Centre for Internet and Society

Net Freedom Campaign Loses its Way

sunil — 2014-05-27T11:07:04Z

A recent global meet was a victory for governments and the private sector over civil society interests.

The article was published in the Hindu Businessline on May 10, 2014.

One word to describe NetMundial: Disappointing! Why? Because despite the promise, human rights on the Internet are still insufficiently protected. Snowden’s revelations starting last June threw the global Internet governance processes into crisis.

Things came to a head in October, when Brazil’s President Dilma Rousseff, horrified to learn that she was under NSA surveillance for economic reasons, called for the organisation of a global conference called NetMundial to accelerate Internet governance reform.

The NetMundial was held in São Paulo on April 23-24 this year. The result was a statement described as “the non-binding outcome of a bottom-up, open, and participatory process involving … governments, private sector, civil society, technical community, and academia from around the world.” In other words — it is international soft law with no enforcement mechanisms.

The statement emerges from “broad consensus”, meaning governments such as India, Cuba and Russia and civil society representatives expressed deep dissatisfaction at the closing plenary. Unlike an international binding law, only time will tell whether each member of the different stakeholder groups will regulate itself.

Again, not easy, because the outcome document does not specifically prescribe what each stakeholder can or cannot do — it only says what internet governance (IG) should or should not be. And finally, there’s no global consensus yet on the scope of IG. The substantive consensus was disappointing in four important ways:

Mass surveillance : Civil society was hoping that the statement would make mass surveillance illegal. After all, global violation of the right to privacy by the US was the raison d'être of the conference.

Instead, the statement legitimised “mass surveillance, interception and collection” as long as it was done in compliance with international human rights law. This was clearly the most disastrous outcome.

Access to knowledge: The conference was not supposed to expand intellectual property rights (IPR) or enforcement of these rights. After all, a multilateral forum, WIPO, was meant to address these concerns. But in the days before the conference the rights-holders lobby went into overdrive and civil society was caught unprepared.

The end result — “freedom of information and access to information” or right to information in India was qualified “with rights of authors and creators”. The right to information laws across the world, including in India, contains almost a dozen exemptions, including IPR. The only thing to be grateful for is that this limitation did not find its way into the language for freedom of expression.

Intermediary liability: The language that limits liability for intermediaries basically provides for a private censorship regime without judicial oversight, and without explicit language protecting the rights to freedom of expression and privacy. Even though the private sector chants Hillary Clinton's Internet freedom mantra — they only care for their own bottomlines.

Net neutrality: Even though there was little global consensus, some optimistic sections of civil society were hoping that domestic best practice on network neutrality in Brazil’s Internet Bill of Right — also known as Marco Civil, that was signed into law during the inaugural ceremony of NetMundial — would make it to the statement. Unfortunately, this did not happen.

For almost a decade since the debate between the multi-stakeholder and multilateral model started, the multi-stakeholder model had produced absolutely nothing outside ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, a non-profit body), its technical fraternity and the standard-setting bodies.

The multi-stakeholder model is governance with the participation (and consent — depending on who you ask) of those stakeholders who are governed. In contrast, in the multilateral system, participation is limited to nation-states.

Civil society divisions

The inability of multi-stakeholderism to deliver also resulted in the fragmentation of global civil society regulars at Internet Governance Forums.

But in the run-up to NetMundial more divisions began to appear. If we ignore nuances — we could divide them into three groups. One, the ‘outsiders’ who are best exemplified by Jérémie Zimmermann of the La Quadrature du Net. Jérémie ran an online campaign, organised a protest during the conference and did everything he could to prevent NetMundial from being sanctified by civil society consensus.

Two, the ‘process geeks’ — for these individuals and organisations process was more important than principles. Most of them were as deeply invested in the multi-stakeholder model as ICANN and the US government and some who have been riding the ICANN gravy train for years.

Even worse, some were suspected of being astroturfers bootstrapped by the private sector and the technical community. None of them were willing to rock the boat. For the ‘process geeks’, seeing politicians and bureaucrats queue up like civil society to speak at the mike was the crowning achievement.

Three, the ‘principles geeks’ perhaps best exemplified by the Just Net Coalition who privileged principles over process. Divisions were also beginning to sharpen within the private sector. For example, Neville Roy Singham, CEO of Thoughtworks, agreed more with civil society than he did with other members of the private sector in his interventions.

In short, the ‘outsiders’ couldn't care less about the outcome and will do everything to discredit it, the ‘process geeks’ stood in ovation when the outcome document was read at the closing plenary and the ‘principles geeks’ returned devastated.

For the multi-stakeholder model to survive it must advance democratic values, not undermine them.

This will only happen if there is greater transparency and accountability. Individuals, organisations and consortia that participate in Internet governance processes need to disclose lists of donors including those that sponsor travel to these meetings.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/the-hindu-business-line-may-10-2014-sunil-abraham-net-freedom-campaign-loses-its-way

Pushing the Boundaries in Open Governance: Insights from OGP Asia Pacific Regional Conference in Bali, Indonesia (Day 1)

praskrishna — 2014-05-27T11:16:06Z

Sunil Abraham is quoted. He said that open governance is more about citizens checking on what government leaders are doing than on government coding its citizens to exercise surveillance.

This post originally appeared on the Open Data Research Network and has been republished with permission from the author. For the republished post on OGP website, see here.

The plenary room of Bali Nusa Dua Convention Center was jam-packed at 845 in the morning, with representatives from different countries in the Asia-Pacific region and all over the globe joining the first regional conference on open data hosted by the Government of Indonesia. The conference stage backdrop depicts a million colourful cranes moving in one direction towards the OGP logo, perhaps signalling an unprecedented wave of aspirations, commitments, plans, and actions towards a more ‘open’ governance within the region. Then a few minutes later, President Yudhoyono arrived and the two-day gathering (6-7 May 2014) of roughly 500 people started.

The program was impressive. It tried to cater to the different voices of what ideally should make an open government community – government leaders, journalists, right-to-information activists, business representatives, academia, researchers, civil-society groups, funding agencies, programmers, among others. The over-arching theme of the conference “Unlocking Innovative Openness: Impetus to Greater Citizen Engagement” speaks to both the supply side and the demand side of open data where governments can make openness more innovative to which citizens can proactively engage. The people in attendance reflected this multi-dimensionality and the kind of discussions on open governance that happened in Day 1 reflects the several, differentiated, yet somehow united view and interests of the many people that were there.

The first day of the conference brings me to four main realisations, prompted by the excellent presentations of the speakers and the lively discussion at the break-out session that I attended.

Openness is not an option but an imperative. Aruna Roy, founder of Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathanaof India, and considered one of the most influential thinkers of this decade put it more vividly using her organization’s slogan – “right to know, right to live”. While bureaucrats, like Minister Francis Maude of the UK argued that openness improve transparency, enhance public service, and stimulate growth, civil society groups claimed that openness is not something the government can do, but must do, to benefit right holders by ensuring that they are not only aware of what the government is doing but by ensuring that government leaders, to whom citizens entrust sovereignty, execute the will of the governed.
Open governance is about relations, about people, not just about technology, transparency, or data provision. Ms. Nwe Zin Win, of Myanmar National NGOs Network emphasized that as Myanmar moves towards Open Government Partnership (OGP) membership, the process should create a space for civil society groups to proactively participate. In his remarks, Director General Yoon Soon-Gu of the Republic of Korea emphasized that when his government embarked on the process of crafting Gov 3.0 as a development agenda, with the end-goal of making Koreans live a happy life, citizen consultations were conducted all across government to ensure that this plan is responsive and relevant and reflects the people’s aspirations. Anne Jellema, CEO of World Wide Web Foundation highlighted the fact that open governance is not only good for vertical accountability (government-governed) but also about horizontal accountability (agencies within the same government) and ensures that systems are working with government – judiciary, legislative, audit, executing agencies – for the common good. Open governance then, is about building that relationship of trust between government and citizens, between business and government, and between agencies in the government.
Open government has many challenges, but these are not insurmountable. Malou Mangahas of the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism emphasized five “I”s in her plenary speech that she said are the main challenges to the open government story in the Philippines and in the region – implementation, inclusiveness, information, institutionalisation, and interconnectedness. In the area of inclusiveness, one of the challenges is on how to ensure that people can participate in a context when there is a large digital divide, where internet penetration is low, and broadband speed is slow to a crawl. Mr. Samadhi of the Government of Indonesia emphasized that there are many examples in his country where government information is translated to accessible formats by infomediaries so that citizens without internet connection became aware, informed, and knowledgeable. In one of the coffee breaks, Redempto Parafina of the Affiliated Network for Social Accountability in East Asia and the Pacific shared to me that non-government organizations, concerned individuals, and universities translate information in the CheckmySchool portal to information materials for distribution and use by communities without internet.
Open governance narrative should focus on making governments more responsive and accountable. President Yudhoyono uses Facebook and Twitter, apart from the traditional media as text and snail mail, to listen to the demands of his constituents. The Government of New Zealand, according to Minister Peter Dunne, sets goals on basic public services as health, education, and employment and demands regular public reporting on these goals; reports that can be accessed and challenged by the people to whom the services are intended. Sunil Abraham of the Centre for Internet and Society argued that open governance should not veer away from this narrative. He made an example regarding India’s Unique Identification System, where the implementation is couched within the open data narrative. He believed that open governance is more about citizens checking on what government leaders are doing than on government coding its citizens to exercise surveillance.

It was a productive day. I am thankful that I was afforded the opportunity to attend the conference. One message that profoundly affected me was Aruna Roy’s exhortation at the end of her presentation – that we should make truth powerful, and that we should make power truthful.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/open-government-partnership-michael-canares-may-6-2014-pushing-the-boundaries-in-open-governance

WIP SCCR 27 (May 1, 2014)

praskrishna — 2014-05-05T00:07:10Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-27-day-4-may-1-2014.pdf

WIPO SCCR 27 (April 29, 2014)

praskrishna — 2014-05-05T00:02:08Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-day-2-april-29-2014.pdf

WIPO SCCR 27 (April 28, 2014)

praskrishna — 2014-05-04T23:54:18Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-27-day-1-april-28-2014.pdf

OGP Asia Pacific Regional Conference

praskrishna — 2014-06-03T12:03:55Z

Open Government Partnership is organizing this conference in Bali on May 6 and 7, 2014. Sunil Abraham is a speaker for this event.

This was published on the website of Open Government Partnership

Below are the speakers and moderators that will participate in the Asia Pacific Regional Conference on 6-7 May 2014 per 5th of May 2014.

Plenary 1: 10.25 – 11.10

Reflective statements by Heads of Delegations and CSO Representatives of OGP Asian Participating Countries, followed by Q&A

Ms. Natalia Soebagjo, Chair, Executive Board, Transparency International Indonesia

Hon. Peter Dunne, Minister of Internal Affairs, New Zealand

Mr. Yoon Soon-Gu, Director-General Ministry of Security & Public Administration (MOSPA), Republic of Korea

Mr. Gan-Ochir, Advisor of Prime Minister, Cabinet Secretariat, Government of Mongolia

Ms. Malou Mangahas, Executive Director, Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism

Ms. Suneeta Kaimal, Support CSO Chair of OGP (Moderator)

Plenary 2: 11.10 – 11.55

Reflective statements by Heads of Delegations and CSO Representatives of Non-OGP Participating Countries, followed by Q&A

H.E. Mr. Ahsan Iqbal, Federal Minister for Planning, Development and Reforms, Pakistan

Ms. Nwe Zin Win, Chairperson, Myanmar National NGOs Network

H.E. Mr. Rimbink Pato, Minister for Foreign Affairs, Trade, and Immigration, Papua New Guinea

Ms. Aruna Roy, Founder, Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathana

H.E. Mr. Francis Maude, Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General, United Kingdom

Mr. Wicaksono Sarosa, Executive Director, Kemitraan/Partnership for Governance Reform (Moderator)

Breakout Session: 14.15 – 16.15

Topic 1 Opening up: Inspiring Stories from Transparent and Accountable Local Governments

A panel on how local governments become open governments; experiences from local governments in the Asia Pacific region.

Co-organized by: Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH and UKP-PPP

Ridwan Kamil, Mayor of Bandung, Government of Indonesia

Sad Dian Utomo, Executive Director, PATTIRO

Thy Try, Executive Director Open Development Cambodia

Vidyadhar Mallik, former Minister for Local Government and Federal Affairs, Nepal

Aparna Daz, GIZ Sustainable Urban Habitat Programme

Dr. Birgit Kerstan (Moderator)

Topic 2 Open Data in Asia-Pacific: a Cross-Country Learning Discussion

The session seeks to contribute to a better understanding of the key enablers and obstacles in unlocking the benefits from open data in the region.

Co-organized by: Web Foundation, World Bank, and UKP-PPP

T. Nirarta Samadhi, Deputy Head President's Delivery Unit on Development Monitoring and Oversight, Government of Indonesia (UKP-PPP)

Ivygail Ong, Department of Budget and Management, Philippines

Anne Jellema, CEO, World Wide Web Foundation

Sunil Abraham, Executive Director, Centre for Internet and Society

Soong Sup Lee, Lead Information Officer, Development Economics Data Group, World Bank

Andreas Pawelke, Project Manager, World Wide Web Foundation (Moderator)

Topic 3 Perfecting Openness: Bridging Open Government Partnership and Traditional Access to Information Law

The session seeks to elaborate on implementation of law on freedom of information (FOI)/ access to information (ATI) in the region.

Co-organized by: PATTIRO and UKP-PPP

Claudia Taya, Office’s Director for Corruption Prevention, Office of Comptroller General of Brazil
John Fresly, Information Commission Indonesia
Under Secretary Abigail Valte, Deputy Presidential Spokesperson, Office of the President, Philippines
Zahid Abdullah, Program Manager, Centre for Peace and Development Initiatives
Maryati Abdullah, Publish What You Pay Indonesia, OGP Steering Committee Member (Moderator)

Topic 4 Roundtable on Open and Good Governance in Post-2015 Development Agenda

The roundtable aims to brainstorm and discuss the central role of transparency, public participation and accountability to achieve sustainable development in various contexts, with a focus of Asia-Pacific region.

Organized by: UKP-PPP

Noeleen Heyzer, Special Adviser of the United Nations Secretary General for Timor-Leste

Iftekhar Zaman, Executive Director, Transparency International, Bangladesh

Sugeng Bahagijo, Executive Director, INFID

Beate Trankmann, Country Director, United Nations Development Programme, Indonesia

Yanuar Nugroho, Special Advisor to the Indonesian President's Delivery Unit for Development Monitoring and Oversight (Moderator)

Topic 5 Measuring Civic Engagement for Better Open Government Policies and Services

The session aims to present and discuss international principles and good practices on how to measure citizens’ participation throughout the full cycle of governance in the Asia-Pacific Region.

Organized by: OECD and UKP-PPP

Ms. Inda Loekman, Program Manager for Indonesia Governance Index (IGI), Kemitraan

Mr. Juan Carlos Botero, Executive Director, The World Justice Project

Mr. Toby Iles, Senior Analyst, Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU)

Ms. Dra. RD Siliwanti, Direktur Politik dan Komunikasi, Bappenas

Mr. Paul Maltby, Director of Open Data and Government Innovation, Cabinet Office, UK

Ms. Keitha Booth, Programme Leader, Open Government Information and Data Programme, Land Information, New Zealand

Mr. Zeric K. Smith, Deputy Director, Office of Democratic Governance, USAID Indonesia

Mr. Alessandro Bellantoni, Policy Analyst and Project Manager, OECD (Moderator)

Topic 6 OGP-GIFT Fiscal Openness Working Group Session

The session aims to share experiences and lessons learned from Asian countries who have noticeably improved their fiscal openness policies, institutions, and practices especially in utilizing government budget transparency for public services solutions and citizen engagement.

Co-organized by: Global Initiative for Fiscal Transparency (GIFT) Fiscal Openness Working Group and UKP-PPP

Malou Mangahas, Executive Director, Philippines Center for Investigative Journalism

Murray Petrie, GIFT Technical Expert

David Gentry, Advisor, International Monetary Fund

Suyoto, Regent of Bojonegoro, Government of Indonesia

Joko Purwanto, Bojonegoro Institute, Indonesia

Dr. Juan Pablo Guerrero, GIFT Network Director (Moderator)

Warren Krafchik, International Budget Partnership (Moderator)

Jim Brumby, World Bank (Moderator)

Topic 7 Building Trust between Private and Public Sectors for a Competitive and Sustainable Economy

The session aims to explore participative strategies for the private sector to express their expectations of government while demonstrating willingness to take shared accountability that encourages openness and transparency.

Co-organized by: Indonesia Global Compact Network (IGCN) and UKP-PPP

H.E. Mr. Stig Traavik, Royal Norwegian Ambassador to Indonesia

Thomas Darmawan, Chairman, AP5I (The Indonesian Fishery Product Processing & Marketing Association)

Erick Stephens, Chief Technology Officer, Microsoft Asia Pacific

Peter Bakker, President, World Business Council for Sustainable Development

David Brain, President & CEO, Edelman Asia Pacific, Middle East & Africa

Andrew Wilson, Co-Chair of the Council on Private Sector Engagement and CIPE Deputy Director, Programs and Strategic Planning

Ahmad Yuniarto, Chairman, Schlumberger Indonesia (moderator)

Topic 8 OGP 101: Everything You Need To Know About Open Government Partnership

This session will introduce participants to the Open Government Partnership and familiarize attendees with key OGP institutional processes, requirements for participation, and resources available to participant countries.

Organized by: OGP Support Unit

Abhinav Bahl, Director, Global Integrity

Jack Mahoney, Program Associate, OGP Support Unit

Patrick Lim, Department of Budget and Management of Philippines and OGP SC member (TBC)

Alejandro Gonzales, GESOC and OGP SC member (TBC)

Plenary 3: 16.45 – 17.45

Topic Keeping an Open Mind: Perspectives from Other Region

This session aims to explore the elements of success in achieving a more open government in other regions and also the unique nature of each region that must be taken into account in moving forward.

H.E. Robert Blake, US Ambassador to Indonesia

Mr. Paul Maltby, Director for Transparency and Open Data for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General, OGP SC Member

Ms. Roberta Solis Ribeiro, Chief International Affairs Advisor, Office of the Comptroller General of Brazil

Mr. Alejandro Gonzalez, Director General, GESOC, OGP SC Member

Mr. Martin Tisne, Director, Policy, Omidyar Network, OGP SC Member

Mr. Warren Krafchik, Director, International Budget Partnership, OGP SC Member (Moderator)

Day 2, Wednesday, 7 May 2014

Lightning Talks Session: 09.12 – 10.1509.12 – 10.15

Topic Lightning Talks on Open Government Solutions

In this session, seven individuals from government, the private sector and civil society will present case studies of innovative and impactful open government reforms in Asia Pacific.

Diah Setiawaty, API Pemilu, Perludem (Association for Elections & Democracy), Indonesia

Jose Solomon Cortez, The Integrity Initiative, Makati Business Club, Philippines

Budiyanto Sidiki, E-Monitoring & Evaluation, Gorontalo Province, Indonesia

Sowmya Kidambi, Society of Social Audit, State of Andhra Pradesh, India

Sayed Ikram Afzali, Community-Based Monitoring Program, Integrity Watch Afghanistan

Undral Gombodorj, Check My Service, Democracy Education Center Mongolia (DEMO)

Fiona Tweedie, GovHack, Open Knowledge Foundation Australia

Wimar Witoelar, Founder, InterMatrix Communication (Moderator)

Breakout Session 1: 10.15 – 10.45

Topic 1 How To (& Not To) Open Data: Lessons on Designing and Implementing Open Data Interventions

The session seeks to present practical recommendations and discuss the key factors that need to be considered when designing and implementing successful and sustainable open data initiatives, or a project that has open data at the core of its design. Co-organized by: Web Foundation, World Bank, and UKP-PPP

Satyarupa Shekhar, Transparent Chennai

Gabriel Baleos, Co-Lead Coordinator Open Data Philippines, Department of Budget and Management

John Taylor, Director, Yayasan Kota Kita

Promita Sengupta, Head of Rule of Law Program, GIZ Bangladesh

Dr. Vijay Pingale, Joint Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, India

Ramda Yanurzha, Ambassador for Open Knowledge Indonesia

Daniel Dietrich, Steering Committee Member, OGP Open Data Working Group (Moderator)

Topic 2 Be the Change! Social Accountability Success Stories and Obstacles

The session seeks to provide an overview of the topic of citizen empowerment, with leaders sharing insights on lessons learned, success stories, and obstacles.

Co-organized by: Hivos, Omidyar Network, and UKP-PPP

Nikhil Dey, MKSS

Kuntoro Mangkusubroto, Head of Indonesian President's Delivery Unit for Development Monitoring and Oversight

Undersecretary Richard Moya, Department of Budget and Management, Government of the Philippines

Marjan Besuijen, Director, Making All Voices Count

Otgonbayar Chimeddorj, Legal and Procurement Policy Department, Ministry of Finance, Mongolia

Rakesh Rajani, Head, Twaweza (Moderator)

Topic 3 Transparent and Accountable Policing for Safer Community

The panel aims to discuss ways in which transparency and public participation can improve policing policies, practices and outcomes.

Co-organized by: Open Society Foundations (OSF), Tifa Foundation, and UKP-PPP

Brigjen Pol Moch Naufal Yahya, Coordinator for Bureaucracy Reform, Indonesia National Police

Geo Sung-Kim, Chairperson, Transparency International South Korea

Wajahat Habibullah, Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI) India

Monica Tanuhandaru, National Project Coordinator, United Nation on Drugs and Crime (Moderator)

Topic 4 Sustaining the Open Government Partnership: Youth as New Agent of Open Governance

The session aims to provide platforms for young people to exchange views on transparency, public participation and accountability and also to explore meaningful ways to sustain youth participation in OGP.

Organized by: UKP-PPP

Haidy Ear-Dupuy, Social Development Specialist, Asian Development Bank
Zaw Win Than, Chief of Staff, The Myanmar Times
Joel Mark Barredo, ASEAN Youth Movement
Clara Fok, Amnesty International
Ou Ritthy, Oxfam Cambodia
Lia Toriana, Transparency International Indonesia
Emily Swan, Fudan University
Gatra Priyandita, Asia Pacific Youth Organization (Moderator)

Topic 5 Opening Government: Citizen Engagement in Policymaking

This session will explore examples of good practice of citizen engagement in government policymaking and will apply the principles and lessons discussed to the development and implementation of OGP National Action Plans.

Organized by: OGP Support Unit

Tim Hughes, Involve
Shita Laksmi, Program Manager, Southeast Asia Technology and Transparency Initiative (SEATTI), Hivos Regional Office Southeast Asia
Sowmya Kidambi, Society for Social Audit, Accountability and Transparency (SSAAT), India
Patrick Lim, Department of Budget and Management of Philippines and OGP SC member
Maryati Abdullah, Publish What You Pay Indonesia, OGP Steering Committee Member
Linda Frey. Executive Director, OGP Support Unit (Moderator)

Breakout Session 2: 14.00 – 16.00

Topic 1 Co-creation and Partnership: Improving Service Delivery through Social Accountability

This session aims to “dig deep”, focusing on social accountability in service delivery, with a special emphasis on partnerships.

Co-organized by: Hivos, Omidyar Network, and UKP-PPP

Dr. Kemal Siregar, Secretary of the National AIDS Commission (KPAN), Indonesia
Aditya Wardhana, AIDS Coalition, Indonesia
Redempto S. Parafina, The Affiliated Network for Social Accountability in East Asia and the Pacific (ANSA-EAP)
Mr. Michael Macaulay, Transparency International, New Zealand
Gordon Davis, Head of Legal & Integrity Advice Group, New Zealand Government
Maria Ressa, CEO and Executive Director, RAPPLER INC (Moderator)

Topic 2 Civil Society and the Media: Levers for Transparency, Participation, and Accountability

This session seeks to highlight the ways in which citizen empowerment interacts with a lively media, and ways in which a proactive media environment can contribute to accountability.

Co-organized by: Hivos, Omidyar Network, and UKP-PPP

Adnan Pandu Praja, Commissioner of the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK), Indonesia
Umar Idris, Independent Journalist Alliance
Malou Mangahas, Philippines Centre for Investigative Journalism (PCIJ)
Thaung Su Nyein, CEO, Information Matrix
John Wonderlich, Sunlight Foundation
Stephen King, Partner, Omidyar Network (Moderator)

Topic 3 Better Access to Information for Better Accountability and Public Services Delivery

The session will explore some ideas in developing coherent relationship between government and non-government representatives in implementing transparency as well as access to information and the relation of these strategies to quality improvement of public service delivery.

Co-organized by: PATTIRO and UKP-PPP

Sad Dian Utomo, Executive Director, PATTIRO
Juan Pablo Guerrero, Secretary General, Federal Institute for Access to Information & Data Protection, Mexico
Tanka Raj Aryal, Executive Director, Citizen's Campaign for Right to Information, Nepal
Gulbaz Khan, Senior Manager, Governance and Capacity Development Citizen Engagement for Social Service Delivery
Yuli Ismartono, Board of Editors, Tempo (Moderator)

Topic 4 Legislative Openness Working Group Workshop: Building Openness and Citizen Engagement in the Legislative Process

The session will focus on positive examples of legislative openness and citizen engagement projects from the Asia region and around the world, seeking to present options that are at a range of stages of development in terms of their methods for openness and citizen engagement.

Co-organized by: Legislative Openness Working Group and UKP-PPP

Hon. Eva Kusuma Sundari, Member of the House of Representatives, Indonesia
Hon. Peter Dunne, Minister of Internal Affairs, New Zealand
Dante Preisser, Senior Advisor to Senator Arely Gómez González, Senate Member, Chair Committee on the Guarantee of Access to Information and Transparency, Mexico
Lucy Park, Director, Team POPONG, South Korea
Chaksu Roy, Head of Outreach, PRS Legislative Research, India
Dan Swislow, National Democratic Institute (Moderator)

Topic 5 Models of Openness in Sustainable Natural Resources Management

The session aims to discuss and explore options for cooperation and strategies in developing greater transparency and civic participation mechanisms in the natural resources management both at national and sub-national level.

Co-organized by: Indonesian Center for Environmental Law (ICEL), Publish What You Pay (PWYP), RWI (Revenue Watch Institute), and UKP-PPP

Emanuel Bria, Senior Associate for Asia Pacific, Revenue Watch Institute
Lalanath de Silva, Director, The Access Initiative Global Network
Suyoto, Regent of Bojonegoro, Government of Indonesia
Elisea G. Gozun, Board of Trustees, Government Social Insurance System (GSIS), Philippines
Josi Khatarina, REDD+ Agency Special Team (Moderator)

Closing Plenary: 16.30 – 17.30

Topic Take Actions! Innovative Openness in Asia Pacific

The session would feature one representative from each different groups of community that are represented at the Conference who will provide brief impression on their two-day experience and mark their respective action plan to drive further innovative openness.

Maryati Abdullah, OGP Steering Committee Member, Publish What You Pay Indonesia
Dr. Michael James Macaulay, Deputy Director of the Institute of Governance and Policy Studies, Australia
Mr. Ahmad Yuniarto, CEO of Schlumberger Indonesia
Phil Matsheza, Practice Leader, Democratic Governance, Asia-Pacific Regional Centre, UNDP
Joel Mark Barredo, ASEAN Youth Movement
Ms. Czarina Medina, Executive Director, Union of Local Authorities of The Philippines
Wimar Witoelar, Founder, InterMatrix Communication (Moderator)

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/open-govt-partnership-asia-pacific-regional-conference-may-6-7-2014

WIPO SCCR 27 Text (May 1, 2014)

praskrishna — 2014-05-02T23:44:20Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-27-may-1-2014.txt

WIPO SCCR Text (April 28, 2014)

praskrishna — 2014-05-05T00:35:07Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/2014-04-28_sccr.txt

WIPO Signing Ceremony for Marakkesh Treaty

praskrishna — 2014-05-02T23:18:49Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-marakkesh-treaty

Books and More are Relicensed to Creative Commons

subha — 2014-05-28T06:29:57Z

This blog post is cross-posted from Opensource.com. It was published on May 2, 2014.

Image by opensource.com

I began working with the Wikimedia Foundation in January 2012 for program and community support in India. With the Centre for Internet and Society's Access To Knowledge program, we focus on open access for scholarly publications to help communities enrich Wikipedia entries for Indic languages.

While I was negotiating with a few authors to relicense their copyrighted books to a Creative Commons license (a license that allows anyone to reuse, modify and use content), I began identifying certain areas of motivation for an author to donate their work as free content.

We worked closely with Goa University, Manik-Biswanath Smrutinyasa Trust, and the Institute of Odia Studies and Research.

Increasing open access for publications gained a lot when the government of India launched the National Repository of Open Educational Resources in August 2013 by the request of Wikimedia India. It generally takes a long time and much effort to negotiate with copyright holders for relicensing material as Creative Commons. But, when we do negotiate it, and win, the content is a permanent and valuable addition to open knowledge and the movement.

So far, authors might be avoiding open licensing because:

They think it might put them out of business because others could plagiarize and republish their work without attribution.
They think if they will lose ownership of the content due to the nature of open licenses, which allow reuse.

Open licensing should be important to authors because as more readers and reviewers get access to their books and other online content, the visibility of their work increases, allowing them to gain more respect and popularity. This can, in turn, help authors sell more of the reprints.

The "one book in every child's hand" campaign by Pratham Books was an initiative by a large publisher to license Indian langage books with a CC BY-SA license. The campaign's mission was to provide access to knowledge and good quality education of native Indian languages to students whose families cannot bear educational costs. Pratham Books gained a lot of attention globally and the campaign proved to be a sustainable model for publishers and free licenses.

Scholarly research publications are less prone to plagiarism because of their low retail value compared to mainstream fiction, self-help books, or travel and lifestyle books. Encyclopedic books have even less retail value. Thus, releasing content online under free licenses would not affect such scholarly works or encyclopedic print publications to a large extent.

Photo by Veethika Mishra, CC-BY-SA 4.0

Relicensing projects

Last year, Goa University applied a CC BY-SA 3.0 license to their four-volume encyclopedia, Konkani Vishwakosh. It is the largest encyclopedia compiled in the language. The book is being digitized on Konkani WikiSource, attracting new volunteers.
Manik-Biswanath Smrutinyasa relicensed eleven of the noted author Dr. Jagannath Mohanty's Odia books under a CC BY-SA 3.0 license.
Classical Odia is a 600+ page book of historical documents and manuscripts on Odia language and literary heritage of more than 2,500 years. The researchers Dr. Debiprasanna Pattanayak and Subrat Prusty moved from copyright to a CC BY-SA 3.0 license.
Two Odia language books by linguist Subrat Prusty have been relicensed to CC BY-SA 3.0. They are Jati, Jagruti O Pragati, and Bhasa O Jatiyata and have been digitized as well using ISCII standard fonts (not Unicode). ISCII standard fonts have glyphs with Indic characters that are actually replacements of the Latin characters by Indic characters.
A recent addition is the relicensing of the Kannada language encyclopedia published and copyrighted by Mysore University to a Creative Commons license.

The community and the publishers of books gain mutual benefits when more Indic language books are digitized, put online, and made freely available. By expanding online content and readership, a new life is given to many South Asian and non-Latin works, creating a revival for these languages and cultures.

Read the original post here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/opensource-education-may-2-2014-subhashish-panigrahi-books-and-more-are-relicensed-to-creative-commons

WIPO SCCR 27 Text (April 28, 2014)

praskrishna — 2014-05-02T14:36:06Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-27-discussions-transcripts.txt

Is the WIPO Treaty for Broadcasters Moving Forward at SCCR 27?

praskrishna — 2014-05-02T11:58:15Z

The WIPO treaty for the Protection of Broadcasting Organization: The Way Forward?

CIS statement at WIPO is quoted in this post submitted by Manon Ress to Knowledge Ecology International on April 29, 2014.

On day 2 of Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) 27, it looks as if the US delegation was showing the SCCR delegates a "way forward" for a new treaty for broadcasting organizations. It seemed as if US diplomacy was working efficiently and the US proposal was gathering support. However, while the US proposal was indeed gathering support, public interest groups and copyright owners also became more vocal in their opposition to the proposal on the table.

Let me highlight aspects of the first 2 days (Monday and Tuesday 28-29 April, 2014) of discussions on the treaty. Wednesday half day is in principle devoted to conclusions on the first topic of the SCCR 27 and will be dealt with in a separate blogpost.

On Monday, led by Martin Moscoso, a most efficient Chair, the delegates moved quickly through the text (with many alternatives) and discussed the various technological platforms as well as the various forms of transmission for broadcasting. They decided to come up (later) with a matrix to, if not clarify at least simplify the work on the proposal. Monday was about the object of protection (what is a signal?) and Tuesday was about Article 9. which is the Article about rights. The issues were: what are the rights that will be granted or not granted to the broadcasters in the treaty.
Until lunch time Tuesday, the mood was quite optimistic and it was no longer "if there is a treaty" ...but when there is a treaty. Delegates were chatting everywhere and one could almost feel a treaty fever coming to the SCCR again.

The discussions were quite diplomatic but also technical. The Delegates are, after all, copyright and related rights experts obviously enjoying arguing and debating, subject matter protection, scope and of course nature of rights. Here is the Secretariat comprehensive review of Article 9 which include the many Exclusive rights that are on the table.

SECRETARIAT: this very high level. We have for Article 9 on page 8 two alternatives, alternative A and Alternative B. Then we have Article 9 in the annex, a proposal from India and then we also, of course, have the new proposal on, in that document, annex 6, I believe this is covered in Article 6 of the cablecasting organizations.Starting with the working text,Ssccr/27/2rev. Both of these Articles, they deal with exclusive rights to authorize by broadcasting organizations, the first one lists fewer rights it covers retransmission, performance, the use of a pre-broadcast signal with them and then with the performance (?), it leaves it as a matter of domestic law to determine the conditions under which this may be exercised provided that the protection is adequate and effective.

Alternative B has a more extensive list of exclusive rights that broadcasting organizations may authorize.

Fixation, direct, indirect production, retransmission by any means, communication to the public, making available, transmission for the reception by the public following fixation and making available to the public of the original and copies of fixations of broadcasts with respect to this alternative, there are two subparagraphs, two and three, that address some flexibilities. Two says that the indirect reproduction and retransmission rights may be a matter for domestic law where the protection of the right is claimed to determine the conditions under which it may be exercised provided that the protection is adequate and effective.

It is possible under 3 to deposit a notification with the Director General saying that instead of the exclusive right of authorizing providing for in subparagraphs 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7 there could be a right to prohibit with a notification.

Then there's a general final subparagraph talking about adequate, effective legal protection to signals. With the means of the protection being governed by legislation of the country where the protection is claimed.

The Annex includes various proposals and the Chair asked each proponents to explain:
For example, here is the US Intervention:
quote

The U.S. proposal for discussion is found in the annex at page 4, we first suggested this concept a year ago at intercessional meeting and fleshed it out in actual language at the last SCCR session. As we described then, the goal of our suggested language for discussion is to try to cut through the same debate of the scope of rights for this treaty that's been going on for in the range of 15 years now. What we were attempting to do was to identify a single core right, that would be very narrowly focused to address the fundamental concerns of broadcasters, to do so within the scope of the General Assemblies mandate to deal with signal protection, signal-based protection. As you see from the language, I won't go in a lot of detail, we have described this before, we would suggest that no post-fixation rights would be required at the international level, just protection for the signal itself and that after fixation we would be relying on protection for the content rather than the signal so not through this treaty, but through other treaties and through national laws.

So the way we formulated it was to focus on simultaneous or near simultaneous retransmission to the public of both the signal and the pre-broadcast signal because the broadcasters had made a case for the need of protection for pre-broadcast signal as well. As you can see from our proposed definition for discussion purposes we would define near simultaneous retransmission to be a transmission that's delayed only to the extent necessary to accommodate time differences or to facilitate the technical transmission of the signal. So recognizing that -- well sometimes there's a delay but we would be talking about delays of something more like seconds and hours rather than years.

What we would also like to do at this point, rather than spend many hours having everyone discuss again what their original proposals were, perhaps there's a way forward that this committee could consider. We do have a number of complex alternatives with multiple rights for Article 9 before us at this point.

And in the interest of being able to make progress, we would like to put forth an idea for consideration. In the discussion of our proposal for discussion purposes of this new approach we have not yet in the meetings that we have held since we first put it forward, we have not yet heard opposition to the Treaty covering at least that much and the main area of this agreement seems to be whether there should also be additional rights particularly relating to post-fixation uses. So one suggestion we put forward for consideration on how to move forward in this meeting would be to see if we can as a committee try to narrow the range of choices before us and there are a number of ways that this can be done. One possibility would be to say that one choice is the U.S. suggested approach in our proposal for discussion, and the other main choice would be to start with that, but then also add some version of the various post-fixation rights that other Delegations have proposed as the alternative. Maybe there's a way that the proponents could combine some of their catalog of rights into a shorter catalog or a single more general right dealing with post fixation uses and then although certainly the United States isn't in a position to agree to such a broader catalog, we would have a clearer idea of what the two main fundamental approaches are, and that would help us all clarify the situation and present the alternatives to be negotiated as we move forward and make it easier to look for potential compromises.

I don't know if that's entirely clear, and I would be I don't know if that's entirely clear, and I would be glad to describe in more detail what we were thinking about, but we put this out for everyone's consideration as a possible way to move forward rather than just to continue to go in circles with everyone explaining their own position. And again, you know, as we keep saying, we want to stress that all we're talking about again is a international minimum and that doesn't prevent anyone from having the entire catalog of rights that they may have in their current national system to preserving those rights and urging others to adopt them as well. We're looking for something that we can all agree to at international level.

This US Proposal which is about a narrow right (a signal-based approach) and also a way to limit the proposals on the table by having only two fundamental approaches on the table. The signal-based narrow approach or the US proposal by contrast with the catalog of rights proposed by the EU (and its supporters).

One had to note that what was in December for SCCR 26, an informal US proposal in the annex, had gathered many supporters. For example, the US proposal was supported in some ways by India:

INDIA: Good morning, Mr. President.
I think Belarus, the Distinguished Delegate from Belarus and the Distinguished Delegate from the U.S. started the day with good morning, with good initiatives. We're open to discuss those issues. Going back to the comments made by the Distinguished Delegate from belarus, we do agree that no additional protection to the content should be given because content, the content, it is either author or the performer, asper the convention or the WCPT or the sin graphic producer, the producer of the sin graphic or the sound performing. Already the protection, is that.

What we need to protect here, it is the signal as said by the Distinguished Delegate of the United States also. The signal-based approach, that's what it says, the signal has to be protected. If you look at the definition of signal which India has given in annex, Article 5, page 1, it clearly said that the signal means an electronically generated carrier consisting of a specific program whether encrypted or not and then encryption, it is the dpm, we all know that, you know that that's the business model, the technical model followed by most. Coming to the program carried by the signal, that's the broadcast content.

So we have to see what exactly the signal is carrying the broadcast. It contains, you know, various types of Intellectual Property that's a copyrighted material that we can divide into four main categories. One is, of course, the program content, whether it is in-house production, created by -- acquired from the content owner, and then the other content is the advertisement, and then the moment you will see these two things, each has its own look and appearance just like CNN or BBC, the moment that content is on the screen, you know this is CNN content, you know that this is BBC content, even the same if their live casting, this, you see, in the Standing Committee, you know how it is different, it is a CNN journalist, a B cc journal. Then becomes the way they arrange the content, that's the full thing. The way it is presented. So, these are the four things, the signal, broadcast content, content, so various licensing and arguments are there. The advertising appearing between the few seconds in the BBC journal is different than what advertisement of the CNN and apart from the look and feel of the journal, and then coming to the proposal I would like to briefly explain and make sure we're given the Article 9. It is totally based on the signal-based approach in what we have explained here that the broadcasting organization hall enjoy the right to prohibit if done without authorization the rebroadcast of the signal through traditional procedure casting means, so rebroadcast not only the broadcast, the rebroadcast has to be protected. Here the question of fixation comes, you know, the fixation to be allowed only for the purposes of the rebroadcasting are in the near simultaneous broadcast, which was our Distinguished Delegate from the U.S. was telling, maybe deferred on the delayed -- unless you fix it, you don't do that. Coming to the simultaneous broadcasting, the U.S. Delegate was talking about, here simultaneous in the traditional sense only, it is clear it is a signal-base aid approach in the traditional sense, not the webcasting or simulcasting, what we need to protect here, if any unscrupulous guy, unauthorized manner taking this program-carrying signal, putting it over the internet, the investment of that broadcaster has to be protected. So that's what our proposal talks about, not about the simulcasting, live screaming and other platforms. So there -- otherwise, we will be including the webcasting and simulcasting in the traditional approach. In the traditional platform doesn't carry the webcasting of the simulcasting in the traditional sense and also in the webcasting. That's the simulcasting, doing the same thing, in two different platforms.The simulcasting can be allowed here in the traditional sense, if the BBC wants to, at the same time, broadcasting the same problem, the reach of the B cc in that territory would be different and it is different, they're covering different parts of the world.

So, that's what I would approach here. Then with that, the Distinguished Delegate from U.S. raising the post mixation rights, one significant until appears on the screen, there is l. C or led, nowadays the technology, it is crazy. It is on the screen. So only the content, not the signal. So the fixation of signal, then post-fixation don't come in the signal-based approach. What we need to do is the Protection of Country the signal and if fixation is coming, that fixation is allowed only for the rebroadcast, deferred or delayed broadcast purposes. We'll come back in these issues as the further discussion continues.
Thank you.
And by by Mexico.
> MEXICO: Thank you, Chairman. It gives me great pleasure to see you Chairing and you have the full support of my Delegation in all your work and moving forward in the topics of this committee such valuable work from Mexico. I would like to thank the Secretariat for the document that they provided us with in such a punctual manner. Thank you for helping us with our work. I would like to recall all Delegations. That we need to be seeking the establishment of general standards to feel more comfortable within the legal framework of these particular topic. We shouldn't be looking for participation on any individual basis because we will move forward with our work.

I recall that any international Treaty has to be based on general principles and not on details and the details should be stipulated in the respective domestic legislation of each Member State. On that note I would like to support the proposals from the Distinguished Delegate from the United States that we should, yes, move forward in this way with the work of this committee
And by Japan:
JAPAN: Good morning, Mr. Chair.
Good morning, everyone. I'm speaking on behalf of the Japanese Delegation.
We're in the position to support the suggestion by the Distinguished Delegates from the U.S. to put to option related to scope of protection. With respect to scope protection, some Member States seems to find great value in wide variety of rights including fixation rights, including the right of production and the right of making available after the fixation. For such members, post-fixation rights should be included in this Treaty. On the other hand, some Member States are of the view that the minimum fixation rights, simultaneous or near simultaneous retransmission and the right of pre-broadcast is enough under this Treaty.

Here we would like to point out that in order to find the way forward in our discussion more flexible approach may be necessary. From our perspective one possible way while setting the common denominator among all Member States of subject matters for minimum mandatory protection, other rights which not all the members must -- most members think is necessary and this is treated as the subject matter for optional protection. Of course, even if we take such an approach we have to further discuss which rights should be mandatory protection and which rights should be optional protection.

And by South Africa:
SOUTH AFRICA: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
In fact, I would like to associate myself with the previous speaker, Mexico and the U.S. I think it would be better to have just a general and another scope of rights for the broadcasters sips we're dealing with the signal-based approach and so as always to avoid having to include issues and list of issues that are covered by other Treaties. It may cause a problem in the long run in the sense that some Member States may find themselves want to be a part of this Treaty having to do a balancing act as to whether they need to join into this Treaty to be parties to the other Treaties or to the other issues that are being included in this particular Treaty. It would favor a very narrow, general scope of rights as I think the U.S. has captured that very well. I think it will help us to move forward. Otherwise we'll never -- a long, protracted kind of discussion and we have a very good experience in this, we have been looking at this for a very long time and part of the problems lie in this -- having a very long list of rights and so on, so on. I think that domestic legislation can do justice into the catalog of rights that Member States will now want to prescribe.

But things were not that easy with the EU:
EUROPEAN UNION: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Good morning to everyone. We tried to look at all the possibilities and options on the table and tried to think of some matrix as you proposed yesterday for which we have to find for both the object of protection and for the rights. Looking at what was presented and discussed today, we tried to put this into some kind of order also in response to the proposal by the Delegation of The United States. What I will present now is our understanding of where we understand with these discussions on various rights and, of course, there may be rates where we have not understood properly.

To us, it seems that there is a consensus in the room as to simultaneous, as to the right to authorize a prohibited or prohibit simultaneous retransmission by any means. As long as we talk about simultaneous retransmission we think from the discussions that took place here, but everybody agrees with simultaneous transmission, that should be covered by the catalog of rights.
Then the other category, the important category here, are any transmissions from fixation. In our view, we should in a way separate the discussion on transmission from fixation from other post fixation points. I think often we use here the term simultaneous retransmission versus post-fixation rights. I think there is a bit of a more nuance to the situation here because we have the post fixation rights because of the reproduction and distribution which we'll talk about later. We have the core right here, the core right which is a retransmission from fixation.
In the U.S. proposal there is also an element of such transmission from fixation as far as we understand, but it is limited. It is limited by technical means and limited in time because it is only to take account of time zones.

In other alternatives that we have on the table as far as we understand in the working document, alternative A, Alternative B, the proposal which was presented today by Belarus on behalf of some members of the CACEEC group, and to the extent that we understand the proposal of the Delegation of India, all these proposals include the right to authorize and prohibit only the right to prohibit in case of the proposal from India transmissions from fixation. We have -- atlas the way we see it, on one side we have the U.S. proposal with transmissions from fixations limited in some way and specifically in time, and then we have a number of proposals where we have transmissions from fixations included. For us, that would be the second block after the simultaneous retransmission, the second block to look at is this block of transmission from fixation. Within this block there are a number of Delegations that in the very explicit way include the so-called making available right. This is the case of Alternative B in the working document, this is the case of the proposal -- proposal presented by Belarus today and this of course has been the position of the European Union as well.

So that's for us, the second thing to look at, maybe to put in this matrix.

We would like to somehow maybe separate this block of transmissions from fixation from what we usually call post-fixation rights. When we move to post-fixation rights you have -- this is always interesting, helpful to look at the table proposed by by the Japanese Delegation, there are a number of rights so that you have the right of fixation itself, of course, that's not exactly post-fixation rights but I think belongs to this group of rights, reproduction and distribution and the right of public performance in places without accessible, for repayment of the fee. All these rights, we think belong to this third block. To be looked at.
Of course, there are certain overlaps, when you look at the various proposals, some extend to all the rights, some extend to only some of these rights. In our view, these three groups are -- it is something to be looked at.

Further, I think if we look at this, if we create in matrix in that sense, it will help us to move further. Then, of course, for us, the next step of the discussion is to then understand in more detail various proposals and I'll just give a couple of examples. I think it is clear for everybody in the room to understand the proposal of the United States on near simultaneous transmission T will have to be very clear what is near simultaneous means, and especially since it is limited in time, in the U.S. today, they indicated, that limited in time not in terms of years, but rather in terms of hours or let's say shorter periods of time, it is very important to know how this would be, how it would be understood and how it works in practice. I think as regards to proposal from India, one thing for us is still maybe not entirely clear is this reference that in all cases the protection has to be subject to the extent of rights acquired from the owners of copyright and related rights. That's, for example, in terms of transmissions of sport events, which are not covered by copyright, we don't understand how this would be covered or whether the proposal of India is, but these would not be covered at all by these Treaties but there is a number of issues that we can go into more depth with each of these proposals. I think that the final, final block is what kind of rights are we talking about in terms of exclusive rights, rights to prohibit. That's all other rights.

In a number of these proposals, we have the right to offer us and prohibit, why for example in the proposal from India we have clearly right to prohibit. That's the final element of the matrix with which we have to look at because maybe not necessarily for all of the rights we have to have the same right. In the sense the same category of right. Maybe we can have some rights that are exclusive rights and for some rights, rights to prohibit, of course, we should not finally forget the protection for the pre-broadcast signal because we have not mentioned it today, but I think on that element also there is quite a broad consensus to have this as a right to the protection for pre-broadcasting. Thank you very much.
After quite a few confused and confusing interventions, the US took the floor again urging the delegates to separate the two main issues, what are we trying to protect and with what rights:
United States.

A lot of issues have been raised in the last round of interventions. I do think it is important to keep our minds fixed on the idea that there is two separate issues and one is the scope or object of protection and the other is what the nature of the rights are. Sometimes I think we're conflating them in the discussions, if we look at the matrix, the object of protection, what that is, I just wanted to note one more time while we've got the broadcasters in the room that I do think there is still some open questions that would be good to get answers to if not -- if it is not possible to get the answers this week, then the next time that this committee meets, and those were my questions about to what extent the uses of new technology described by the BBC and summarized in Japan's little summary document, to what extent the uses of new technology have become standard and how widely adopted they are among broadcasters in different countries and of different types and sizes. I think that would be helpful to know.

Also where the piracy takes place, where it is that those who are Pirating, getting the signals from would be useful to know as well and I partly raise these questions because to the extent we're debating the inclusion of or consideration of simulcasting, deferred, on demand transmission signals, in addition to the question of what extent the piracy problems would be covered by copyright in the content and another question with could be could this be seen an an issue of infringe.

Rather than the issue of protection. If we're protecting over the air broadcast signals, is the problem that the piracy of those signals is taking place using the simulcast versus using the actual over the air broadcast. That's why I see the issues as related, and I think it would be helpful to get more answers to those questions as we look at whatever matrix is prepared.

In terms In terms of the rights, the Article 9 issues, the EU asked a number of questions, I think the Delegate from the EU is correct that there's -- it is not just that the rights are prefixation and post fixation, there is probably at least three different types of things we're talking about. In the language the U.S. has proposed for discussion we're not presuming that the existence of a fixation at any point along the way negates the right, not at all. In fact, you certainly could have a simultaneous, near simultaneous near transmission of the public even where the retransmission is made from a fixation and indeed some technologies may require the use of a fixation to enable the retransmission.

I think what we're focusing on is the idea that there is no right to control the fixation itself or what is otherwise done with subsequent copies, including consumer copying, that would not fall within the right.

Then, just to say that we appreciated the comments from the Delegate of Brazil and also wanted to clarify our proposal was really a matter of process, not substance. We agree with Russia that we're looking to move this forward and so even though our view is that a single right rather than a combination is the most likely way to be able to make progress and move the debate forward, and achieve an outcome, we also think we could make progress here this week if we could simplify the full range of rights that are on the table and figure out a way to present two options for consideration and further negotiation.

That would only be for purposes of the negotiation rather than an agreement on substance at this point, that that's the right approach so then each of us could still be able to convince other Member States of our own view or to find some way to accommodate the concerns once we see what the two approaches clearly are.

It is a matter of process to be able to move forward from the complex text that we currently have before us.

Then just finally, we also agree that we still have open the exact wording of what the right would be in Article 9, is it a right to authorize, exclusive right to authorize, a right to prohibit, prevent, maybe at this point in time we need to keep those things in brackets also for further consideration, negotiation, including the issue razed by the E.U. Delegate that possibly the exact wording may be different depending on what the right is that we're talking about.

Following the US intervention, India discussed the very many different kind of piracy. Then, the Chair gave the floor to the NGOs and before lunch, the NAB (the demandeur for the treaty) made some clarifications related to the Monday presentation by the BBC (the red button or on demand webcast of BBC programs). Which was followed by KEI which stated:
quote.

This is not a treaty about copyright piracy but a special ride for broadcasters. I think it is not a good idea to sort of refer to cases where there is already a right, the copyright owners have (kei) unless you make it relevant to what's discussed here this week. IP rights are a form of regulation, and they create monopolies, rights to exclude, new layers of rights to clear, a shrinking of the public domain, and more obligations for consumers, libraries, businesses to pay more money not to copyright holders,but to the distributors of content. Don't go overboard. Don't approach this like you're a rich relative giving gifts to nephews and nieces, interventions should be narrow and only where they're actually needed to solve a problem like signal piracy to the extent that it is understood and can be remedied through an instrument, or to achieve a predictable, a desired redistribution of income to broadcasters. You're in this case extending rights to entirely new beneficiaries, it is not just people that broadcast in radio and television which was what the Rome convention addressed and make the service available that no one could charge for. Now you're talking about pay services protected by under legal protections such as regulatory provisions, contracts, theft of service laws, you're talking about cable tv service shut off if you didn't pay, cable -- satellite services that are shut off if you don't pay, you're talking about a wide-range of internet delivery issues and people are talking about post fixation rights.

You have what the BBC has described, you have people talking about services now provided under services in the United States such as hulu using platforms like these decidings, tablet computers, the explosion of services, and most of the people doing most of the innovative services outside of BBC are not here demanding a WIPO treaty but doing things, it is working, exploding and it is happening without this new form of regulation. So, I would say conclude by saying that the Rome convention or the WPPT or the Beijing treaty should not be the basis of the rights. Those rights already exist, they address different issues. You're talking about something new today and this new thing should be justified by some coherent explanation of a problem you are trying to solve and should be comfortable because of the cost of the regulation you're introducing to the information society is somehow justified by the benefit.

The Chair called then on the American Society of Archivists:

Thank you, Mr. Chair. On behalf of the society of American Archivists, the largest organization of archivists, we want to commend you for the continued wise chairmanship of the srcr and thank you to the Secretariat for the excellent support of the Committee's work. For decades archives included not just paper records but also important sound and video recordings, many of which have come from broadcasters. These are invaluable documents for connecting society to its past. Think of a major event in the past 15 years, the fall of the Berlin wall or the collapse of the twin towers on September 11th, without the video images that were created, these are the documents that will provide the stuff of history that connects future users to the archives. Thus, regardless of whatever measures are put into place to provide the signal protection that broadcasters need, the new rights should not add any further layers on the already existing copyright protection that exists in the content. Over the long passage of time the archives have to span, and given the vigories of institutions that disappear with regularly, adding a new right on broadcast content would add imher rationally for the orphan work in providing abscess to the dock ministry sector that is such an important part of society's historical record. After the lunch break, eIFL took the floor. The giddy mood of "moving forward" that we had witnessed in the morning was slowly changing (the momentum keep changing said a broadcaster sitting behind me).
[...]
eIFL: As stated at previous sessions of this Committee we see no compelling public policy reason for a new international treatment on the protection of broadcast organisations because piracy of broadcast signals is adequately dealt with under existing laws and treaties as outlined in the earlier statement by KEI. And the creation of a new layer of rights that affects access to content is of great concern to librarians because it imposes an additional barrier on access to knowledge especially to content in the public domain.

As stated which the Delegation of Ecuador, a new layer of rights will in addition to creating problems for users create froshes rights holders of content that will impact on their ability to freely licensed their works. Libraries have practical experience of such over protection caused by multiple layers of rights. For example, a library in northern Europe wanted to publish a sound recording from their archive that was originally broadcast in the 1950s. The recording was taken from a rebroadcast in the 1980s. And all of the performers'rights had expired and the authors waived their fees due to the importance of the work, the library had to pay $10,000 for the permission to use the recording because the signal protection applied also to the the retransmission.

So for many libraries, as you can imagine, such costs are out of the question. As a result, socially valuable works remain inaccessible in libraries and archives, depriving the public of the enjoyment of their work. So Distinguished Delegates, please consider the costs to taxpayers and society as well as the perceived benefits of this proposed treaty. Thank you.

After the Libraries, --except for the European Broadcasters under ACT which came to support the NAB and the proposed treaty--, other consumer/public interest groups such as TACD and CIS (India) followed by many many right holders (copyright holders or as they say at WIPO content owners) such as IFPI, FILA, BCC and FIAPS (representing authors, performers, music producers) took the floor one after the other to express their strong opposition to the proposed treaty. The main point for the Music industry representative was that before the broadcasters get a new exclusive rights, they should first recognize the rights of the music producers and pay for music that they broadcast. While this is actually happening in many countries already, the US broadcasters do not pay and that should change first according to the IFPI. Finally (and that was a surprise for many), a representative from Direct TV attending the SCCR for the first time expressed its strong concerns for a treaty that would give broadcasters exclusive rights and thus more power to control the media market.

Here is the Indian NGO CIS statement:
We have some concerns regarding the intended scope and language of Article 9 in Working Document SCCR/27/2 Rev. We believe that this expands the scope of this proposed treaty and is likely to have the effect of granting broadcasters rights over the content being carried and not just the signal. On this issue, we have two brief observations to make:

First- Article 9 envisages fixation and post fixation rights for broadcasting organizations- for instance among others, those of reproduction, distribution and public performance This, we believe is not within the mandate of this Committee, being as it is, inconsistent with a signal based approach.

Second- we express our reservations on the inclusion of “communication to the public” reflected in Article 9 Alternative B, which also relates to the definition of communication to the public under alternative to d of Article 5 of this document. Communication to the public is an element of copyright and governs the content layer, as distinct from the “broadcast” or “transmission” of a signal.

Therefore, attempts to regulate “communication to the public” would not be consistent with a signal based approach.Notes during the excellent IFPI statement as well as statements by the other copyright owners will be in my next blog for your enjoyment.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/knowledge-ecology-international-manon-ress-april-29-2014-is-wipo-treaty-for-broadcasters-moving-forward-at-sccr-27

SCCR 26

praskrishna — 2014-05-01T13:57:22Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/sccr-26.pdf

Access to Knowledge Bulletin — May 2014

praskrishna — 2014-07-04T05:30:05Z

The Access to Knowledge (Wikipedia) newsletter for the month of May 2014:

We from the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS-A2K) thank you all for your support and collaboration. We bring you the details of our work for the month of May 2014:

CIS Signs MoU with Shri Dharmasthala Manjunatheshwara College

CIS-A2K signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) with Shri Dharmasthala Manjunatheshwara College to introduce “Indian Language Wikipedias in the Indian Under Graduate and Post Graduate Classroom”. Dr. U.B. Pavanaja on behalf of the CIS-A2K team signed the MoU. The signing event took place earlier on April 21, 2014.

Articles

Books and More are Relicensed to Creative Commons (by Subhashish Panigrahi, Opensource.com, May 2, 2014).
GLAM in India: 10 tips for successful GLAM projects (by Subhashish Panigrahi, OpenGLAM, May 27, 2014).
Indic Language Wikipedias as Open Educational Resources (by Subhashish Panigrahi, Open Education Working Group, May 27, 2014).

Blog Entry

Community led Konkani Wikipedia Outreach (by Nitika Tandon, May 16, 2014)

Event Organized

Tulu Wikipedia Workshop at Udupi (co-organized by CIS-A2K and the Regional Research Centre, MGM College, Udupi, May 25, 2014). Dr. U.B.Pavanaja conducted the workshop.

News and Media Coverage

CIS gave its inputs to the following media coverage:

Wikipedia in UG Education program at Christ University (Prajavani, May 15, 2014).
Subhashish Panigrahi joins Open GLAM Working Group Subhashish recently joined the OpenGLAM Working Group (a global network of people who work to open up cultural data and content.) as a member and OpenGLAM Local (a local affiliate of OKFN's OpenGLAM project) as an ambassador for India. Both the positions will be voluntary.

Wikimedia Foundation has funded A2K to anchor the growth of Wikimedia movement in India. The A2K team consists of six members, four based in Bangalore: T. Vishnu Vardhan, Dr. U.B. Pavanaja, Subhashish Panigrahi and Rahmanuddin Shaikh. One team member Nitika Tandon is based in Delhi. We also have one Advisor Dr. Tejaswini Niranjana working with us. Archives of our newsletters can be accessed here. Wikipedians from various communities can request for outreach programs, technical bugs, logistics-merchandize and media, public relations and communications here.

About CIS

The Centre for Internet and Society is a non-profit research organization that works on policy issues relating to freedom of expression, privacy, accessibility for persons with disabilities, access to knowledge and IPR reform, and openness (including open government, FOSS, open standards, etc.), and engages in academic research on digital natives and digital humanities.

Twitter: https://twitter.com/CISA2K
CIS group on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/groups/cis.india
Visit us at: https://cis-india.org

Support Us
Please help us defend consumer / citizen rights on the Internet! Write a cheque in favour of ‘The Centre for Internet and Society’ and mail it to us at No. 194, 2nd ‘C’ Cross, Domlur, 2nd Stage, Bengaluru – 5600 71.

Request for Collaboration:
We invite researchers, practitioners, and theoreticians, both organisationally and as individuals, to collaboratively engage with Internet and society and improve our understanding of this new field. To discuss the research collaborations, write to Sunil Abraham, Executive Director, at sunil@cis-india.org or Nishant Shah, Director – Research, at nishant@cis-india.org. To discuss collaborations on Indic language wikipedia, write to T. Vishnu Vardhan, Programme Director, A2K, at vishnu@cis-india.org

CIS is grateful to its donors, Wikimedia Foundation, Ford Foundation, Privacy International, UK, Hans Foundation and the Kusuma Trust which was founded by Anurag Dikshit and Soma Pujari, philanthropists of Indian origin, for its core funding and support for most of its projects.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/about/newsletters/access-to-knowledge-bulletin-may-2014

April 2014 Bulletin

praskrishna — 2014-07-04T03:38:00Z

The newsletter for the month of April can be accessed below:

We at the Centre for Internet & Society (CIS) welcome you to the fourth issue of the newsletter (April) for the year 2014. Archives of our newsletters can be accessed at: http://cis-india.org/about/newsletters

Highlights

We have published a compilation of the various central government schemes in a blog post as part of our National Resource Kit project.

The 27^th session of the WIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (WIPO-SCCR) was held in Geneva from April 28 to May 2, 2014. Nehaa Chaudhari participated in the event. CIS made its statements on Technological Measures of Protection on Limitations and Exceptions for Libraries and Archives, Orphan Works, Retracted and Withdrawn Works, and Works out of Commerce on Limitations and Exceptions for Libraries and Archives, and on the WIPO Proposed Treaty for the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations.
CIS signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) with Mysore University for converting to Unicode and re-releasing their encyclopaedia under Creative Commons License. Dr. U.B. Pavanaja on behalf of the CIS-A2K team signed the MoU.
A two-day global stakeholder meeting on future of internet governance (NETmundial) was organized by the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee in partnership with /1Net at Sao Paulo in Brazil on April 23 and 24, 2014. Achal Prabhala participated in the event. As part of its research to enable productive discussions of the critical internet governance issues at the meeting and elsewhere CIS published a total of 16 blog entries.
We conducted an empirical study of five separate and diverse banks (State Bank of India, Central Bank of India, ICICI Bank, IndusInd Bank, and Standard Chartered Bank) to gain a practical perspective on the existing banking practices and policies in India, and published a Banking Policy Guide.
As part of the Making Change project Denisse Albornoz interviewed Tuhin Paul, an artist and storyteller behind Menstrupedia, an India-based social venture creating comics to shatter the myths and misunderstandings surrounding menstruation around the world. Denisse provides an analysis of ‘menstrual activism’ — a movement that despite its trajectory in feminism remains unnoticed in most accounts of traditional and digital activism.
Six research studies were commissioned by HEIRA-CSCS (over November 2013-March 2014) as part of the collaborative exercise with CIS to map the Digital Humanities within a broad rubric of exploring changes at the intersection of youth, technology and higher education in India. P.P.Sneha in her blog post presents a broad overview of some of the key learnings from these projects.

Jobs
CIS is seeking applications for the post of Programme Officer (Access to Knowledge). There are two vacancies for this post one in Delhi and one in Bangalore. To apply, please send your resume to Sunil Abraham (sunil@cis-india.org), Nirmita Narasimhan (nirmita@cis-india.org) and Pranesh Prakash (pranesh@cis-india.org) with three writing samples of which at least one demonstrates your analytic skills, and one that shows your ability to simplify complex policy issues.

Accessibility and Inclusion

Under a grant from the Hans Foundation we are doing two projects. The first project is on creating a national resource kit of state-wise laws, policies and programmes on issues relating to persons with disabilities in India. We compiled the first draft of the kit (29 states and 6 union territories). The chapters along with the quarterly reports can be accessed on the project page. The second project is on developing text-to-speech software for 15 Indian languages. The progress made so far in the project can be accessed here.

NVDA

Monthly Update

NVDA e-Speak Text-to-Speech Project Update (by Suman Dogra, April 28, 2014).

National Resource Kit

Blog Entry

Central Government Schemes (by Anandhi Viswanathan and CLPR, April 27, 2014).

Other

Blog Entry

Polling Pains (by Amba Salelkar, April 30, 2014).

Media Coverage

Are Elections Fair to People With Special Needs? (by Papiya Bhattacharya, New Indian Express, April 8, 2014).
Enabling Elections (Vijay Karnataka, April 9, 2014). This was published in Kannada.

Access to Knowledge

As part of the Access to Knowledge programme we are doing two projects. The first one (Pervasive Technologies) under a grant from the International Development Research Centre (IDRC) is for research on the complex interplay between pervasive technologies and intellectual property to support intellectual property norms that encourage the proliferation and development of such technologies as a social good. The second one (Wikipedia) under a grant from the Wikimedia Foundation is for the growth of Indic language communities and projects by designing community collaborations and partnerships that recruit and cultivate new editors and explore innovative approaches to building projects.

WIPO SCCR

Participation in Events

Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights: Twenty-Seventh Session (organized by WIPO, Geneva, April 28 – May 2, 2014). Nehaa Chaudhari participated in the event. France, Greece, India and the European Union signed the Marrakesh Treaty. CIS delivered statements on Technological Measures of Protection on Limitations and Exceptions for Libraries and Archives, Orphan Works, Retracted and Withdrawn Works, and Works out of Commerce on Limitations and Exceptions for Libraries and Archives, and on the WIPO Proposed Treaty for the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations. Transcripts of the discussions can be accessed here.

Blog Entries

Report on CDIP-12 (by Puneeth Nagraj, April 22, 2014).
Signing and Ratification of the Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons who are Blind, Visually Impaired, or Otherwise Print Disabled (by Nehaa Chaudhari, April 25, 2014).
Report on the WIPO Director General’s Meeting with NGO’s (by Puneeth Nagraj, April 30, 2014).

Media Coverage

Is the WIPO Treaty for Broadcasters Moving Forward at SCCR 27? (by Manon Ress, Knowledge Ecology International, April 29, 2014).
At WIPO, Authors, Civil Society Watchful of Rights for Broadcasters (by Catherine Saez, IP Watch, May 1, 2014).

Other

Event Organized

NASA International Space Apps Challenge 2014 (CIS, Bangalore, April 12 – 13, 2014).

Blog Entries

Online Survey for Indian Mobile App Developer Startups & Enterprises (by Samantha Cassar, April 9, 2014).
App Developers Series: Services, Products, Dichotomy & IP – Part I (by Samantha Cassar, April 10, 2014).
Report on CDIP-12 (by Puneeth Nagraj, April 22, 2014).
Report on the 31st Session of the Standing Committee on Trademarks (by Puneeth Nagraj, April 29, 2014).

Wikipedia

The following has been done under grant from the Wikimedia Foundation:

Announcement

CIS Signs MoU with Mysore University (by Dr. U.B.Pavanaja, April 16, 2014): for converting to Unicode and re-releasing their encyclopaedia under Creative Commons License. Dr. U.B. Pavanaja on behalf of the CIS-A2K team signed the MoU. The signing event took place earlier on February 22, 2014.

Articles

Vachana Sanchaya: Bringing Access to 11th century Kannada Literature (by Subhashish Panigrahi, April 3, 2014)
୭୯ ବର୍ଷରେ ସ୍ୱତନ୍ତ୍ର ଓଡ଼ିଶା: ଶାସ୍ତ୍ରୀୟ ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଓ କମ୍ପ୍ୟୁଟରରେ ଏହାର ବ୍ୟବ‌ହାର (by Subhashish Panigrahi, Amalekha, April 4, 2014).
ଓଡ଼ିଅା ଭାଷାର ବିକାଶ ଓ କମ୍ପ୍ୟୁଟର (by Subhashish Panigrahi, The Kadambini, April 8, 2014).
Report from India: Relicensing books under CC (by Subhashish Panigrahi, Creative Commons Blog, April 19, 2014).
14 Odia books re-released under Creative Commons license (by Subhashish Panigrahi, DNA, April 26, 2014). The article was edited by Rohini Lakshane.

Events Organized

Tulu Wikipedia Workshop (organized by CIS-A2K, Balmatta Computer Centre, Mangalore, April 5, 2014). Dr. U.B.Pavanaja conducted the workshop.
Konkani Wikipedia Workshop (co-organized by All India Konkani Writers Organization and CIS-A2K, Kalaangann Shaktinagar, April 6, 2014). Dr. U.B.Pavanaja conducted the workshop.
Tulu Wikipedia Editathon (co-organized by Karnataka Theological College and CIS-A2K, Mangalore, April 19, 2014). Dr. U.B.Pavanaja conducted the workshop.

Participation in Events

Wikipedia Session for Trainee Journos (organized by Prajavani, Bangalore, April 28, 2014). Dr. U.B.Pavanaja took a session for the trainee journalists of Prajavani Kannada daily on Wikipedia.
World Book Day (organized by Karnataka Publishers’ Association, Indian Institute of World Culture, Basavanagudi, Bangalore, April 23, 2014). Dr. U.B.Pavanaja was a speaker.
Relevance of Bhagabat Tungi in the evolution of Odia language from Buddha era to digital age (organized by The Intellects, Shree Jagannath Mandir and Odisha Art and Cultural Center, New Delhi, April 24, 2014). Subhashish Panigrahi participated in the event.

Media Coverage
CIS gave its inputs to the following media coverage:

M'lore: Wikipedia Workshop held for Konkani writers (Daijiworld, April 6, 2014).
Odia Loves Wikipedia (Rising Voices, April 10, 2014). This was also published in Spanish and in Russian.
International Book Day (The Hindu, April 21, 2014).
Books are a bridge between generations (The Deccan Herald, April 23, 2014).
World Book Day Report (Vijaywani, April 23, 2014).
Seminar on Odia Language in New Delhi by the Intellects (Odisha Samachar, April 24, 2014).
Delhi meet focuses on Bhagabat Tungi revival (The Pioneer, April 26, 2014).

Internet Governance

As part of its research on privacy and free speech, CIS is engaged with two different projects. The first one (under a grant from Privacy International and International Development Research Centre (IDRC)) is on surveillance and freedom of expression (SAFEGUARDS). The second one (under a grant from MacArthur Foundation) is on studying the restrictions placed on freedom of expression online by the Indian government.

NETmundial

As part of its participation in the NETmundial event organized in Brazil by Brazilian Internet Steering Committee in partnership with /1Net at Sao Paulo on April 23 and 24, 2014 CIS produced a total of 16 outputs:

Sumandro Chattapadhyay produced these visual representations: Comparing Appearance of Fifty Most Frequent Words, Contributions by Countries of Origin, Contributions by Types of Organisation, Which Countries Have Not Submitted Contributions to NETmundial?, Which Governments Have Not Submitted Contributions to NETmundial?, Word Clouds of Contributions by Types of Organisation and Tracking *Multistakeholder* across Contributions. Achal Prabhala participated in the event and wrote these: Day 0, Day 1, and Day 2. Transcript of the NETmundial for archival purposes was made available by Pranesh Prakash. Smarika Kumar produced two research outputs: NETmundial and Suggestions for IANA Administration and Accountability of ICANN. Geetha Hariharan wrote two blog posts: Marco Civil da Internet: Brazil’s ‘Internet Constitution’ and Brazil passes Marco Civil; the US-FCC Alters its Stance on Net Neutrality. Jyoti Panday wrote one blog post: NETmundial Roadmap: Defining the Roles of Stakeholders in Multistakeholderism.

Privacy

Analyses

Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy vs. The Leaked 2014 Privacy Bill (by Elonnai Hickok, April 14, 2014).
Banking Policy Guide (by Elonnai Hickok, April 22, 2014).
The Embodiment of the Right to Privacy within Domestic Legislation (by Tanvi Mani, April 29, 2014).

Articles

Who Governs the Internet? Implications for Freedom and National Security (by Sunil Abraham, Yojana, April 4, 2014).
Privacy Law in India: A Muddled Field – I (by Bhairav Acharya, The Hoot, April 15, 2014).
Very Big Brother (by Sunil Abraham, GeneWatch, January – April 2014 Issue).

Blog Entry

South African Protection of Personal Information Act, 2013 (by Divij Joshi, April 16, 2014).

Participation in Events

Milton Wolf Seminar on Media and Diplomacy: The Third Man Theme Revisited: Foreign Policies of the Internet in a Time Of Surveillance and Disclosure (jointly organized by the Center for Global Communication Studies (CGCS) at the University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg School for Communication, the American Austrian Foundation (AAF), and the Diplomatic Academy of Vienna (DA), Vienna, March 30 – April 1, 2014). Nishant Shah participated in the event as a panelist.
GSMA Partners Meeting (organized by Privacy International, London, April 9, 2014). Elonnai Hickok participated in this meeting.
The Critical Life of Information (organized by Yale University, 100 Wall Street, April 11, 2014). Nishant Shah spoke in the panel on Big Data and Governance. Malavika Jayaram spoke in the panel on Big Data and the Arts.
Round-table on User Safety on the Internet (organized by Consumer Voice and Google, Infantry Road, Bangalore, April 24, 2014).
6th Biannual Surveillance and Society Conference (organized by Eticas Research and Consulting, University of Barcelona and CCCB, April 26 – 24, 2014). Malavika Jayaram gave a talk on “Biometrics in beta: experimenting on a nation (while normalising surveillance for 1.2 billion people)”.

Other

Articles

Between the Local and the Global: Notes Towards Thinking the Nature of Internet Policy (by Nishant Shah, cgcsblog, April 1, 2014).
Networks: What You Don’t See is What You (for)Get (by Nishant Shah, April 17, 2014).

News & Media Coverage

CIS gave its inputs to the following media coverage:

Two Indians in Global Commission on Web Governance (April 1, 2014): Sunil Abraham was named as one of the experts. This was published in Outlook, Economic Times, and in Matters India.
The Take Down of Free Speech Online (Newslaundry, April 1, 2014): CIS research on Intermediary Liabilities is quoted.
The politics of Facebook (by Shweta Tiwari, April 1, 2014).
New privacy Bill more refined & has wider ambit, say experts (by Surabhi Agarwal, Business Standard, April 2, 2014).
Should Nandan Nilekani's Aadhaar project, for identity proof and welfare delivery, exist at all? (by M. Rajshekhar, April 3, 2014).
Lok sabha polls: Social media companies launch special pages for polls (by Varuni Khosla, Economic Times, April 10, 2014).
Parties give short shrift to privacy (by Pratap Vikram Singh, GovernanceNow.com, April 12, 2014).
No party's got a clear stand, Aadhaar's fate hangs in balance (by Pratap Vikram Singh, GovernanceNow.com, April 13, 2014).
'India wants core internet infrastructure' (by Indrani Bagchi, April 24, 2014).
India for inclusive internet governance (by Indrani Bagchi, April 25, 2014).
Facebook launches FB Newswire for journalists; loses part of its immunity under IT Act 2000 (by Amrita Madhukalya, DNA, April 26, 2014).

Digital Humanities

CIS is building research clusters in the field of Digital Humanities. The Digital will be used as a way of unpacking the debates in humanities and social sciences and look at the new frameworks, concepts and ideas that emerge in our engagement with the digital. The clusters aim to produce and document new conversations and debates that shape the contours of Digital Humanities in Asia:

Blog Entries

Confession in the Digital Age (by Rimi Nandy, April 14, 2014).
Animating the Archive – A Survey of Printed Digitized Materials in Bengali and their Use in Higher Education (by Saidul Haque, April 14, 2014).
‘Doing’ Digital Humanities: Reflections on a project on Online Feminism in India (by Sujatha Subramanian, April 14, 2014).
The Machinistic Paradigm Collapse (by Anirudh Sridhar, April 14, 2014).
Exploring the Digital Landscape: An Overview (by P.P.Sneha, April 14, 2014).
Digital Humanities and the Problem of Definition (by P.P.Sneha, April 25, 2014).

Digital Natives

CIS is doing a research project titled “Making Change”. The project will explore new ways of defining, locating, and understanding change in network societies. Having the thought piece 'Whose Change is it Anyway' as an entry point for discussion and reflection, the project will feature profiles, interviews and responses of change-makers to questions around current mechanisms and practices of change in South Asia and South East Asia:

Making Change Project

Blog Entry

Multimedia Storytellers: Panel Discussion (by Denisse Albornoz, April 16, 2014).
From Taboo to Beautiful – Menstrupedia (by Denisse Albornoz, April 30, 2014).

Telecom

CIS is involved in promoting access and accessibility to telecommunications services and resources and has provided inputs to ongoing policy discussions and consultation papers published by TRAI. It has prepared reports on unlicensed spectrum and accessibility of mobile phones for persons with disabilities and also works with the USOF to include funding projects for persons with disabilities in its mandate:

Event Organized

Tech Talk: Landscape of Wireless Communications & Electromagnetic Spectrum (CIS, Bangalore, April 28, 2014). A. Radha Krishna gave a talk on wireless communication technologies.

About CIS

► Follow us elsewhere

Twitter: https://twitter.com/CISA2K
Facebook group: https://www.facebook.com/cisa2k
Visit us at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/India_Access_To_Knowledge
E-mail: a2k@cis-india.org

► Support Us

Please help us defend consumer / citizen rights on the Internet! Write a cheque in favour of ‘The Centre for Internet and Society’ and mail it to us at No. 194, 2nd ‘C’ Cross, Domlur, 2nd Stage, Bengaluru – 5600 71.

► Request for Collaboration:
We invite researchers, practitioners, and theoreticians, both organisationally and as individuals, to collaboratively engage with Internet and society and improve our understanding of this new field. To discuss the research collaborations, write to Sunil Abraham, Executive Director, at sunil@cis-india.org or Nishant Shah, Director – Research, at nishant@cis-india.org. To discuss collaborations on Indic language Wikipedia, write to T. Vishnu Vardhan, Programme Director, A2K, at vishnu@cis-india.org.

CIS is grateful to its primary donor the Kusuma Trust founded by Anurag Dikshit and Soma Pujari, philanthropists of Indian origin for its core funding and support for most of its projects. CIS is also grateful to its other donors, Wikimedia Foundation, Ford Foundation, Privacy International, UK, Hans Foundation, MacArthur Foundation, and IDRC for funding its various projects.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/about/newsletters/april-2014-bulletin