformed Caucus in 2006, with the term ending in 2008. Izumi Aizu of the Institute for HyperNetwork Society and the Institute for InfoSocinomics, Tama University, Japan served as the co-coordinator of the Caucus during 2010-2012.

The first Internet Governance Forum organized in Athens, October 30 – November 2, 2006, saw participation from a very few Asian civil society organizations, mostly from Bangladesh and Japan (IGF 2006). The second Internet Governance Forum in Rio de Janeiro, November 12-15, 2007 had a wider representation from Asian civil society organizations: Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio and Communication, BFES - Bangladesh Friendship Education Society, VOICE – Voices for Interactive Choice and Empowerment (Bangladesh); China Association for Science and Technology, Internet Society of China (China); University of Hong Kong (Hong Kong); Alternative Law Forum (via Association for Progressive Communications - Women's Networking Support Programme), Indian Institute of Technology in Delhi, IT for Change (India); GLOCOM, Kumon Center, Tama University (Japan); Sustainable Development Networking Programme (Jordan); Kuwait Information Technology Society (Kuwait); Assocation of Computer Engineers – Nepal, Rural Area Development Programme, Nepal Rural Information Technology Development Society (Nepal); Bytesforall – APC / Pakistan, Pakistan Christian Peace Foundation (Pakistan); Foundation for Media Alternatives, Philippine Resources for Sustainable Development Inc. (Philippines); and LIRNEasia (Sri Lanka). At the Open IGF Consultations in Geneva, on February 26 2008, the Internet Governance Caucus made two significant submissions: 1) that, although structuring the IGF sessions in Athens and Rio de Janeiro around the large themes of access, openness, diversity, and security have been useful to open up the multi-stakeholder dialogues, it is necessary to begin focused discussions of specific public policy issues to take the IGF process forward (Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus 2008a), and 2) that the Multi-Stakeholder Advisory Group (MAG), which drives the IGF process and events, should be made more proactive and transparent, and expanded in size so as to better include the different stakeholder groups who may self-identify their representatives for the MAG (Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus 2008b).

On one hand, the IGF Hyderabad, December 3-6, 2008, experienced a decline in the percentage of participants from civil society organizations and a rather modest increase in the percentage of participants from Asian countries (see: 6.1.5. Annexe – Tables), especially since this was the first major international Internet governance summit held in an Asian country. On the other hand, the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus succeeded to bring forth the term 'enhanced cooperation,' as mentioned in the Tunis Agenda, to be addressed and discussed in one of the main sessions of the Forum (IGF 2008). The next IGF held in Sharm El Sheikh, November 15-18, 2009, saw further decline of participation from both the representatives of civil society organizations, and the attendees from Asian countries (see: 6.1.5. Annexe – Tables). In this context, Youn Jung Park made the following statement in the Stock Taking session of the summit:

As a cofounder of WSIS Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus in 2003, I would like to remind you ... [that] Internet Governance Forum was created as a compromise between those who supported the status quo Internet governance institution under one nation's status provision, and those who requested for more balanced roles for governments under international supervision of the Internet. While IGF has achieved a great success of diluting of such political tension between those who have different views of how to institutionalize Internet governance, ironically Internet governance forum became a forum without governance... [We] have to admit [that] IGF failed to deliver another mandate of the U.N. WSIS: Continuing discussion of how to design Internet governance institutions... The current IGF continues to function as knowledge transfer of ICANN's values to other stakeholders, while those who want to discuss and negotiate on how to design Internet governance institutions should have another platform for that specific U.N. WSIS mandate. (IGF 2009)

The first Asia Pacific Regional Internet Governance Forum (APrIGF) was held in Hong Kong on June 14-16, 2010. The organising committee included three civil society / acadmic organizations – Center for Global Communications (GLOCOM), Internet Society Hong Kong, and National University of Singapore – and three indpendent experts – Kuo-Wei Wu (Taiwan), Norbert Klein (Cambodia), and Zahid Jamil (Pakistan). Though the Forum had dominant presence from government and private sector participants, several representatives from Asian civil society / academic organizations spoke at the sessions: Ang Peng Hwa (Singapore Internet Research Centre, Nanyang Technological University), Charles Mok (Internet Society Hong Kong), Christine Loh (Civic Exchange), Chong Chan Yau (Hong Kong Blind Union), Clarence Tsang (Christian Action), Ilya Eric Lee (Taiwan E-Learning and Digital Archives Program, and Research Center for Information Technology Innovation), Izumi Aizu (Institute for HyperNetwork Society, and Institute for InfoSocinomics, Kumon Center, Tama University), Oliver “Blogie” Robillo (Mindanao Bloggers Community), Parminder Jeet Singh (IT for Change), Priscilla Lui (Against Child Abuse in Hong Kong), Tan Tin Wee (Centre for Internet Research, National University of Singapore), and Yap Swee Seng (Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development). As Ang Peng Hwa noted at the beginning of the summit, its key objective was to provide a formal space for various stakeholders from the Asia-Pacific region to discuss and provide inputs to the IGF process (APrIGF 2010). The regional forum was successful in enabling newer civil society entrants from the Asia-Pacific region to familiarize themselves with the IGF process, and to contribute to it. Oliver “Blogie” Robillo, represented and submit recommendations from Southeast Asian civil society organizations at IGF Vilnius, September 14-17, 2010, which was the first time he took part in the summit series. He emphasised the following topics: 1) openness and freedom of expression are the basis of democracy, and state-driven censorship of Internet in the region is an immediate threat to such global rights, 2) coordinated international efforts need to address and resolve not only global digital divides, but also the divides at regional, national, and sub-nationals scales, 3) the right to privacy is an integral part of cybersecurity, as well as a necessary condition for exercising human rights, 4) global Internet governance efforts must ensure that national governments do not control and restrict abilities of citizens to express through digital means, and it should be aligned with the universal human rights agenda, and 5) even after 5 years of the IGF process, a wider participation of civil society organizations, especially from the Asia-Pacific regions, remains an unachieved goal, which can only be achived if specific resources are allocated and processes are implemented (IGF 2010).

Internet Censorship and Civil Society Responses

Throughout the decade of 2000-2010, censorship of Internet and restriction of digital expression remained a crucial Internet rights concern across the world, and especially the Asian countries. One of the earliest global reports on the matter was brought out by the Reporters without Borders. In 2006, it published a list of countries marked as 'Internet Enemies' that featured 16 countries, out of which 11 were from Asia: China, Iran, Maldives, Myanmar (then, Burma), Nepal, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Vietnam (Reporters without Borders 2006). The list was updated in 2007, and three of these countries – Libya, Maldives, and Nepal – were taken off (Ibid.). The unique contradictions of the Asian region were sharply foregrounded in the 2006-07 report on Internet censorship by OpenNet Initiative, which noted:

Some of the most and least connected countries in the world are located in Asia: Japan, South Korea, and Singapore all have Internet penetration rates of over 65 percent, while Afghanistan, Myanmar, and Nepal remain three of thirty countries with less than 1 percent of its citizens online. Among the countries in the world with the most restricted access, North Korea allows only a small community of elites and foreigners online. Most users must rely on Chinese service providers for connectivity, while the limited number North Korean–sponsored Web sites are hosted abroad... [T]hough India’s Internet community is the fifth largest in the world, users amounted to only about 4 percent of the country’s population in 2005. Afghanistan, Myanmar, and Nepal are among the world’s least-developed countries. Despite the constraints on resources and serious developmental and political challenges, however, citizens are showing steadily increasing demand for Internet services such as Voice-over Internet Protocol (VoIP), blogging, and chat. (Wang 2007)

The report further described the strategy used by various Asian governments of 'delegation of policing and monitoring responsibilities to ISPs, content providers, private corporations, and users themselves' (Ibid.) These mechanisms enforce self-surveillance and self-censorship in the face of threats of loss of commercial license, denial of services, and even criminal liability. Defamation suits and related civil and criminal liability have also been used by several Asian governments to silence influential critics and protesters. Direct technical filtering of Internet traffic (especially inwards traffic) and blocking of URLS via government directives sent to Internet Service Providers (ISPs) have also been common practice in key Asian countries (Ibid.). Expectedly, such experiences of oppression led to widespread campaigns and communications by the Asian civil society organizations, as can be sensed from the above mentioned submission by Oliver “Blogie” Robillo at IGF Vilnius.

Among the Asian countries, the comprehensive technologies of censorship developed and deployed by China has been studied most extensively. The Golden Shield Project was initiated by the Ministry of Public Security of China in 1998 to undertake blanket blocking of incoming Internet traffic based on specific URLs and terms. Evidences of the project getting operationalised became available in 2003 (Garden Networks for Freedom of Information 2004). Censorship of Internet in China, however, has not only been dependent on such sophisticated systems. In 2003, it was made mandatory for all residents of Lhasa, Tibet, to use a specific combination and password to access Internet, which was directly linked to their names and address. An Internet ID Card was issued by the government to implement this (International Campaign for Tibet. 2004). Tibet Action Institute has been a key civil society organization at the forefront of cyber-offensive of the Chinese government. A recent documentary by the Institute, titled 'Tibet: Frontline of the New Cyberwar,' has narrated how it has worked closely with the Citizen Lab, Munk School of Global Affairs, University of Toronto, to identify, trace, and resist the malware- and other cyber-attacks experienced by the civil society actors and websites in favor of independence of Tibet (Tibet Action Institute 2015). Not only activists supporting the Tibetan cause, digital security training emerged as an important aspect of the life of civil society organizations during the decade. Asian organizations like Bytes for All (Pakistan) and Myanmar ICT for Development Organization (Mynamar), as well as international organizations like Front Line Defenders and Citizen Lab have educated and supported civil society activities much beyond the Internet governance sphere with tools and techniques for effectively using digital channels of communications, and defending themselves for cyber-threats.

Combination of traditional forms of civil society mobilizations and digital techniques have often been used resist attempts by Asian governments to control the online communication space. Huma Yusuf has extensively studied the emergence of hybrid media strategies, using both old media channels like newspapers and new media channels like blogs and video sharing platforms, among citizen journalists and civil society activists in Pakistan as the government took harsh steps towards control of both traditional and online media during 2007-2008 (Yusuf 2009). She has carefully traced how possibilities of new forms of information and media sharing enabled by Internet were initially identified and implemented by citizen journalists and student activists, which was quickly learned and re-deployed by more formal organisation, such as print and electronic news companies, and civil society organizations like those involved in election monitoring (Ibid.). Malaysia also experienced fast-accelerating face-off between the government and the civil society during 2007-2010, as the former started intervening directly into censoring blogs and newspaper websites. On one hand, the government took legal actions against critical bloggers, either directly or indirectly, and on the other it instructed ISPs to block 'offensive content.' It also borrowed the 'Singapore-model' to mandate registration of bloggers with government authorities, if they are identifed as writing on socio-political topics. The civil society actors responded to these oppressive steps by setting up a new blog dedicated to coverage of the defamation cases (filed against prominent bloggers), and publicly sharing instructions for circumvention of the blocks imposed by ISPs. The National Alliance of Bloggers was soon formed, which organised the “Blogs and Digital Democracy” forum on October 3, 2007 (Thien 2011: 46-47). Similarly, Bloggers Against Censorship campaign took shape in India in 2006 as the government first directed ISPs to block specific blogs hosted on Blogspot, TypePad, and Yahoo! Geocities, and then went for complete blocking of Yahoo! Geocities as the ISPs failed to block specific sub-domains of the platform (Bloggers Collective Group 2006). Learning from this experience, the following year Indian government decided to work directly with Orkut to take down 'defamatory content' about a politician (The Economic Times 2007). This is common for other Asian governments too, as they have continued to develop more legally binding and technically sophisticated measures to monitor and control online expression.

In the 'Internet Enemies Report 2012,' Reporters without Borders listed 12 countries as 'enemies of the Internet,' out of which 10 were from Asia – Bahrain, China, Iran, Myanmar, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Vietnam – and it named 14 countries that are conducting surveillance on its citizens, out of which 7 were from Asia – India, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and United Arab Emirates (Reporters without Borders 2012). At the APrIGF held in Tokyo, July 18-20, 2012, a group of delegates from civil society organizations working in the South-East Asian region issued a joint statement with a clear call for global action against the shrinking space for freedom of (digital) expression in the region (Thai Netizen Network et al 2012). They specifically noted the following national acts as examples of the legislative mechanisms being used by different Asian governments to criminalize online speech and/or to harass public dissenters:

Burma – The 2004 Electronic Transactions Act
Cambodia – The 2012 Draft Cyber-Law, the 1995 Press Law, and the 2010 Penal Code
Malaysia – The 2012 Amendment to the Evidence Act and the 2011 Computing Professionals Bill
Indonesia – The 2008 Law on Information and Electronic Transaction and the 2008 Law on Pornography
The Philippines – The 2012 Data Privacy Act
Thailand – The 2007 Computer Crimes Act, the Article 112 of the Penal Code, and the 2004 Special Case Investigation Act
Vietnam – The 1999 Penal Code, the 2004 Publishing Law, the 2000 State Secrets Protection Ordinance, and the 2012 Draft Decree on Internet Management. (Ibid.)

The statement was co-signed by Thai Netizen Network, Thai Media Policy Centre, The Institute for Policy Research and Advocacy (ELSAM), Southeast Asian Press Alliance (SEAPA), Southeast Asian Centre for e-Media (SEACeM), Victorius (Ndaru) Eps, Community Legal Education Center (CLEC), Sovathana (Nana) Neang, Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA), and was endorsed by ICT Watch (Indonesian ICT Partnership Association).

Annexe – Tables

Table 1: Participation from Asian Countries and of representatives from Asian civil society organisations in IGFs, 2006-2010

Event	Participants from Asian Countries	Participants from Civil Society Organizations
IGF Athens 2006	11%	29%
IGF Rio de Janeiro 2007	13%	32%
IGF Hyderabad 2008	56% from India, and 15% from other Asian countries	25%
IGF Sharm El Sheikh 2009	17%	19%
IGF Vilnius 2010	Not Available	Not Available

Source: Reports available on Internet Governance Forum website (http://igf.wgig.org/cms).

Table 2: Internet Society Chapters in Asia

Chapter	Year of Establishment	URL
Afghanistan	In formation	Not available
Bahrain	2001	http://www.bis.org.bh/
Bangladesh	2011	http://www.isoc.org.bd/dhaka/
Hong Kong	2005	http://www.isoc.hk/
India (Bangalore)	2010	http://www.isocbangalore.org/
India (Chennai)	2007	http://www.isocindiachennai.org/
India (Delhi)	2002. Rejuvenated in 2008.	http://www.isocdelhi.in/
India (Kolkata)	2009	http://isockolkata.in/
India (Trivandrum)	2015	Not available
Indonesia	2014	http://www.isoc.or.id/
Israel	1995	http://www.isoc.org.il/
Japan	1994	http://www.isoc.jp/
Lebanon	2010	http://www.isoc.org.lb/
Malaysia	2010	http://www.isoc.my/
Nepal	2007	http://www.internetsociety.org.np/
Pakistan (Islamabad)	2013	http://www.isocibd.org.pk/
Palestine	2002	http://www.isoc.ps/
Philippines	1999. Rejuvenated in 2009.	https://www.facebook.com/isoc.ph/
Qatar	2011	http://www.isoc.qa/
Republic of Korea	2014	Not available
Singapore	2011	http://isoc.sg/
Sri Lanka	2010	http://www.isoc.lk/
Taipei	1996	http://www.isoc.org.tw/
Thailand	1996	http://www.isoc-th.org/
United Arab Emirates	2007	http://www.isocuae.com/
Yemen	2013	http://isoc.ye/

Source: Details of chapters available on Internet Society website (http://www.internetsociety.org/).

Reference

Aizu, Izumi et al. 2002. Joint Statement from Asia Civil Society Forum Participants on World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). December 13. Accessed on July 08, 2015 from http://www.wsisasia.org/wsis-acsf2002/wsis-acsfdec13f.doc.

Asia Pacific Regional Internet Governance Forum (APrIGF). 2010. APrIGF Roundtable – June 15th, 2010: Session 1 – Welcome Remarks and Introduction – Real Time Transcript. Accessed on July 08, 2015 from http://2010.rigf.asia/aprigf-roundtable-june-15th-2010-session-1/.

Bloggers Collective Group. 2006. Bloggers Against Censorship. Last updated on April 30, 2009‎. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://censorship.wikia.com/wiki/Bloggers_Against_Censorship.

Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus. 2006. Internet Governance Caucus Charter. October 14. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://igcaucus.org/old/IGC-charter_final-061014.html.

Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus. 2008a. Inputs for the Open IGF Consultation, Geneva, 26th February, 2008 – Statement II: Main Session Themes for IGF, Hyderabad. February 26. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://igcaucus.org/old/IGC%20-%20Main%20themes%20for%20IGF%20Hyd.pdf.

Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus. 2008b. Inputs for the Open IGF Consultation, Geneva, 26th February, 2008 – Statement III: Renewal / Restructuring of Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group. February 26. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://igcaucus.org/old/IGC%20-%20MAG%20Rotation.pdf.

Desai, Nitin, et al. 2005. Report of the Working Group on Internet Governance. United June. Accessed on July 08, 2015 from http://www.wgig.org/docs/WGIGREPORT.pdf.

Garden Networks for Freedom of Information. 2004. Breaking through the “Golden Shield.” Open Society Institute. November 01. Accessed on July 08, 2015 from https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/sites/default/files/china-internet-censorship-20041101.pdf.

George, Susanna. 2002. Women and New Information and Communications Technologies: The Promise of Empowerment. Presented at The World Summit on the Information Society: An Asian Response Meeting, November 22-24. Accessed on July 08, 2015 from http://www.wsisasia.org/materials/susanna.doc/.

Gurumurthy, Anita, & Parminder Jeet Singh. 2005. WSIS PrepCom 2: A South Asian Perspective. Association for Progressive Communications. April 01. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from https://www.apc.org/en/news/hr/world/wsis-prepcom-2-south-asian-perspective.

Internet Governance Forum (IGF). 2006. Athens 2006 – List of Participants. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://www.intgovforum.org/PLP.html.

Internet Governance Forum (IGF). 2008. Arrangements for Internet Governance, Global and National/Regional. IGF Hyderabad, India. December 5. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from https://web.archive.org/web/20130621205004/http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/hyderabad_prog/AfIGGN.html [Original URL: http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/hyderabad_prog/AfIGGN.html].

Internet Governance Forum (IGF). 2009. Taking Stock and Looking Forward – On the Desirability of the Continuation of the Forum, Part II. IGF Sharm El Sheikh, Egypt. November 18. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/2009/sharm_el_Sheikh/Transcripts/Sharm%20El%20Sheikh%2018%20November%202009%20Stock%20Taking%20II.txt.

Internet Governance Forum (IGF). 2010. Taking Stock of Internet Governance and the Way Forward. IGF Vilnius, Lithuania. September 17. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://igf.wgig.org/cms/component/content/article/102-transcripts2010/687-taking-stock.

International Campaign for Tibet. 2004. Chinese Authorities Institute Internet ID Card System in Tibet for Online Surveillance. April 30. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://www.savetibet.org/chinese-authorities-institute-internet-id-card-system-in-tibet-for-online-surveillance/.

International Telecommunication Union (ITU). 2003a. PrepCom-2 / 17-28 February 2003 – Final List of Participants. February 28. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://www.itu.int/wsis/participation/prepcom2/prepcom2-cl.pdf.

International Telecommunication Union (ITU). 2003b. Geneva Phase of the WSIS: List of Participants. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/summit_participants.pdf.

Jain, Rekha. 2006. Participation of Developing Countries in the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) Process: India Case Study. Association for Progressive Communications. March. Accessed on July 08, 2015 from http://rights.apc.org/documents/wsis_india.pdf.

Reporters without Borders. 2006. List of the 13 Internet Enemies. Last updated on August 28, 2007. Accessed on July 08, 2015 from http://en.rsf.org/list-of-the-13-internet-enemies-07-11-2006,19603.

Reporters without Borders. 2012. Internet Enemies Report 2012. Accessed on July 08, 2015 from http://en.rsf.org/IMG/pdf/rapport-internet2012_ang.pdf.

Souter, David. 2007. WSIS and Civil Society. In: Whose Summit? Whose Information Society? Developing Countries and Civil Society at the World Summit on the Information Society. With additional research by Abiodun Jagun. Association for Progressive Communications. Pp. 72-89. Accessed on July 08, 2015 from http://rights.apc.org/documents/whose_summit_EN.pdf.

Thai Netizen Network et al. 2012. Southeast Asian Civil Society Groups Highlight Increasing Rights Violations Online, Call for Improvements to Internet Governance Processes in the Region. Statement of Civil Society Delegates from Southeast Asia to 2012 Asia-Pacific Regional Internet Governance Forum (APrIGF). July 31. Accessed on July 08, 2015 from https://freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/AprIGF-Joint%20Statement-FINAL.pdf.

The Economic Times. 2007. Orkut's Tell-All Pact with Cops. May 01. Accessed on July 08, 2015 from http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2007-05-01/news/28459689_1_orkut-ip-addresses-google-spokesperson.

The World Summit on the Information Society: An Asian Response. 2002. Final Document. Accessed on July 08, 2015 from http://www.wsisasia.org/materials/finalversion.doc.

Thien, Vee Vian. 2011. The Struggle for Digital Freedom of Speech: The Malaysian Sociopolitical Blogosphere’s Experience. In: Ronald Deibert et al. (eds.) Access Contested. OpenNet Initiative. Pp. 43-63. Accessed on July 08, 2015 from http://access.opennet.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/accesscontested-chapter-03.pdf.

Tibet Action Institute. 2015. Tibet: Frontline of the New Cyberwar. YouTube. January 27. Accessed on July 08, 2015 from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yE3AQqbGVkk.

UNSAJ et al. 2003. Civil Society Observations and Response to the Tokyo Declaration. Asia-Pacific Regional Conference on the World Summit on the Information Society. January 15. Accessed on July 08, 2015 from http://www.wsisasia.org/wsis-tokyo/tokyo-statement.html.

Wang, Stephanie. 2007. Internet Filtering in Asia in 2006-2007. OpenNet Initiative. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from https://opennet.net/studies/asia2007.

WSIS Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus. 2005. Initial Reactions to the WGIG Report. Contribution from GLOCOM on behalf of the WSIS Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus. July 19. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from www.itu.int/wsis/%20docs2/pc3/contributions/co23.doc.

WSIS Civil Society Plenary. 2003. “Shaping Information Societies for Human Needs” – Civil Society Declaration to the World Summit on the Information Society. December 8. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/civil-society-declaration.pdf.

WSIS Civil Society Plenary. 2005. “Much more could have been achieved” – Civil Society Statement on the World Summit on the Information Society. December 18. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from https://www.itu.int/wsis/docs2/tunis/contributions/co13.pdf.

WSIS Civil Society Subcommittee on Content and Themes. 2003a. “Seven Musts”: Priority Principles Proposed by Civil Society. February 25. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://www.movimientos.org/es/foro_comunicacion/show_text.php3%3Fkey%3D1484.

WSIS Civil Society Subcommittee on Content and Themes. 2003b. Final Report on Prepcom-2 Activities of the Civil Society on Content and Themes. March 27. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/pcip/misc/cs_sct.pdf.

WSIS Executive Secretariat. 2003. Report of the Asia-Pacific Regional Conference for WSIS (Tokyo, 13-15 January 2003). WSIS. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://www.itu.int/dms_pub/itu-s/md/03/wsispc2/doc/S03-WSISPC2-DOC-0006!!PDF-E.pdf.

Yusuf, Huma. 2009. Old and New Media: Converging during the Pakistan Emergency (March 2007 - February 2008). MIT Centre for Civic Media. January 12. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from https://civic.mit.edu/blog/humayusuf/old-and-new-media-converging-during-the-pakistan-emergency-march-2007-february-2008.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/raw/civil-society-organisations-and-internet-governance-in-asia-open-review

Digital Activism in Asia Reader

sumandro — 2015-10-24T14:36:44Z

The digital turn might as well be marked as an Asian turn. From flash-mobs in Taiwan to feminist mobilisations in India, from hybrid media strategies of Syrian activists to cultural protests in Thailand, we see the emergence of political acts that transform the citizen from being a beneficiary of change to becoming an agent of change. In co-shaping these changes, what the digital shall be used for, and what its consequences will be, are both up for speculation and negotiation. Digital Activism in Asia marks a particular shift where these questions are no longer being refracted through the ICT4D logic, or the West’s attempts to save Asia from itself, but shaped by multiplicity, unevenness, and urgencies of digital sites and users in Asia. It is our great pleasure to present the Digital Activism in Asia Reader.

The Book

The Reader took shape over two workshops with a diverse range of participants, including activists, change-makers, and scholars, organised by the Researchers at Work (RAW) programme in June 2014 and March 2015. During the first workshop, the participants identified the authors, topics, and writings that should be included/featured in the reader, based upon their relevance in the grounded practices of the participants, who came from various Asian countries. The second workshop involved open discussions regarding how the selected readings should be annotated, from key further questions to strategies of introducing them, followed by development of the annotations by the participants of the workshop. The full list of contributors, annotators, and editors is mentioned at the end of the book.

We are grateful to the Meson Press for its generous and patience support throughout the development process of the book.

Please download, read, and share this open-access book from the Meson Press website.

The Reader has been edited by Nishant Shah, P.P. Sneha, and Sumandro Chattapadhyay, with support from Anirudh Sridhar, Denisse Albornoz, and Verena Getahun.

Excerpt from the Foreword

Compiling this Reader on Digital Activism in Asia is fraught with compelling challenges, because each of the key terms in the formulation of the title is sub-ject to multiple interpretations and fierce contestations. The construction of ‘Asia’ as a region, has its historical roots in processes of colonial technologies of cartography and navigation. Asia was both, a measured entity, mapped for resources to be exploited, and also a measure of the world, promising anorientation to the Western World’s own turbulent encounters. As Chen Kuan-Hsing points out in his definitive history of the region, Asia gets re-imagined as a ‘method’ in cold-war conflicts, becoming the territory to be assimilated through exports of different ideologies and cultural purports. Asia does not have its own sense of being aregion. The transactions, interactions, flows and exchanges between different countries and regions in Asia have been so entirely mediated by powers of colonisation that the region remains divided and reticent in its imagination of itself. However, by the turn of the 21st century, Asia has seen a new awakening. It finds a regional identity, which, surprisingly did not emerge from its consolidating presence in global economics or in globalised structures of trade and commerce. Instead, it finds a presence, for itself, through a series of crises of governance, of social order, of political rights, and of cultural productions, that binds it together in unprecedented ways.

The digital turn might as well be marked as an Asian turn, because with the new networks of connectivity, with Asian countries marking themselves as informatics hubs, working through a circulated logic of migrant labour and dis-tributed resources, there came a sense of immediacy, proximity, and urgencythat continues to shape the Asian imagination in a new way. In the last decade or so, the rapid changes that have emerged, creating multiple registers of modernity, identity, and community in different parts of Asia, accelerated by a seamless exchange of ideas, commodities, cultures, and people have created a new sense of the region as emerging through co-presence rather than competition and conflict. Simultaneously, the emergence of global capitals of information, labour and cultural export, have created new reference points by which the region creates its identities and networks that are no longer subject to the tyranny of Western hegemony...

While the digital remains crucial to this shaping of contemporary Asia, both in sustaining the developmental agenda that most of the countries espouse, and in opening up an inward looking gaze of statecraft and social organisation, the digital itself remains an ineffable concept. Largely because the digital is like a blackbox that conflates multiple registers of meaning and layers of life, it becomes important to unengineer it and see what it enables and hides. The economic presence of the digital is perhaps the most visible in telling the story of Asia in the now. Beginning with the dramatic development of Singapore as the centre of informatics governance and the emergence of a range of cities from Shanghai to Manilla and Bangalore to Tehran, there has been an accelerated narrative of economic growth and accumulation of capital that is often the global face of the Asian turn. However, this economic reordering is not a practice in isolation. It brings with it, a range of social stirrings that seek to overthrow traditional structures of oppression, corruption, control, and injustice that have often remained hidden in the closed borders of Asian countries. However, the digital marks a particular shift where these questions are no longer being excavated by the ICT4D logic, of the West’s attempts to save Asia from itself. These are questions that emerge from the ground, as more people interact with progressive and liberal politics and aspire not only for higher purchase powers but a better quality of rights. The digital turn has opened up a range of social and political rights based discourses, practices, and movements, where populations are holding their governments and countries responsible, accountable, and culpable in the face of personal and collective loss and injustice...

In the face of this multiplicity of digital sites and usages that are reconfiguring Asia, it is obvious then, that the very nature of what constitutes activism is changing as well. Organised civil society presence in Asia has often had a strong role in shaping modern nation states, but more often than not these processes were defined in the same vocabulary as that of the powers that they were fighting against. Marked by a strong sense of developmentalism and often working in complement to the state rather than keeping a check on the state’s activities, traditional activism in Asia has often suffered from the incapacity to scale and the inability to find alternatives to the state-defined scripts of development, growth and progress. In countries where literacy rates have been low, these movements also suffer from being conceived in philosophical and linguistic sophistry that escapes the common citizen and remains the playground of the few who have privileges afforded to them by class and region. Digital Activism, however, seems to have broken this language barrier, both internally and externally, allowing for new visualities enabled by ubiquitous computing to bring various stakeholders into the fray... At the same time, the digital itself has introduced new problems and concerns that are often glossed over, in the enthralling tale of progress. Concerns around digital divide, invasive practices of personal data gathering, the nexus of markets and governments that install the citizen/consumer in precarious conditions, and the re-emergence of organised conservative politics are also a part of the digital turn. Activism has had to focus not only on digital as a tool, but digital also as a site of protest and resistance...

The Reader does not offer an index of the momentous emergence with the growth of the digital or a chronological account of how digital activism in Asia has grown and shaped the region. Instead, the Reader attempts a crowd-sourced compilation that presents critical tools, organisations, theoretical concepts, political analyses, illustrative case-studies and annotations, that an emerging network of changemakers in Asia have identified as important in their own practices within their own contexts.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/raw/digital-activism-in-asia-reader

Studying the Emerging Database State in India: Notes for Critical Data Studies (Accepted Abstract)

sumandro — 2015-11-13T05:54:53Z

"Critical Data Studies (CDS) is a growing field of research that focuses on the unique theoretical, ethical, and epistemological challenges posed by 'Big Data.' Rather than treat Big Data as a scientifically empirical, and therefore largely neutral phenomena, CDS advocates the view that data should be seen as always-already constituted within wider data assemblages." The Big Data and Society journal has provisionally accepted a paper abstract of mine for its upcoming special issue on Critical Data Studies.

Introduction

Through the last decade, the Government of India has given shape to an digital identification infrastructure, developed and operated by the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI). The infrastructure combines the task of assigning unique identification numbers, called Aadhaar numbers, to individuals submitting their biometric and demographic details, and the task of authenticating their identity when provided with an Aadhaar number and associated data (biometric data, One Time Pin sent to the pre-declared mobile number, etc.). The aim of UIDAI is to provide universal authentication-as-a-service for all residents of India who approach any public or private agencies for any kind of service or transaction. Simultaneously, the Aadhaar numbers will function as unique identifiers for joining up databases of different government agencies, and hence allow the Indian government to undertake big data analytics at a governmental scale, and not only at a departmental one.

In this paper, I am primarily motivated by the challenge of finding points and objects to enter into a critical study of such an in-progress data infrastructure. As I proceed with an understanding that data is produced within its specific social and material context, the question then is to read through the data to reflect on its possible social and material context. This is complicated when approaching a big data infrastructure that is meant to produce data for explicitly intra-governmental consumption and circulation. The problem then is not one of reading through available big data, but one of reading through the assemblage and imaginaries of big data to reflect on the kind of data it will give rise to, and thus on the politics of the data assemblage and the database state it enables.

Logic of the Database State

Application of data to inform governmental acts have taken place at least since government has been understood as responsible for the welfare of the population and the territory. The measurement of the population and the territory – the number of people, their demographic features, amounts and locations of natural resources, and so on – have always been integral to the functioning of the modern nation-state. Database state is used in this paper to identify a particular mode of mobilisation of data within governmental acts, which is fundamentally shaped by the possibilities of big data extraction, appropriation, and analytics pioneered by a range of companies since late 1990s. The reason for not using big data state but database dtate is that big data refers to a body of technologies emerging in response to a set of data management and analysis challenges situated in a certain moment of development of information technologies, whereas database refers to a symbolic form (Manovich 1999): a form in which not only the population is made visible to the government (as a collection of visual, textual, numeric, and other forms of records), but also how the acts of government are made visible to the population (as a collection of performance indicators, budget allocation and utilisation tables, and other data visualised through dashboards, analog and digital).

The data production and management logic of this database state is specifically inspired by the notion of platform introduced by the so-called Web 2.0 companies: providing a common service layer upon which various other applications may also run, but under specific arrangements (including distribution of generated user data) with the original common layer provider. Data assemblages of the database state are expected to enable the government to function as a platform, as an intensely data-driven layer that widely gathers data about population individuals and feeds it back selectively to various providers of public and private services. This transforms the data assemblage from one vertical of governmental activities to a horizontal critical infrastructure for modularisation of governmental activities.

Studying the Emerging Database State in India

Government of India is presently debating the legal and technical validity of the digital identity infrastructure programme in the Supreme Court, while simultaneously carrying out the enrollment drive for the same, linking up assignment of unique identity numbers with a national drive for population registration, and rolling out citizen-facing services and applications that implement the Aadhaar number as a necessary key to access them. With the enrollment process going on and the integration with various governmental processes (termed seeding by Aadhaar policy literature) just beginning, I enter this study through two key sets of objects reflecting the imaginaries and the technical specifications of the emerging database state in India. The first entry point is through the various official documents of vision, intentions, plans, and reconsiderations, and the second entry point is through the Application Programming Interface (API) documentations published by UIDAI to specify how its identity authentication platform will collaborate with various public and private services.

The first section of the paper provides a brief survey of pre-UIDAI attempts by the Government of India to deploy unique identification numbers and Smart Cards for specific population groups, so as to understand the initial conceptualisation of this data assemblage of a digital identification platform. The second section foregrounds how this platform undertakes a transformation of the components and relations of the pre-existing data assemblage of the Government of India, as articulated in various official documents of promised utility and proposed collaborations. The third section studies the API documentations to track how such imaginaries are materially interpreted and operationalised through the design of protocols of data interactions with various public and private agencies offering services utilising the identity authentication platform.

Notes for Critical Data Studies

Expanding the early agenda note on Critical Data Studies by Craig Dalton and Jim Thatcher (2014), Rob Kitchin and Tracey P. Lauriault have taken steps towards emphasising the responsibility of this nebulous research strategy to chart and unpack the data assemblages (2014). This is exactly what I propose to do in this paper. While Kitchin and Lauriault provide a detailed list of the components of the apparatus of a data assemblage (2014: 7), I find the concepts of infrastructural components and infrastructural relations very useful in thinking through the emerging infrastructure of authentication. Thus, my approach to these tasks of charting and unpacking is focused on the infrastructural relations that the digital identity infrastructure re-configures, instead of the infrastructural components it mobilises (Bowker et al 2010). This tactical choice of focusing on the infrastructural relations is also necessitated by the practical difficulty in having comprehensive access to the individual components of the data assemblage concerned. Addressing questions of causality and quality becomes difficult when studying the assemblage sans the produced data, and rigorously analysing concerns of security and uncertainty pre-requires an actually existing data assemblage, with a public interface to investigating its leakages, breakages, and internal functioning. In the absence of such points of entry into the data assemblage, which I fear may not be an exceptional case, I attempt an inverted reading. Turning the data infrastructure inside out, in this paper I describe how the digital identity platform is critically reshaping the basis of governmental acts in India, through a specific model of production, extraction and application of big data.

Bibliography

Bowker, Geoffrey C., Karen Baker, Florence Millerand, & David Ribes. 2010. Toward Information Infrastructure Studies: Ways of Knowing in a Networked Environment. Jeremy Hunsinger, Lisbeth Klastrup, & Matthew Allen (Eds.) International Handbook of Internet Research. Springer Dordrecht Heidelberg London New York. Pp. 97-117.

Dalton, Craig, & Jim Thatcher. 2014. What does a Critical Data Studies Look Like, and Why do We Care? Seven Points for a Critical Approach to ‘Big Data.’ Society and Space. May 19. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://societyandspace.com/material/commentaries/craig-dalton-and-jim-thatcher-what-does-a-critical-data-studies-look-like-and-why-do-we-care-seven-points-for-a-critical-approach-to-big-data/.

Kitchin, Rob, & Tracey P. Lauriault. 2014. Towards Critical Data Studies: Charting and Unpacking Data Assemblages and their Work. The Programmable City Working Paper 2. July 29. National University of Ireland Maynooth, Ireland. Accessed on July 08, 2015 from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2474112.

Manovich, Lev. 1999. Database as Symbolic Form. Convergence. Volume 5, Number 2. Pp. 80-99.

Note: Call for Papers for the special issue can found here: http://bigdatasoc.blogspot.in/2015/06/call-for-proposals-special-theme-on.html.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/raw/studying-the-emerging-database-state-in-india-accepted-abstract

Iron out contradictions in the Digital India programme

sumandro — 2015-07-28T01:04:28Z

The Digital India initiative takes an ambitious 'Phir Bhi Dil Hai Hindustani' approach to develop communication infrastructure, government information systems, and general capacity to digitise public life in India. I of course use 'public life' in the sense of the wide sphere of interactions between people and public institutions.

The article was published in the Hindustan Times on July 15, 2015.

The 'Phir Bhi Dil Hai Hindustani' approach involves putting together Japanese shoes, British trousers, and a Russian cap to make an entertainer with a pure Indian heart. In this case, the analogy must not be understood as different components of the initiative coming from different countries, but as coming from different efforts to use digital technologies for governance in India.

It is deploying the Public Information Infrastructure vision, inclusive of the National Optical Fibre Network (now renamed as BharatNet) and the national cloud computing platform titled Meghraj, so passionately conceptualised and pursued by Sam Pitroda. It has chosen the Aadhaar ID and the authentication-as-a-service infrastructure built by Nandan Nilekani, Ram Sewak Sharma, and the team, as the identity platform for all governmental processes across Digital India projects. It has closely embraced the mandate proposed by Jaswant Singh led National Task Force on Information Technology and Software Development for completely electronic interface for paper-free citizen-government interactions.

The digital literacy and online education aspects of the initiative build upon the National Mission on Education through ICT driven by Kapil Sibal. Two of the three vision areas of the Digital India initiative, namely 'Digital infrastructure as a utility to every citizen' and 'governance and service on demand,' are directly drawn from the two core emphasis clusters of the National e-Governance Plan designed by R. Chandrashekhar and team, namely the creation of the national and state-level network and data infrastructures, and the National Mission Mode projects to enable electronic delivery of services across ministries.

And this is not a bad thing at all. In fact, the need for this programmatic and strategic convergence has been felt for quite some time now, and it is wonderful to see the Prime Minister directly addressing this need. Although, while drawing benefits from the existing programmes, the DI initiative must also deal with the challenges inherited in the process.

Recently circulated documents describes that the institutional framework for Digital India will be headed by a Monitoring Committee overseeing two main drivers of the initiative: the Digital India Advisory Group led by the minister of communication and information technology, and the Apex Committee chaired by the cabinet secretary. While the former will function primarily through guiding the implementation works by the Department of Electronics and Information Technology (DeitY), the latter will lead the activities of both the DeitY and the various sectoral ministries.

Here lies one possible institutional bottleneck that the Digital India architecture inherits from the National e-Governance Plan. Putting the DeitY in the driving seat of the digital transformation agenda in parallel with all other central government departments indicate an understanding that the transformation is fundamentally a technical issue. However, most often what is needed is administrative reform at a larger scale, and re-engineering of processes at a smaller scale.

Government agencies that have addressed such challenges in the past, such as the department of administrative reforms and public grievances, is not mentioned explicitly within the institutional framework, and instead DeitY has been trusted with a range of tasks that may be beyond its scope and core skills.

The danger of this is that the Digital India initiative will end up initiating more infrastructural and software projects, without transforming the underlying governmental processes. For example, the recently launched eBasta website creates a centralised online shop for publishers of educational materials to make books available for teachers to browse and select for their classes, and for the students to directly download, against payment or otherwise. The website has been developed by the Centre for Development of Advanced Computing and DeitY. At the same time, the ministry of human resource development, which is responsible for matters related to public education, has already collaborated with the Central Institute of Educational Technology and the Homi Bhabha Centre for Science Education in TIFR to build a comprehensive platform for multi-media resources for education – the National Repository of Open Educational Resources. The initial plans of the DI initiative are yet to explicitly recognise that the key challenge is not in building new applications and websites, but aligning existing efforts.

This mismatch, between what the Digital India initiative proposes to achieve and how it plans to achieve it, is further demonstrated in the 'e-Governance Policy Initiatives under Digital India' document. The compilation lists the key policies to govern designing and implementation of the Digital India programmes, but surprisingly fails to mention any policies, acts, and pending bills approved or initiated by any previous government. This is remarkably counter-productive as the existing policy frameworks, such as the Framework for Mobile Governance, the National Data Sharing and Accessibility Policy, and the Interoperability Framework for e-Governance, are suitably placed to complement the new policies around use of free of open source softwares for e-governance systems, so as to ensure their transparency, interoperability, and inclusive outreach. Several pending bills like The National Identification Authority of India Bill, 2010, The Electronic Delivery of Services Bill, 2011, and The Privacy (Protection) Bill, 2013, are absolutely fundamental for comprehensive and secure implementation of the various programmes under the Digital India initiative.

The next year will complete a decade of development of national e-governance systems in India, since the launch of National e-Governance Plan in 2006. Given this history of information systems sometimes partially implemented and sometimes working in isolation, a 'Phir Bhi Dil Hai Hindustani' approach to digitise India is a very pragmatic one. What we surely do not need is increased contradiction among e-governance systems. Simultaneously, we neither need digital systems that centralise governmental power within one ministry on technical grounds, or expose citizens to abuse of their digital identity and assets due to lack of sufficient legal frameworks.

(Sumandro Chattapadhyay is research director, The Centre for Internet and Society. The views expressed are personal.)

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/hindustan-times-july-15-2015-sumandro-chattapadhyay-iron-out-contradictions-in-the-digital-india-programme

International Open Data Charter, Consultation Meeting, Bengaluru, July 28, 5:30 pm

sumandro — 2015-08-21T05:45:53Z

This is to invite you to a consultation meeting on the first public draft of the International Open Data Charter organised by CIS with DataKind and DataMeet at the CIS office in Bengaluru, on Tuesday, July 28, 2015, at 5:30 pm.

The Charter is being developed by the Open Data Working Group of the Open Government Partnership in consultation with a number of international organisations. Meant for approval and implementation by national governments, the Charter has five key principles:

Open by Default;
Quality and Quantity;
Useable by All;
Engagement and Empowerment of Citizens; and
Collaboration for Development and Innovation.

The first public draft of the International Open Data Charter was published in end of May 2015 at the International Open Data Conference in Ottawa, and can be accessed here: http://opendatacharter.net/charter/.

Organisations and individuals are invited to submit comments directly on the Charter page, before July 31.

We are organising this meeting to discuss the context, the drafting process, and the objectives of this document, and to encourage the participants to comment on the existing text of the Charter.

We keenly look forward to your participation in the consultation meeting on Tuesday.

The CIS office address is Number 194, 2nd 'C' Cross, Domlur, 2nd Stage, Bangalore 560071 (opposite Domlur Club and near the TERI building).

Please share this invitation with all relevant individuals, organisations, and networks.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/international-open-data-charter-consultation-bengaluru-28072015

International Open Data Charter, Consultation Meeting, Delhi, July 09, 5:30 pm

sumandro — 2015-07-07T12:12:50Z

This is to invite you to a consultation meeting on the first public draft of the International Open Data Charter, at the CIS office in Delhi, on Thursday, July 09, 2015, at 5:30 pm.

Open by Default;
Quality and Quantity;
Useable by All;
Engagement and Empowerment of Citizens; and
Collaboration for Development and Innovation.

Organisations and individuals are invited to submit comments directly on the Charter page, before July 31.

CIS, acting as a general steward of the Charter and a consultation lead, is organising this meeting to discuss the context, the drafting process, and the objectives of this document, and to encourage the participants to comment on the existing text of the Charter.

We keenly look forward to your participation in the consultation meeting on Thursday.

The CIS office address is G 15, Top floor, behind Hauz Khas G Block Market, Hauz Khas, New Delhi 110016.

If you are coming down Aurobindo Marg from AIIMS and towards IIT, then take the left turn into Chaudhary Dalip Singh Marg and come towards the Hauz Khas Police Station, stop when you see a Southy outlet on your right, and enter through the gate on your left (opposite Southy). The CIS office is on the top floor of the first house on your left. Location on Google Map.

Please share this invitation with all relevant individuals, organisations, and networks.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/international-open-data-charter-consultation-delhi-09072015

Details for Contributing Posts to RAW Blog

sumandro — 2016-07-29T09:19:27Z

The RAW Blog hosts writings contributed by researchers, professionals, artists, workers, and others.

Themes

The posts may speak to the various interests of the the RAW programme and the Centre for Internet and Society: data systems, digital knowledge, internet histories, network economies, web cultures, indic computing, openness and accessibility, privacy and freedom of expression, methodologies of studying internet, etc.

Formats

The posts can be in the usual format of (hyper)text, or a combination of media and (hyper)text, or other web-based explorative formats. If you are planning to develop something of the latter kind, please let us know in advance, so that we can ensure that our blog will be able to host it. As for text-based posts, we prefer entries of 1500-3000 words length.

Style Guide

These instructions apply if you are submitting a post in (hyper)text, or in a combination of media and (hyper)text:

Submit the post in .txt, .odt, or .docx format.
Images, if any, should not be pasted within the document itself but be provided separately, with clear indication within the text about which image should be inserted where.
If the post includes audio/video files, please mention the hyperlink to the audio/video file in the text where it is to be inserted.
When inserting hyperlinks into the text, please do not use inline hyperlinks or footnotes, but use endnotes. That is, do not use "the Centre for Internet and Society" or "the Centre for Internet and Society¹," but use "the Centre for Internet and Society [1]" with the hyperlink concerned given in endnote [1].
For references, please use the Author-Date system.

Submission and Selection

Please send us the submission at raw@cis-india.org, with the email header "Contribution for RAW Blog." Submitted posts are published after approval by the members of the RAW programme. We may send editorial comments to the author and ask for minor revisions, if needed.

Copyright and License

The posts are published under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license, and the author retains the copyright.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/raw/details-for-contributing-posts-to-raw-blog

Open Data

sumandro — 2015-10-01T09:19:35Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/data