Centre for Internet and Society

Free Culture Roadshow

radha — 2011-04-05T04:20:44Z

The Free Culture Roadshow from 07th December, 2009 to 22nd December, 2009: A presentation on The Right to Share and The Promise of Open Video.

CIS in association with different institutions across India invites you to join in the Free Culture Roadshow: A presentation on The Right to Share and The Promise of Open Video.

The Co-hosts, Dates and the Venues for the Talk are given below:

Co-Host: Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay
Date: 07th December, 2009 from 10am to 2pm
Venue – IIT-B, Mumbai
Co-Host: Centre for Media and Cultural Studies, Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Bombay
Date: 07th December, 2009 from 4.30pm to 7pm
Venue – TISS, Mumbai
Co-Host: Department of Media Sciences, CEGC, Anna University, Chennai
Date: 08th December, 2009 from 9.30am
Venue – Seminar Hall, Dept. Of Media Sciences, Anna University, Chennai
Co-Host: Dept. Of Management Studies, IIT-M, and BodhBridge Espl.
Date: 09th December, 2009 from 9.30am to 01.30pm
Venue – Central Lecture Theatre, Indian Institute of Technology, Madras.
Co-Host: Dept. Of Journalism, Mount Carmel College, Bangalore
Date: 14th December, 2009 from 10am to 01pm
Venue – Golden Jubilee Hall, Bangalore
Co-Host: National Law School, Bangalore
Date: 17th December, 2009 from 2.30pm onwards
Venue – National Law School, Bangalore
Co-Host: Faculty of Architecture, Centre for Environmental Planning and Technology, Ahmedabad
Date: 18th December, 2009 from 4pm to 7pm
Venue – Auditorium, CEPT
Co- Host: Magic Lantern Foundation
Date: 20th December, 2009 from 9am to 1pm
Venue - Conference Room 2, India International Centre, Max Mueller Marg, New Delhi
Co-Host: The Media Lab, Jadavpur University, Kolkata
Date: 22nd December, 2009 from 11.30am to 3.30pm
Venue – Jadavpur University, Kolkata

A Brief Abstract of the two discussions and the profile of the speakers are given below:

The Right to Share: What Does Copying Have to Do with Freedom?

The Internet has unleashed the potential to communicate and collaborate like never before, and the result has been an unprecedented flow of culture and information. Millions of individuals are now sharing and creating culture: copying, cutting, remixing, and participating in new and different ways.
Sometimes this activity is transformative. Sometimes it's straight copying. In either case, there is a clear connection between this sharing of culture and personal freedom.
This talk will explore how various conceptions of "freedom" have shaped the social movements for free software, free culture, and free knowledge, and how this ideology has manifested itself in real action. It will connect theory with practice, exploring the cultural innovations and political changes that have spawned forth from these movements. Lastly, it will make the case that the broad-based availability, accessibility, and abundance of culture is a good thing for our global society.

Speaker Profile:

Elizabeth Stark is a leader in the global free culture movement. She is a Fellow at the Yale Information Society Project and a Lecturer in Computer Science at Yale University. A graduate of Harvard Law School, Stark founded the Harvard Free Culture Group and served on the board of directors of Students for Free Culture. While at Harvard, she was Editor-at-Large of the Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, and worked on using new media to promote human rights with the Harvard Advocates for Human Rights. Elizabeth has worked extensively with the Berkman Center for Internet & Society and has taught courses in Cyberlaw, Digital Copyright, Technology and Politics, and Electronic Music. She recently produced the inaugural Open Video Conference in NYC, garnering over 8000 viewers across the web. Elizabeth regularly gives talks around the world on free culture, and has collaborated with myriad organizations on promoting shared knowledge and the open web.

The Revolution Will Be Recorded, Remixed, and Redistributed: The Promise of Open Video

Between news, cinema, television, and documentary film, we find ourselves swimming in a sea of moving images. This has been the story of the 20th century. Yet in this age, the tools for creating and sharing video are becoming widely distributed in the hands of millions of individuals. Desktop video editing software is pervasive; webcams and video-equipped mobile phones abound. Video now belongs to everyone. It is becoming a powerful medium for self-expression, a kind of cultural currency.
How will this phenomenon change the Internet? How will it change society? What questions persist for the architecture of the Internet, and how will public policy address this ultimately political transformation? This talk sets forth a vision of networked video as a truly participatory medium, one that will power the next 10 years of innovation on the web. Dean Jansen and Ben Moskowitz introduce some core technologies for open video, and the obstacles they face on the road to mass adoption.

Speaker Profiles:

Dean Jansen is a Free Culture activist and guerrilla artist based in New York. He attended Harvard University and was a leader in the Harvard Free Culture Group. Dean assisted in teaching media studies and law courses at MIT and Harvard, and has organized numerous academic conferences.
He currently serves as outreach director at the non-profit Participatory Culture Foundation, makers of the Miro internet TV player. His art projects can be viewed at www.notthemessiah.net.

Ben Moskowitz is general coordinator at the Open Video Alliance, a coalition to democratize the moving image. Ben co-founded the UC Berkeley chapter of Students for Free Culture and taught a seminar on the politics of piracy at Berkeley's School of Information.
He currently serves on the board of directors of the international organization Students for Free Culture, dedicated to promoting access to knowledge, technological freedom, and participatory culture.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/events/free-culture-roadshow

Open Standards Workshop at IGF '09

pranesh — 2011-08-23T02:54:03Z

The Centre for Internet and Society co-organized a workshop on 'Open Standards: A Rights-Based Framework' at the fourth Internet Governance Forum, at Sharm el-Sheikh. The panel was chaired by Aslam Raffee of Sun Microsystems and the panellists were Sir Tim Berners-Lee of W3C, Renu Budhiraja of India's DIT, Sunil Abraham of CIS, Steve Mutkoski of Microsoft, and Rishab Ghosh of UNU-MERIT.

Sir Tim Berners-Lee started the session with an address on various rights. Rights, he noted can range from being things like the rights to air and water to the right not to have the data carrier you use determine which movie you watch. Then, there are tensions between rights: the right to anonymity can clash with the right to know who posted information on making a bomb. Berners-Lee stated that for 2009, he has chosen to pursue one particular right: the right to government-held data. This data can include everything from where schools are to emergency services such as locations of hospitals. Today, we are talking about standards.

The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) is a fifteen-year old body in which all kinds of people come together for purposes of setting standards around the World Wide Web. Thus, everything from HTML, which is used to write Web pages to WCAG, which are guidelines to enable people with disabilities access websites through assistive technologies. W3C conducts its discussions openly: anybody who has a good idea has a right to participate in its discussions -- it does not matter who one works for, who one represents -- what does matter are the ideas one brings to the table. The kinds of standards that W3C deals with are of interest to an immensely wide-ranging group of people. Even ten-year olds have actually expressed their opinions about standards like HTML. All this openness of participation must be guaranteed while ensuring that the processes move forward.

Next spoke Renu Budhiraja of the Department of Information and Technology, which is a part of the Indian government. She started off by hoping that this workshop would be not only a platform to share knowledge, but also to reach consensus on a few matters. Next, she laid out why open standards are extremely important for the Indian government. What citizens want in their interactions with the government are ease of interaction and efficiency. For them it is immaterial whether a certain service is provided by Department A or Department B. Thus we need to move towards a single-window government service for citizens, enabling them to interact easily with the government's various departments. While such an initiative must be centralized for it to be effective, it is crucial that its implementation be decentralized and suited to each district or localities' needs.

There is, understandably, a huge institutional mechanism behind ensuring that these systems are based on open standards. We have expert committees, consisting of academics and knowledgeable bureaucrats, and working groups, which include industry groups. Through these, we have evolved a National Policy on Open Standards, which is currently in a draft stage, but shall be notified soon. This policy outlines the principles based on which particular standards required for governmental functioning are to be chosen or evolved. This document will ensure long-term accessibility to public documents and information, and seamless interoperability of various governmental services and departments. It will also reduce the risk of vendor lock-in and reduce costs, and thus ensure long-term, sustainable, scalable and cost-effective solutions.

Ms. Budhiraja noted that there are a few aspects of the policy that bear discussion in a forum such as the IGF. First is the issue of whether royalty-free is the only choice for innovation. All other things equal, between royalty-free and reasonable and non-discriminatory (RAND) standards, of course royalty-free is to be preferred. But what if a superior technology (JPEG200 vs. JPEG) is RAND? What should the government's position be in such a case? Further, what should the government's position be when in a particular domain a RAND standard is the only option?

Next is the issue of single vs. multiple open standards. When interoperability is what we are aiming at, can multiple standards be recommended as some in the industry are asking us to do? And then is the issue of market maturity. The government sometimes finds itself in a situation where a standard is available, but well-developed products around that standard aren't and there aren't sufficient vendors using that standard. All these issues are of great practical importance when a government works on a policy document on standards.

Next up was Sunil Abraham, Executive Director of the Centre for Internet and Society. His presentation was on open standards as citizens' and consumers' rights. He started off by citing the example of the Smart Card Operating System for Transport Application (SCOSTA) standard, and the implications that the SCOSTA story has on large-scale projects such as the National Unique ID project currently under way in India. SCOSTA, an open standard, was being written off as unimplementable by all the MNC smart card vendors who wished to push RAND standards. IIT Kanpur helped the government develop a working implementation. Within twenty days, the card manufacturers submitted modified cards for compliance testing by NIC. Because of SCOSTA being an open standard, local companies also joined the tender. The cost went down from Rs. 600 per card to Rs. 30 per card. This shows the benefits of open standards as a means of curbing oligopolistic pricing, and working for the benefit of consumers.

From a rights-based perspective, access to the state machinery is a primary right. Citizens should not be required to pirate or purchase software to interact with the state. If e-governance solutions are based on proprietary standards, not all citizens would be equal. The South African example or requiring a particular browser to access the election commission's website shows that in a rather drastic fashion. When intellectual property interferes with governmental needs, governments have not been shy of issuing compulsory licences. This was seen when during the Great War the United States government pooled various flight-related patents and compulsorily licensed them, as well as what we are currently seeing with many Aids-related drugs being compulsorily licensed in developing countries. Thus, there are precedents for such licensing, and governments should explore them in the realm of e-governance. Many countries now have statutes that guarantee the right to government-held information. Government Interoperability Frameworks should take these into account, and mandate all government-to-citizen (G2C) information be transacted via open standards. This must be backed up by a strong accessibility policy to ensure that the governments don't discriminate between their citizens.

Proprietary standards act like pseudo-intellectual property rights, just as DRMs do. They add a layer on top of rights such as copyright, and can prevent the exercise of fair use and fair dealing rights because of an inability to legally negotiate the standards in which the content is encoded in a cost-free manner. In guaranteeing this balance between copyrights and fair dealing rights, free software and alternative IP models play a crucial role. Because of software patents being recognized in a few countries, development of free software which allows citizens to exercise their fair use rights is harmed in all countries.

Steve Mutkoski of Microsoft spoke next and placed the standards debate in a large context. He noted that standards are a technicality that are only a small part of the large issue which is interoperability in e-governance and delivery to citizens. The real challenges are organizational and semantic interoperability. Frequently interoperability is not harmed by technical issues, but by legal and organizational issues. Governments used to work on paper; during the shift to electronic data, they didn't engage in any organizational changes. Thus they continue to function with electronic data the same way that they did with paper-based data. Governments often lack strong privacy policies regarding the data that each of their departments holds. This harms governmental functioning. Additionally, legacy hardware and software have to be catered to by the standards we are talking about: sometimes an open standard just will not work.

Standards don't guarantee interoperability, and there is significant work done on this by noted academics ("Why Standards Are Not Enough To Guarantee End-to-End Interoperability" Lewis et al.; "Difficulties Implementing Standards" Egyedi & Dahanayake; "Standards Compliant, But Incompatible?" Egyedi et al.). Mandated standards lists will not help address interoperability issues between different implementations of the same standard. What would help? Transparency of implementations; collaboration with community; active participation in maintenance of standards, etc., would help. There is a need for continued public sector reform, with a focus on citizen-centric e-governance, and a need to engage with the question of whether government-mandated standards lists lead the market or follow the market.

Rishab Aiyer Ghosh, a senior researcher at UN University, Maastricht, spoke next. He started by noting that technical standards are left to technical experts. That needs to change, which is why discussing open standards at the IGF is important. He next set off a hypothetical: imagine you go to the city council office in Sharm el Sheik, and at the parking lot there it says that your car has to be a Ford if you are to park there; or if the Dutch government insists that you have a Philips TV if you are to receive the national broadcaster's signal. While these might seem absurd, situations like this arise all the time when it comes to the realm of software. Thus, the social effects of open standards are of utmost importance, and not just their technical qualities. Analysing the social effects of open standards takes us back to the economics of technology and technological standards. Technological standards exhibit network externalities: their inherent value is less than the value of others using them. Being the only person in the world with a telephone won't be very useful. Technological standards also exhibit path dependence: once you go with one technological format, it is difficult to change over to another even if that other format is superior to the first. Thus, clearly, standards benefit when there is a 'natural monopoly'. The challenge really arises when faced with the question of how to ensure a monopoly in a technology without the supplier of that technology exhibiting monopolistic tendencies. This can only be done when the technology is open and developed openly, of which the web standards and the W3C are excellent examples. If the technology or the process are semi-open, then because of the few intellectual property rights attached to the technology, some would be better off than others. Just as governments cannot insist on driving a particular make of cars as a prerequisite for access to them, they cannot insist on using a particular proprietary standard as a means of accessing them.

Many interesting questions arose when the floor was thrown open to the audience. "Should governments only mandate a particular standard when it is certain that market maturity exists?" Not really, since governmental decisions also give signals to the market and help direct attention to those standards. It would be best if roadmaps were provided, with particular under-mature standards being designated as "preferred standards", thus helping push industry in a particular direction. Examples where this strategy has borne fruit abound. This is also the strategy found in the Australian GIF. On the issue of multiplicity of standards, Sir Tim was very clear that they have to be avoided at all costs. He gave the example of XSLT and CSS, which are both stylesheet formats. He noted that their domain of operation was very different (with one being for servers and the other for clients), so having two standards with similar functions but different domains of operation does not make them multiple standards. Multiple standards defeat the purpose of the standardization process.

It was noted that governmental choices are of practical importance to citizens. During the Hurricane Katrina emergency, the federal emergency website only worked properly if Internet Explorer was used. How do we move forward? We must move forward by having policies that strike a balance between allowing for the natural evolution of standards and stability. The Government Interoperability Frameworks must be dynamic documents, allowing for categorization between standards and having clear roadmaps to enable industry to provide solutions to the government in a timely fashion. Governments must be strong in order to push industry towards openness, for the sake of its citizens, and not let industry dictate proprietary standards as the solution. Some opined that since there are dozens of domains that governments function in, maintaining lists of standards is a time-consuming process that is not justified, but others rebutted that by noting that for enterprise architectures to work, governments have to maintain such lists internally. Opening up that list to citizens and service providers would not entail greater overheads.

Sunil Abraham talking Open Standards at IGF09

(Video added on December 30, 2009)

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/dcos-workshop-09

DFI and Cambridge University Press join hands for getting print access to the "print impaired"

radha — 2011-08-17T08:45:27Z

Cambridge University Press has given permission for books published in India by them to be converted into other accessible formats such as in DAISY, says Dr. Sam Taraporevala, Director, Xavier’s Resource Centre for the Visually Challenged in this blog.

Print access is a major area that the DAISY Forum of India (DFI) is working towards. Two of the many member organizations of DFI, The Centre for Internet & Society (CIS) and the Xavier’s Resource Centre for the Visually Challenged (XRCVC) approached the India office of Cambridge University Press, one of the major publishers in India. The rationale behind contacting publishers is to explain to them the need to have accessible copies of the printed word for the print disabled and obtain their permission for converting their books into such accessible formats such as in DAISY.

XRCVC interacted with Mr. Anil Kumar Pandey, General Manager for Western India of Cambridge University Press, Nirmita Narasimhan of CIS contacted Mr. Manas Saikia, Managing Director of Cambridge University Press, India. Both of them were very open to this idea of accessibility and thereby began a collaborative effort from both the Cambridge University Press in India and the DFI.

Mr. Saikia strengthened his support to the cause by not only giving permission for books published in India by Cambridge University Press but also offering to obtain for DFI the global permission of Cambridge University Press books. Ms. Anita Parkash, Legal and IP Manager, Asia of the Singapore office of Cambridge University Press also endorsed this stand. She reinforced the positive response given by Mr. Saikia and agreed for collaboration with the XRCVC to work out a system which would be in the best interests of the stakeholders. Having worked out the final draft of this agreement, she offered to get it duly endorsed from the United Kingdom office of the Cambridge University Press.

This brought together Mr. Gordon Johnson, the Deputy Vice Chancellor of Cambridge University Press, Mr. Manas Saikia and Mr. Anil Kumar Pandey to the XRCVC on 23rd November, 2009 to sign the agreement with DFI. Dr. Sam Taraporevala, Director of XRCVC on behalf of DFI signed this agreement in the presence of Mr. Ketan Kothari who represented Sightsavers International, one of XRCVC’s partners in its “print access” quest. This we are sure has marked the beginning of a long and continuing association between DFI and Cambridge University Press for championing the cause of making the printed word accessible to the print disabled across India.

Coverage in The Bookseller

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/accessibility/blog/dfi-and-cambridge-university-press

Copyright Access for the Disabled and Collaborative IP Policy

radha — 2011-04-02T14:27:01Z

A blog post on SPICY IP by Shamnad Basheer, November 18, 2009

In previous p osts, we covered the Right to Read Campaign, a campaign aimed at increasing access to copyrighted works for the print impaired. As many of you know, most works of literature, science and the arts are practically out of bounds for the disabled, unless converted to readable formats such as Braille or digitized and accessed via expensive screen reader software such as JAWS.

Recently, this campaign, the brainchild of CIS and Inclusive Planet, came home to us at NUJS, Kolkata and I was amazed to see the bonding between these children of a lesser god and their struggle to transform society into a more inclusive one. NUJS was particularly fortunate to host this campaign that day, as we have a student (Moiz Tundawalla, who ranks in the top 5 of his class) as well as a faculty member, Dr TV Sudhakar, who are visually impaired.

As part of the campaign, a group of us including Rahul Cherian of Inclusive Planet (and the brain behind Bookbole, one of the most innovative solutions yet catering to the needs of the visually impaired), Sunil Abraham and Nirmita Narasimhan of CIS and Lawrence Liang of ALF began working on a copyright defence that would enable the conversion of copyrighted works to more accessible formats for the disabled..formats that would enable them to enjoy such works as comfortably as the others.

Such a provision is critical, given that hardly 0.5% of all published books are accessible by the print impaired. Further, given the constitutional mandate that each one of us shall have the right to life under Article 21 (which includes the right to education and the right to read) and the right not to be discriminated against (under Article 14), the State is under a positive obligation to provide accessible works to the disabled and thereby help them lead better lives.

The Government Copyright Proposal

This is not to suggest that the Indian government lacks sensitivity on this count. Indeed, it is commendable that as far as back as 2006, the government proposed the introduction of Section 52 (1) (za) to the Copyright Act, 1957 to resolve the issue.

The proposed Section 52 (1) (za) states that the following act shall not constitute an infringement of copyright: “reproduction, issue of copies or communication to the public of any work in a format, including sign language, specially designed (emphasis added) only for the use of persons suffering from a visual, aural or other disability that prevents their enjoyment of such works in their normal format.”

While this is a great start, this draft suffers from some serious limitations:

Firstly, it restricts permissible formats to those “specially designed” for persons with disabilities. In practical terms, this means that only Braille and sign language is permitted. As many of you may know, Braille is extremely expensive to print and distribute and is not portable. Moreover persons with low vision, dyslexics, people with paralysis, cerebral palsy etc. cannot use Braille and require alternate formats.
Given recent technological developments and the burgeoning of audio formats and electronic formats that are now used by a large number of visually impaired persons, the exception ought to cover such formats as well... formats that do not strictly constitute "formats specially designed for the disabled". Indeed, any creation of a digitized version of a copyrighted work would enable access by the visually impaired (provided they have tools such as screen reading software on their respective computers).
We understand that the Indian government wishes to ensure that the defence is availed of only by the disabled and not by others, who may free ride on such an exception. While limiting the exception to “formats specially designed for the disabled” may help achieve this objective, it seriously limits the scope of access by the disabled in this technological day and age, as explained above. Rather than limit the kinds of formats that could be created, we propose that the government restrict access of works created under the aegis of this exception to only people with disabilities. One way to do this is by insisting on reliable certificates that confirm one's status as "differently-abled".
Secondly, the proposed amendment fails to ensure that software and other intellectual property protected tools required to create accessible formats and enable persons with disabilities to access such formats are available at a reasonable cost. Illustratively, the most widely used screen reading software, JAWS, is licensed at a whooping Rs 50,000!
Thirdly, the proposed amendment must provide wording to the effect that if content owners apply any technology circumvention measures or DRM locks to digital content, they must make available such content to persons with disabilities. Without such provision, the production of talking books or the use of screen reading software for the benefit of the visually impaired will be restricted if the owner of a digital work has prohibited such use of his work.

Thankfully India does not have any specific protection for anti-circumvention measures and DRM as yet. However, we're not sure if the government plans to introduce such a protection via the recent copyright amendment bill that is likely to be introduced in Parliament in December. Unfortunately, the bill is still secret and will be made available for public viewing only after it is introduced in Parliament.

Our Copyright Proposal
We've therefore proposed a more liberal and meaningful exception as below:

Section 52 (1) (za) (i): The doing of any act, the primary objective of which is to enable persons with disabilities to access copyrighted works as comfortably and flexibly as a person without a disability.
Such acts shall include, without limitation, the making of any accessible format of a work, reproducing such work/format, adapting such work/format, making available such work/format, lending such works/formats etc. and the provision of any facility that is primarily designed to enable any of the acts contemplated above.
Provided that if any entity wishes to undertake any of the above activities on a for profit basis, it shall pay such remuneration to copyright owners as may be prescribed by the Copyright Board from time to time. For the purpose of determining remuneration, the Copyright Board shall take into consideration the need to ensure that works are accessible and available at prices that are affordable, taking into account disparities of incomes for persons who are disabled.
Provided that if any software or other tool that is covered by any intellectual property right is necessary to create accessible formats or to enable access to such formats, or to enable disabled persons to access any work in any manner as contemplated above, such intellectual property protected software or tool shall be licensed at an affordable price, to be determined by the Copyright Board.
Provided that if any works are protected by technology circumvention measures or subject to DRM limitations that restrict access to the work in any way, the owner of copyright shall grant access to any person who wishes to secure such access for the primary purpose of doing any act contemplated within any of the provisions above.
Provided that the exemption or other benefits envisaged under this section can be availed of only when reasonable measures have been taken to ensure that the end beneficiary is a person with a disability.
Provided that if any act done in good faith in pursuance of any of the above provisions falls outside the ambit of such provision, such act shall not be enjoined by an injunction, whether temporary or permanent, but shall be made compensable by payment of a reasonable royalty to be determined by the Copyright Board.
This provision shall override any conflicting provision in any other legislation, regulation or rule in force in India, only to the extent of such conflict.
Section 52 (1) (za) (ii): For the purpose of Section 52 (1) (za) (i) "accessible format" means any format or form which gives a disabled person access to the work as flexibly and comfortably as a person without a disability, and shall include, but not be limited to, large print, with different typefaces and sizes all being permitted according to need, Braille, audio recordings, digital copies compatible with screen readers or refreshable Braille and audiovisual works with audio and or text description.

The above section draws from a provision recommended by the World Blind Union and supported by countries such as Brazil and NGO's such as KEI.

Readers will note that the above exception not only caters to the visually impaired, but any differently-abled person who is unable to access copyrighted works as comfortably as others. Illustratively, without the subtitling of audio-visual material, a hearing-impaired persons is unable to enjoy movies, TV programs and other audio-visual material.

CLIPP and Collaborative IP Policy Making

Readers may recollect an initiative called CLIPP (Collaborative Innovation in IP Policy), that we touched upon sometime back, but never really got around to implementing. We are still in the process of designing an appropriate IT architecture to support this endeavour, which will greatly aid transparency and public participation around IP law making in this country.

Till such time as we unleash this specialised architecture, we're trying to see if we can make do with the blogger format. Indeed, if our experiment around the parallel imports provision is anything to go by, where our posts elicited around 50 odd comments that helped suggest ways in which to interpret (and perhaps reword section 107A), there is no reason why the blogger format itself should not suffice.

Leaving comments on posts is fairly easy. You scroll down to the bottom of the post, hit the "post a comment" button and either sign in with your gmail account or click on the "anonymous" tab to post a comment anonymously. You could also chose any other online identity. For those that are averse to using the comments section at the end of this blog post, please free to email me at shamnad[at]gmail.com.

I hope all of you can take some time out to help this worthy cause by inspecting the suggested provision with a fine tooth comb and recommending ways to improve it. I understand that we have many sophisticated copyright experts on our subscriber list ..and I do hope that you will lend your minds and hearts to this cause. Needless to state, a mere copyright provision by itself is not enough--but it will certainly go some way in ensuring that we provide a better and more "inclusive" tomorrow for these children of a lesser god.

ps: Venky Hariharan, a leading open source advocate has referred me to Orca, an open source screen reader software, freely downloadable.

Link to the original blogspot

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/copyright-access-for-the-disabled-and-collaborative-ip-policy

Address delivered during the IGF Closing Ceremony

radha — 2011-08-02T07:18:36Z

This address was delivered by Dr. Anja Kovacs, as a representative of civil society, to the IGF during its closing ceremony.

Good evening, Mr Chairperson and all the distinguished participants, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for this opportunity to address this assembly on behalf of civil society, it is a real honour. And thank you also to the organisers and to the government of Egypt, for the wonderful arrangements and for creating such a excellent environment for us to work in.

I would like to use this opportunity to celebrate, together with you, two very important achievements in particular that we have made collectively during the four days of our intensive deliberations together.

The first one is the progress we are making in terms of recognising the importance of attention for human rights in ensuring a people-centred, development-oriented, non-discriminatory information society. Thus, for example, in the main session on security, openness and privacy, speakers across stakeholder groups couched the debate not any more in terms of security vs. privacy, but in terms of security and privacy. Security or other concerns, it was consistently argued, while obviously deserving our attention, should not be used to justify curtailing longstanding gains made in terms of human rights; rather, it is an improved implementation of already agreed on human rights instruments that we need to reach our goal of an inclusive, people-centred information society. The growing recognition of this fact is an evolution that civil society welcomes with open arms.

Another very hopeful evolution during this IGF was the central attention devoted to the question of where we stand in terms of promoting a people-centred, development-oriented information society more generally. The message that came out of the main session on “Internet governance in the light of the WSIS principles” clearly confirmed the urgent need to pay greater attention to this important issue, and several suggestions were made to address this concern. These include devoting devoting a main session solely to the topic of Internet governance for development in next next year's IGF, and I sincerely hope that these suggestions will be taken up.

While we thus have important reason to celebrate, challenges of course remain. Throughout the existence of the IGF, and perhaps increasingly so, the value of the multistakeholder model has been recognised and stressed by all stakeholder groups. However, at the same time, it has also been acknowledged that we need to continue to work to further strengthen participation from currently underrepresented countries and groups. I would like to note, however, that it is important that we do not restrict our efforts in this regard to capacity building, significant as that may be. Perhaps even more crucial is that the agenda of the IGF consistently talks to the concerns of actors in the developing parts of the world as well.

The reconfirmation of the importance of a development agenda that we have seen in this IGF is thus a very important step forward indeed. At the same time, within this larger development agenda, it is crucial that we also as soon as possible start to discuss some of the specific issues that require our attention on an urgent basis. For example, within the IGF as elsewhere, it is generally acknowledged that access to knowledge is central to development processes; yet the IGF so far has not paid systematic attention to the ways in which the amazing possibilities that the Internet offers in this regard are increasingly threatened by new policies that seem to make intellectual property regimes more stringent day by day. From a developing country perspective, finding a balanced solution that can address these concerns is an urgent priority. Starting the debate on how this can be achieved here, in the IGF, is certain to attract a larger number of developing country participants, including from governments.

Going by the experience of the past years as well as this particular meeting, I have no doubt that if given the opportunity, we will measure up to the challenges before us. Without wanting to preclude the Under-Secretary General's report, the proceedings during this IGF have made clear time and again its crucial significance in Internet governance processes. I hope with all my heart that we will continue to get the opportunity to work together on addressing these important issues and on resolving tensions and contradictions as they emerge, with the support of an independent secretariat that can ensure an environment genuinely inclusive of all stakeholders. Only when such open, inclusive conditions govern our own processes, may we in turn, together be able to create a genuinely inclusive information society which will indeed create opportunities for all.

Thank you.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/address-igf-closing-ceremony

Access to online information and knowledge – advancing human rights and democracy

radha — 2011-08-04T04:34:31Z

An article by Achal Prabhala in GISW 2009 (Global Information Society Watch, 2009)

Information and knowledge are crucial factors in human development. We are reminded of this constantly, from the “knowledge economy” we live in, to the emotional and financial power that information and communications technologies (ICTs) have over our lives. In the words of philosopher Francis Bacon, “Scientia potentia est” – knowledge itself is power. Present-day movements for access to knowledge and the right to information have their origins in this simple and arguably ancient idea. Despite a rich history and wide intellectual acceptance, the right to know is not universally granted, and the right to know on the internet is a particularly bitter struggle in many parts of the world.[1]

Information, knowledge and access are terms with a multiplicity of meaning. Even as they constitute an ambitious goal that disparate global actors work towards, it is worth considering how these terms are construed in relation to each other.[2]

“Information” in this context usually refers to government and institutionally held records. Legislation that mandates greater transparency is critical. The earliest example of this kind of legislation was implemented in Sweden as far back as the late 18th century, while countries such as South Africa and India have had theirs enacted as recently as 2000 and 2005 respectively. Freedom of information and the resulting power to make informed decisions are bedrocks of liberal democracy, essential tools for active citizen participation – and the foundation of dominant ideas of the better life, such as that of an open society.

“Knowledge” in its most instrumental sense usually refers to the elements of learning; to scholarly and artistic work and its tools. The access to knowledge movement [3] for instance, works on copyright law reform and the promulgation of open access. Access to knowledge in its present incarnation is a relatively new frame of reference compared to the right to information, which has been demanded for a longer period of time. But it is worth bearing in mind that the underlying theme has always existed and even been expressed, most notably in the hope and anxiety surrounding every disruptive technological shift, from the printing press to the internet.

The most frequently misunderstood term in this troika is, perhaps, “access”. The common interpretation of the term is its strict dictionary meaning, which is to use, to consume, to be allowed entry into or contact with. In relation to information and knowledge, however, and especially since the advent of the internet, access is just as much about production as it is about consumption. Knowledge is not something that Northern countries produce and Southern countries consume; it is a vast and porous domain that consists of formal and as yet unrecognised realms, all of which are growing and evolving. To read is a necessary precondition to being able to write; access, by analogy, implies entry not just into the world of knowledge consumption but also knowledge creation.

One manifestation of this fusion is Wikipedia, the encyclopaedia that is collaboratively produced online. Granted, many more people read Wikipedia than edit it. Nevertheless, for a growing global volunteer base, it is simultaneously a place to read and consume as well as edit and produce. In a similar vein, it is access to information that propels people around the world to intervene in public processes and change laws; without the information, there could be no change.

With regards to government information, it is important that not only are there mechanisms put in place that facilitate access to it, but also that these mechanisms work. The history of events leading up to the enactment of the Right to Information Act in India provides valuable lessons as to what the scope of government information should be, in how punitive measures can be implemented to guarantee that the process works, and, above all, as to how marginalised citizens can gain the space and the means to use the law to their advantage [4] To a large extent, the rich genealogy of the right to information has naturalised it as an obvious, just and urgent issue. Furthermore, it is an umbrella concern, covering as much as specific local contexts demand.

In contrast, the movement for access to knowledge works primarily on one crucial barrier, namely, intellectual property. For some, this focus is problematic. If, for instance, knowledge is imparted by education, then isn’t access just as much hampered by the lack of skilled teachers as restrictive intellectual property laws? This is certainly true, and yet, there are at least three good reasons why this narrow focus makes strategic sense.
One: education is a long-standing priority of societies and governments the world over, and there is an inestimably large group of individuals and institutions who work in the area. However, relatively few people are aware of the impact of intellectual property on access to educational material, and even fewer research it.
Two: the advent of the internet has created hitherto unprecedented opportunities in the knowledge domain, opportunities that could turn into unrealised potential if the application of intellectual property online is decided by copyright industries alone.
Three: knowledge is more than just formal education, and the internet provides limitless ways in which it can be redefined and multiplied. The overzealous application of intellectual property significantly limits the manner in which knowledge operates online.

A chain of events that unfolded in France over the last two years dramatically illustrates the level of threat faced by those seeking information and knowledge online. In 2008, at the insistence of the domestic recording industry, the French government began considering the enactment of a law designed to thwart online piracy. As industry forces pressed on and Nicholas Sarkozy added his support, the effort culminated in a bill that would be popularly known as HADOPI [5] after the enforcement agency it intended to create. HADOPI employed the three strikes principle. If an internet user was found to have committed an act of piracy, the copyright holder in question was entitled to warn the user through HADOPI. No details as to the exact nature of the copyright violation were required to be provided other than that a violation had occurred. After three such warnings, internet service providers (ISPs) in France would be mandated under HADOPI to bar the user from being allowed access to the internet for a period of up to one year.

The prospect of HADOPI had people up in arms. A broad coalition of internet users, consumers and their allies quickly assembled in France and elsewhere in the world. To users in France, it represented an immediate threat; to users elsewhere in the world, it represented the extent to which their online freedoms could be restricted in the future. Apart from the draconian nature of the punishment meted out by this bill, users were outraged that every kind of misdemeanour – whether deliberate, inadvertent, supposed or even mistaken – would be treated the same, with the benefit of doubt given to the copyright holder. [6]

Throughout 2009, the bill faced several setbacks, including a complete rejection by the French National Assembly. But its backers pushed on, eventually winning approval after modifications; until 10 June 2009, when the Constitutional Council of France struck down HADOPI on the grounds that it was inconsistent with the country’s Constitution – for going against freedom of expression and the presumption of innocence.

To involve infrastructure providers (ISPs) in enforcing private copyright disputes and suspend user privileges in the wake of alleged copyright violations, as HADOPI wished to do, was admittedly an extreme step. But there are other, less visibly harmful ways by which access to online information and knowledge is threatened and thwarted, and the problem is that some of these ways appear innocuous – though in fact any investigation of them would provide cause for serious alarm. Of the many concerns that exist, at least a few deserve our immediate attention:

Digital Rights Management (DRM) and Technological Protection Measures (TPMs);
copyright law provisions that affect online education, whether by distance or in a physical classroom setting, or in a library;
the lack of provisions that would meaningfully allow disabled learners and users (particularly the visually disabled) to access information and knowledge online; and
the extent to which users can usefully integrate online copyrighted material into their lives in a manner that would be considered fair.

A primary anxiety around copyrighted material in the online environment has been, on the part of copyright industries, how to regulate the flow of exchange. Previous to the advent of mass use of the internet, a song or a book was limited in its capacity for exchange by the physical, tangible form it came in. With the proliferation of digital material and peer-to-peer systems, however, the possibility for exchange is virtually boundless, and this makes content industries nervous – for it signals the end of an already outdated business model and the beginning of another. In return, industry retaliation has consisted of a strategy of lockdown. The tools of this strategy are DRM and TPMs – software that regulates what one can do with a digital file, or rather cannot do – and the vehicles by which these are legislated and proliferated around the world are a set of World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) agreements collectively known as the WIPO Internet Treaties.[7]

DRM is oblivious of the specific circumstances of the user, and is therefore unaware of both the user’s individual needs as well as her rights – for example, the nuances of copyright law in the country of the user’s residence. It doesn’t matter therefore that a user may be blind, or work for a public library, and that national copyright law in the country might specifically extend provisions to visually disabled people and libraries (for instance, by enabling permission-free format changes and reproductions for research). DRM will still operate on a one-size-fits-all model that supersedes national law. In some countries, fair dealing – or fair use – might allow for ways of personal consumption of copyrighted material that the DRM withdraws, resulting in a situation where the whims of a multinational industry render national law meaningless.

DRM is software that can be hacked – up to an extent. In this way, it is still possible for users to legitimately exercise their rights with and upon DRM-protected material. Yet, following the model of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) – the United States’ (US) interpretation of the WIPO Internet Treaties – many countries have legislated that such circumvention constitutes a copyright violation. In some cases this renders sections of their own copyright law redundant, and in effect, casts an unnecessarily heavy shroud over certain copyrighted material merely because it happens to be online. More worryingly, the WIPO Internet Treaties themselves do not ask of countries that anti-circumvention provisions apply even when a user is exercising a legitimate right such as fair use, and yet countries around the world have allowed their laws to imply so [8] because of bilateral persuasion, often from the US or the European Union, without a clear understanding of how this can stunt the potential of the internet within their borders.

It must be noted that copyright law in general – in most countries around the world [9] – generally does not do enough for access to knowledge. To the extent that the majority of the world learns not online but from the printed and spoken word, copyright law in its general application matters tremendously. When considering the potentially limiting aspects of copyright regulation online, one must keep in mind that many countries around the world do not have the kind of provisions that could be limited by new regulation of online material. In fact, most countries do not expressly facilitate distance learning, nor make all the provisions they can for access for the visually disabled, or freedom of information, or even education in general. [10] In part, this is because ever since the globalisation of intellectual property rights, including as recently as the founding of the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 1996 and the instituting of its Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), [11] there has been a distinct shift away from the minimum copyright protection demanded by this trade rule to a maximally protectionist approach.

In the majority of national circumstances today, copyright law is what is referred to as TRIPS-plus, which is to say, excessively protective of copyright-holders’ interests. The excess is overwhelmingly in favour of copyright industries and at the expense of users of copyrighted material. In such a situation, when copyright as it applies offline is already imbalanced, it is even harder to demand a balanced interpretation of copyright in the online space.

Finally, it hardly needs repeating that without a strong sovereign commitment to freedom of speech and information – in effect, a guarantee against censorship – any gains made in access rights stand to be nullified. And this commitment, worryingly, is by no means universally evident.

For one understanding of the right to know, see Stiglitz, J. (2009) On Liberty, the Right to Know, and Public Discourse: The Role of Transparency in Public Life, Oxford Amnesty Lecture, Oxford, UK, 27 January. siteresources. worldbank.org/NEWS/Resources/oxford-amnesty.pdf
For an understanding of how countries restrict access to the full potential of the internet, see Reporters Without Borders’ list of “Internet Enemies”: www.rsf.org/List-of-the-13-Internet-enemies.html
Naturally, all three words offer a wide scope of understanding. The descriptions that follow are only an attempt at clarifying a functional definition, not at fixing definitive meaning.
The movement for access to knowledge (sometimes abbreviated as A2K) refers to a loose grouping of individuals and institutions who work locally as well as on a potential international treaty on access to knowledge; an early draft is available at: www.cptech.org/a2k/a2k_treaty_may9.pdf
For an understanding of the concerns of a key Indian social movement, the Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS), in the years leading up to the enactment of India’s Right to Information Act, see Sampat, P. and Dey, N. (2005) Bare Acts and Collective Explorations, in Narula, M. et al. (eds.) Sarai Reader 05: Bare Acts, Sarai, New Delhi. www.sarai.net/publications/readers/05-bare-acts/02_preeti.pdf
HADOPI: Haute Autorité pour la Diffusion des OEuvres et la Protection des Droits sur Internet (High Authority for the Diffusion of Works and the Protection of Rights on the Internet).
For one account of the story of HADOPI, see O’Brien, D. (2008) The Struggles of France’s Three Strikes Law, Electronic Frontier Foundation. www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/05/struggles-frances-three-strikes-law
The WIPO Internet Treaties consist of the WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT) and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT).
For instance, in a recent eight-country study in Africa, it was found that Morocco, Kenya and Egypt all have anti-circumvention provisions enacted into law. See the ACA2K Briefing Paper for the WIPO Development Agenda meetings, April 2009: www.aca2k.org/attachments/180_ACA2K%20Briefing%20Paper1_WIPODevtAgenda-042009.pdf
Among several country studies, regional and international reports, one recent survey that confirms this finding is the Consumers International IP Watch List report for 2009, in which it is reported that in relation to access to knowledge, “no countries adequately took account of consumers’ interests.”
See:a2knetwork.org/sites/default/files/ip-watchlist09.pdf
Ibid.
TRIPs is currently the overarching international trade rule that governs the global sovereign application of intellectual property; for the full text of the TRIPs agreement, see: www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/trips_e.htm

Link to the original article

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/access-to-online-information-and-knowledge

The Role of ICT in Judicial Reform- An Exploration

rebecca — 2011-08-02T07:17:22Z

A seminar held this month by the Communications and Manufacturing Association of India (CMAI) explored the role that information and communication technology can assume in the process of India's judicial reform efforts. The broad consensus among panelists was that “law is not keeping pace with technology”. However, whether technology will be harnessed to actually facilitate much needed transparency and access to the justice system, or be simply used to improve efficiency within the judicial branch still remains unclear.

The Indian judiciary is facing mounting pressures to reform its apparatus. Even the judiciary itself has come to recognize, on the books, that change is long overdue. Some estimates have it that it would require almost three years to clear the current backlog of cases in High Courts. While technocrats herald that the enormous backlog of cases may eventually be the death knell for India's judicial branch, reform efforts must go beyond achieving the speedier delivery of justice and work towards tackling other inadequacies of the system if “access to justice for all”(1) is to become a reality.

The rural penetration of courts in India is extremely low, which significantly limits access to justice for the many citizens living far beyond the district courts of city centers. An extremely low judge to population ratio in India only contributes further to the already high incidence of pending cases, making delays in justice a regular occurrence. Mr. P.K. Malhotra from the Department of Legal Affairs has noted that increased litigation within the government has also caused a stark increase in the number of pending cases. While the need for reform can be demonstrated quite clearly on a practical level, the right to information (RTI) movement has also provided further impetus for reform on a more fundamental level. Well organized citizens are now demanding the right to a more transparent and accountable judiciary.

As e-government initiatives continue to transform the nature of India's bureaucracy and enhance the quality of government services, there is a mood of great optimism that ICT will also come to play a central role in judicial reform efforts. Speakers at the seminar enthusiastically cited innovative practices such as Singapore's “paperless court” which makes a compelling case for automation. Notable success in implementing ICT in the judiciary have also been achieved in Canada, Australia, and in several countries across Latin America. This is not to say, however, that the appropriation of ICT is uniform in every case. Variables such as political will and context, institutional capacity and reform goals all play a role in shaping the outcome. Plans could, for example, take more of an operational approach by prioritizing the improved efficiency and the rationalization of resources by implementing electronic case management systems. Other strategies may be designed and implemented from an access perspective, seeking to restore faith in the justice system by increasing transparency and accountability. This could be done, for example, by installing video technology in court rooms, or publishing legal information online.

At the seminar, India's consortium of well-organized and highly ambitious technocrats were not shy in suggesting the many ways ICT may be used to transform the judicial system, and, additionally, the many ways such an endeavor provides the IT sector with “new opportunities”. Dr M. Veerappa Moily, Union Minister for Law and Justice, has proposed for India a centrally funded and administered National Judicial Technology Program. Such a program aims to use ICT in the courtrooms to free the legal system of “historical inefficiencies". It is of no doubt that ICT can reduce the duplicity of the paper world and make courts more green through electronic case filing and video conferencing. Online case filing systems can increase speed in which citizens can have their cases heard, and real time access to online repositories of legal information drastically expedites the case cycle.

Mr. C P Gurnani, CEO of Tech Mahindra made the bold assertion that with ICT, India's 300 year case backlog can be reduced to three years, in a span of only three years (2). Features of this newly envisioned e-justice system include the use of video hearings to reduce transportation costs, case filing operation systems, RFID based file tracking, and the creation of a publicly accessible and easily searchable e-library. While others were much less optimistic than Mr. Gurani and recognize that the use of ICT in the reform process is “no instant coffee”, the question of whether or not ICT can be a strategically appropriated in the Indian context still remains.

Optimistic accounts of how ICT will increase access to justice, incorporate the marginalized into the law-making process, and increase judicial transparency and accountability all sounds uncomfortably techno-utopian. While ICT should facilitate the reform process, past experiences have shown that the over zealous use of technology has too-often resulted in less than impressive results (3). To ensure that the reform process in India is not driven mainly by the IT sector, it is important that the use of technology remains complimentary to a sound national judicial reform strategy. An abundant supply of technical support with little demand for the reform process from within the judicial branch may spell disappointing results for all stakeholders. Seeing that India's first seminar discussing the role of IT in the judiciary has been organized by the IT industry, it is safe to assume that reform strategies are being crystallized through the gaze of technocrats rather than the judiciary itself. Technology has an important role to play, but India's technocrats may be jumping the gun.

Many deep-seated challenges must be overcome before the use of ICT can be truly transformative. Often cited is the level of resistance judicial cultures express towards externally imposed change. Quite logically, those required to make change are also those who may have the most to lose in the short-term by doing so. Similarly, it is also difficult garnering the levels of political support judicial reforms require to be effective. Because the judiciary is such a highly politicized apparatus, efforts to fundamentally transform the system will require the support of a vast number of stakeholders . The low level of technological literacy which exists among India's judges is also problematic. Not only will members of the judiciary be open to new ways of doing business, they will also have to be diligent in adopting a new skill-set in which they may be more than a decade behind in acquiring.

Other deep-rooted limitations of India's judicial system are becoming increasingly apparent today. Questions surrounding access to justice remain deeply embedded in the asymmetries of class power, which are often reinforced by the political nature of the judiciary. Constitutional law in India also remains unstable, as the principles informing judicial action have become increasingly less clear (5). Furthermore, the courts have come to maintain a disproportionate share of power and influence in the Indian political sphere (6). It is questionable if ICT can work to ameliorate some of these malignancies, or if its use will only come to reinforce them. If technology is appropriated in a way which serves to make the judicial process more transparent and accountable, protect the rights of citizens, and provide greater and more equitable access to justice, it may be safe to assume that a more tech-savvy judiciary is a positive development for citizens. Publishing legal information online, for example, currently allows for greater transparency in the law making process and allows dialogue on important issues of governance and citizenship.

However, it is almost unnecessary to reiterate that such outcomes are not guaranteed. Technology is often seen as neutral– the evaluative outcome of its application remains dependent on numerous variable factors. Most important is whether or not the government provides a legal framework conducive to the appropriation of ICT in ways which are considered to further the public interest. It may be useful to view the successful appropriation of ICT to judicial reform as a cumulative process, each step being a precondition to the other. It is clear to see how basic infrastructure such as civil courts in rural areas must be in place before the use of ICT can facilitate access to justice for individuals who remain peripheral to the legal system. Similarly, one would assume that laws would have to first be to be nondiscriminatory to all members of society before it could it can be widely accepted that more technology will better safeguard our rights and freedoms.

Without a legal framework which is considered to be socially just, greater speed of the judicial process, aided by technology, may become a tool which enables the judiciary to act more arbitrarily, more efficiency. This could be troubling for individuals who are already marginalized by certain policies or legal practices. Technology can also make it possible for judges to insulate themselves from the necessary checks and balances required in the law-making process. While Mr Gurani stated that ICT can help preserve judicial independence, it is questionable if the use of technology is an appropriate strategy to mitigate politicization of the judicial branch. Any frivolous efforts to spearhead the reform process through the introduction of ICT without the required commitment of judges and policy makers may be naïve at best. At worst, it could serve to reinforce what judicial bodies believe they do well without critically re-examining the fundamental roles, norms and principles of the Indian judicial system itself.

Online case-filing services may unintentionally, due to cost or lack of awareness, erect further barriers to justice for individuals who traditionally remained outside of the sphere of access. In the same vein, if ICT is favored for use in criminal rather than civil courts, technology may simply become a tool used to sentence people, more quickly. This scenario sits quite polemic to visions of technology serving as a tool to empower individuals to better assert their rights and seek justice. Foreshadowing the role ICT may play in the future of India's judicial reform process, SPANCO Technologies is currently piloting the use of video technology in criminal courts. Furthermore, India's judiciary has made several attempts to insulate itself from the provisions of the RTI act, indicating that new laws, and even new technologies, may not be able to change practice. There are also strong doubts looming that the Gramin Nyayalayas Act will be successful in leveraging the required financial support needed to construct civil courts in rural areas. Without the basic building blocks, it is difficult to envision how a National Judicial Technology Program will be successful in bringing "justice" to all who are awaiting it. Such instances serve as a light warning that technology, even within a favorable legal framework, may not necessarily spell a more accessible, transparent and accountable justice system.

A well-functioning judicial system is required to keep up with the demands of modern democratic society. It is unquestionable that technology can play an influential role in ensuring that the relationship between citizens and the government is strong and communicative. However, it is important to ask under what conditions may it be beneficial to implement technology’s use. Inferring from last week’s seminar, proposals and rationale behind potential reforms were made from an economic perspective; how ICT can be used to see that cases are filed and judgments are delivered more quickly to improve efficiency and rationalize resources. Whether technology will be appropriated to facilitate a more equitable justice system is unknown, but it is certain that such will require a coherent national reform strategy with long-term political backing. Short-shorted technological fixes may improve India's judicial efficiency in the short term, but may, however, overshadow opportunities to bring about a more transparent and accountable system in the long-term.

Notes

1. This was a notion emphasized often throughout the seminar.

2. Where these estimates were drawn is unknown.

3. For a concise account of how the use of ICT may be misappropriated in the judicial reform process, see E-Justice: Towards a Strategic Use of ICT in Judicial Reform by Waleed H. Malik

4. For an interesting account of India's judicial system, see "The Rise of Judicial Sovereignty" by Pratap Bhanu Mehta in "The State of India's Democracy", Oxford University Press, 2009.

5. Pratap Bhanu Mehta.

6. Ibid.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/what-will-be-the-role-of-ict-in-indias-judical-reform-process

Imagining the Internet – A History and Forecast

radha — 2011-04-02T14:26:36Z

Workshop: A Rights-Based Framework - Open Standards - A report on the workshop by Senior segment producer, Janna Anderson - IGF 2009 – Egypt – Sharm El Sheikh (Nov 15th, 2009)

Workshop description:

This workshop tackled the open-standards issues being faced now and those that are likely to be encountered in the

future by governments, consumers and the public. It addressed portability and interoperability, which affect everything from personal identities to communications protocols, documents, multimedia, databases and hardware.

Workshop participants included:

Tim Berners-Lee, founder of the World Wide Web Consortium, Web Foundation; Steve Mutkoski, director of standards and interoperability for Microsoft; Rishab Ghosh, Open Source Initiative board member, program leader of FLOSS (Free/Libre and
Open-Source Software) UNU-MERIT, The Netherlands; Renu Budhiraja, director of E-Governance Group in the government of India's Department of Information Technology; Sunil Abraham, director of policy for the Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore, India.

November 15, 2009 - The public's right to knowledge generated by their governments was a key focus of this discussion of standards and interoperability, kicked off with an opening statement by World Wide Web inventor Tim Berners-Lee. "This year, in 2009, I have been asking governments to put their information online," he said, referring to a talk he gave earlier in the year at TED (the annual Technology, Entertainment, Design conference). He said citizens deserve to have access to the valuable data being produced by and for their governments.

Berners-Lee was busy on Day One of IGF 2009. He had spoken at an earlier session on the mobile Internet, and he later delivered an opening keynote at which he whipped out his smartphone and said he was going online to Twitter to officially announce the creation of the World Wide Web Foundation.

Many democratic governments have begun to publish much more detailed and complete sets of public data online over the past year. It has been one of the hallmarks of the first year of the Obama Administration in the U.S.

Renu Budhiraja, director of e-Governance in the government of India's Department of Information Technology, was enthusiastic about her government's work to share knowledge.

"National policy should be based on open standards," she said, urging that all government services should be equally accessible. "Objectives are to take a holistic view, avoid duplication of effort, build solutions that are scalable and make them replicable. The ideal is to provide a window to government for citizens to make it available in an open, accessible way."

"We must consider citizens' rights when we consider open standards," said Sunil Abraham, director of policy for the Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore, India. He was critical of proprietary software and hardware, saying they constrain access and the rights of citizens to access information. Abraham founded Mahiti, which aims to reduce the cost and complexity of information and communication technology for the non-profit organizations and the voluntary sector by using free software. He said that in many developing countries people are not able to shift to use of free software because of practical barriers of
politics and economics tied to intellectual property rules.

Steve Mutkoski, director of standards and interoperability for Microsoft, said improving the process of making government data transparent and accessible is complex, and it goes beyond challenging the royalties charged by IP owners. "Technical aspects are a very small part of the issue," he said, ticking off examples of typical difficulties originating in political and legal realms. "The bigger issues include the 'file cabinet mentality' of governments, and then there are the problems with legacy software and hardware."

Mutkoski said applications and devices for which standards have already been established also suffer from a lack of interoperability in implementation. "There are gaps in standards, ambiguities," he said. "Not every standard comes fully baked and ready to go. Looking back at WiFi, that certainly wasn't the case." He said he has studied the processes behind the establishment of thousands of standards, and his work has shown that the best standards are produced in a transparent ongoing process in which they are allowed to evolve as needed.

Mutkoski noted that there many tough issues still to be addressed in the reform of public-information systems. "It's a better approach to focus on the broader architectural framework," he said, suggesting governments go back to square one to consider information delivery that is people-centered. "The focus should be on citizen-centric government. What if they want to use Twitter, what if they want to use Facebook to access their information? Those are things we are going to have to take into account."

Rishab Ghosh, program leader of FLOSS (Free/Libre and Open-Source Software) at UNU-MERIT, said intellectual property laws and monopolies impact interoperability and standards and thus they impact access to knowledge. He talked enthusiastically about the smart-card system developed by the Indian government, noting it "will save billions of dollars," and adding that with interoperability there are cost savings as well. He noted that intellectual property regulations can interfere
with the delivery of information.

"Information technology is now so universal that even the poorest subsistence farmer is impacted, because the Internet is driving and providing a basis for everything that goes on today," he said. "We are all being impacted by Internet standards. Imagine if you to go a city office in Cairo or Sharm El Sheikh and you want to register the birth of your baby or your marriage or something like that, and there's a parking lot there and the government says your car has to be a Ford or you can't
park there. This sort of thing would never happen in other realms of technology or procurement - if it does, it is seen as corrupt practice, but in software it happens all the time. Software has a tendency toward natural monpolies, and there is also a tendency to focus on the engineering of it rather than the social effects. The choices made in the technology has an impact on millions or billions of people today... We should ensure the citizens shouldn't have to buy software from anyone
in particular to be able to get access to that data."

National workshop on Web Accessibility - Thiruvananthapuram (Report)

radha — 2011-08-17T08:45:16Z

The third National Workshop on Web Accessibility for Web developers was organised by CIS at Thiruvananthapuram in collaboration with SPACE.

(CIS) and Society for Promotion of Alternative Computing and Employment (SPACE) organized a workshop on web accessibility for web developers from the public and private sector on September 25 to 26, 2009. The workshop took place at Christ Nagar International School, Kowdiar, Thiruvananthapuram.

About the Host Organizations

The Centre for Internet and Society
The Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) is a Bangalore based non-profit, bringing together a team of practitioners, theoreticians, researchers and artists to work on the emerging field of Internet and Society in order to critically engage with concerns of digital pluralism, public accountability and pedagogic practices, with particular emphasis on South-South dialogues and exchange. We focus on areas such as Anonymity/Privacy, Censorship, Surveillance, Free and Open Source Software, Open Standards, Open Access, Family, Sexual practices, Addiction, Intellectual Property Rights and Trade, Piracy, ICT4D, Digital and Participation Divide and Digital Communities and Movements.

Society For Promotion of Alternative Computing and Employment
Society For Promotion of Alternative Computing and Employment (SPACE) is a registered society that has members from academia, the IT industry, professional societies such as IEEE and Computer Society of India, and the IT Administration of the Government of Kerala. The vision of SPACE is to promote the use of Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) in academics, governance, corporate and individual use, and to support the use FOSS for employment generation in Kerala. The primary thrust are of the intervention are:

Promote the use of FOSS in the public, private, and governmental sectors as well as for personal/home use
Develop a model for FOSS- based employment generation that is appropriate to Kerala's context, by identifying appropriate business opportunities and providing support services including training and micro business incubation
Carry out R & D activities for the development of essential prototypes that bridge existing gaps in software, so as to enable widespread use of FLOSS
Ensure that Kerala is able to develop sufficient numbers of high-quality human resources in the FLOSS domain

Kerala State IT Mission

Kerala State Information Technology Mission (KSITM) is a Society registered under the Travancore Cochin Literary Scientific & Charitable Societies Registration Act. It is an autonomous nodal IT implementation agency for Department of Information Technology, Government of Kerala which provides managerial support to various initiatives of the Department.

About the Resource Persons

Rahul Gonsalves
Rahul has been building accessible websites since 2005 (sample work at http://rahulgonsalves.com/projects/ [1] ). He has been activiely involved in promoting web and accessibility standards. He spoke at the first international accessibility and technology conference in India, Techshare 2008, where he made out a case for accessibility and conducted a workshop on retrofitting accessibility to existing websites, a concern for most large institutions with an existing online presence (slides available at http://www.barrierbreak.com/events-conference/techshare_presentations200... [2])

In September 2008, he presented a paper examining ways in which People with various impairments - both physical and mental - engage with online content, and demonstrated practical ways in which authors can make online content accessible at the National Conference on ICT for Differently Abled People. He is a supporter of the push for having a national policy for governing electronic accessibility in India.

Srinivasu Chakravartula
Srinivasu Chakravarthula - graduated in Computer Science and is certified in 'assistive technologies'. He started his career as Head of the Braille Production Unit at National Association for the Blind, Bangalore. He then moved on and taught Computer Science at the Manik Public School, Bidar and also set up the Computer Training Centre at Hyderabad and Maniknagar, Bidar.

In the year 2005, he began to specialize in accessibility and started working for Net Systems Informatics and its subsidiary - BarrierBreak Technologies, Mumbai. During his stint at Net Systems, he was instrumental in setting up an accessibility process, imparting accessibility training to Corporates, creating awareness about accessibility and assistive technologies. Srinivasu played an innovative role in organizing Techshare India 2008 - India's 1st Accessibility and Assistive Technologies Conference and Exhibition. He was also Program Coordinator for Magazine, a3 that talked about Ability, Accessibility and Adaptability.

Srinivasu is currently working for Yahoo! India as Accessibility Manager and is responsible to lead and evangelize accessibility and its initiatives across Yahoo! India and South East Asia. He is also a member of the core committee for Yahoo! Employee Foundation India (YEFI). Srinivasu is associated with the social sector through the National Association for the Blind, India; Enable India, Shri Manik Prabhu Sikshan Samiti and Success World. His hobbies include blogging, tweeting, listening to classical music, playing chess and swimming.

Schedule of the Workshop

Day I

Introductory Session

Disability - 5 major types
The W3C and the WCAG
How people with disabilities use computers

Group Exercise/Discussion

Split participants into small groups and give them questions/problems to talk about and solve
Example: If your friend is deaf, how do you make sure that she/he understands what a video is about? OR How does someone who can't see or hear answer/check their email? OR X lost his hands in a car accident. How does he do a Google search?

Session 1 - Building an Accessible Website

Laying Accessible Foundations
Table-less layouts
Well-structured markup
Valid Code

Lecture/Demonstration of Accessibility Features under GNU/Linux by Arky

Lecture/Demonstration of NVDA Screen Reader

Lunch

Session 2 - Building an Accessible Website

Removing Barriers
Guideline 1 - Perception
Non-text content
Audio/Visual content
Adaptability
Contrast

Group Exercise: Guideline 1 - Translate a offline newspaper into an online one, and ensure that structure and information are retained when the content is adapted.

Wrap Session - Feedback and Clarifications

Day II

Lecture/Demonstration of ARIA features on selected websites

Session 3 - Guideline 2

Operable
Keyboard Access
Enough Time
Seizures
Navigable

LUNCH

Session 4 - Guideline 3 and 4

Understandable
Natural Language
Predictable
Input Assistance
Robust
Compatible

Session 5 - Accessibility Testing

Automated Testing + Tools
Manual Testing

Wrap Session - Feedback and Clarifications

Participants List

1. Mr. Vibeesh P - Team Leader, Rainconcert

2. Mr. Sunil S - Computer Programmer, ANERT

3. Mr. Vineet Pratap - Parallel Programmer, NIIST

4. Mr. Binsun N T - Software Engineer, Keltron

5. Mr. M.L. Antony - Manager (Software/Web Services), Keltron

6. Mr. Rojilal M. L - Programmer, KSEB

7. Ms. Dhanya Balakrishnan - Graduate Apprentice, Kerala State IT Mission

8. Ms. Indu Reghunath - Developer, SPACE

9. Mr. Jithin Babu B - Web Programmer, Freelance

10. Mr. Hareesh Mohan - Developer, SPACE

11. Mr. Sujith Sureshan - Developer, SPACE

12. Mr. Vinu C R - Web Programmer, IT@School

13. Mr. Cherian P Thomas - Programmer, KSEB

14. Mr. B Vijayakumar - Programmer, KSEB

15. Mr. Sunil Kumar - Governement Employee, Kerala Khadi and Village Industries Board

16. Mr. Anil Kumar - Akshaya, PA-MIS

17. Mr. Shanavas Khan - Programmer, Freelance

18. Ms. Shatti Raj - Scientist 'C', National Informatics Center

19. Ms. Rameena M - Developer, SPACE

20. Ms. Gita Brajesh - PSA, National Informatics Center

21. Ms. Indusekhar M S - System Analyst, National Informatics Center

22. Ms. Somi P Thomas - Scientist 'B', National Informatics Center

23. Ms. Nissy George - System Analyst, National Informatics Center

24. Ms. Susy M - Software Development, National Informatics Center

25. Ms. Jisy V K - Technical Apprentice, Kerala State IT Mission

26. Ms. Sandhya Devi T - Project Associate, IT@School

27. Ms. Saritha D R - Project Associate Executive, IT@School

28. Mr. Shaik Mohamed - System Analyst, National Informatics Center

29. Mr. Shibin Shah K J - Student, RSCS

30. Mr. Aneesh Bhadran - Student. RIT

31. Mr. Thomas K S - Assistant Manager, Camputec

32. Mr. Anil S - Member, SDS

33. Mr. John Panicker - Website Designer

34. Ms. Teenamol L - Information Kerala Mission

35. Mr. Shine A R - Information Kerala Mission

36. Mr. Jayahari K V

37. Mr. Naveen P L

38. Mr. Jijo Mathew

39. Mr. Antony Rodrugues

40. Mr. Satheeh S

41. Mr. Sajeevan C - Student, INSIGHT

Feedback

Session I

Title: Building an Accessible Website

Topics Covered: Laying Accessible Foundations, Table-less layouts, Well-structured markup, Valid Code

Content

	Excellent	Good	Need Improvement	Not Applicable
Covered Useful Materials	11	12	0	1
Practical to my needs and interest	9	11	3	1
Well Organized	12	9	1	2
Presented at the right level	14	9	0	1
Use Visual Aids	12	10	0	2

Presentation

	Excellent	Good	Need Improvement	Not Applicable
Instructor's Knowledge	20	3	0	1
Instructor's Presentation Style	16	7	0	1
Instructor Covered Materials Clearly	12	11	0	1
Instructor Responded Well to questions	18	5	0	1

Title: Lecture/Demonstration of Accessibility Features under GNU/Linux by Arky

Content

	Excellent	Good	Need Improvement	Not Applicable
Covered Useful Materials	12	8	1	3
Practical to my needs and interest	7	13	2	2
Well Organized	12	10	0	2
Presented at the right level	11	11	0	2
Use Visual Aids	9	11	1	3

Presentation

	Excellent	Good	Need Improvement	Not Applicable
Instructor's Knowledge	13	10	0	1
Instructor's Presentation Style	9	14	0	1
Instructor Covered Materials Clearly	9	14	0	1
Instructor Responded Well to questions	13	10	0	1

Title : Lecture/Demonstration of NVDA Screen Reader

Content

	Excellent	Good	Need Improvement	Not Applicable
Covered Useful Materials	7	14	1	2
Practical to my needs and interest	7	10	3	4
Well Organized	8	11	2	3
Presented at the right level	8	10	3	3
Use Visual Aids	7	12	3	2

Presentation

	Excellent	Good	Need Improvement	Not Applicable
Instructor's Knowledge	10	12	0	2
Instructor's Presentation Style	9	11	1	3
Instructor Covered Materials Clearly	7	14	1	2
Instructor Responded Well to questions	11	10	0	3

Session II

Title : Building an Accessible Website

Topics Covered : Removing Barriers, Guideline 1 - Perception, Non-text content, Audio/Visual content, Adaptability, Contrast

Content

	Excellent	Good	Need Improvement	Not Applicable
Covered Useful Materials	12	10	1	1
Practical to my needs and interest	11	11	1	1
Well Organized	12	9	2	1
Presented at the right level	15	8	0	1
Use Visual Aids	12	10	1	1

Presentation

	Excellent	Good	Need Improvement	Not Applicable
Instructor's Knowledge	15	7	0	2
Instructor's Presentation Style	11	11	0	2
Instructor Covered Materials Clearly	11	11	0	2
Instructor Responded Well to questions	13	9	0	2

Session III

Title :Guideline 2

Topics Covered: Operable, Keyboard Access, Enough Time, Seizures, Navigable

Content

	Excellent	Good	Need Improvement	Not Applicable
Covered Useful Materials	11	10	0	3
Practical to my needs and interest	10	11	0	3
Well Organized	9	12	0	3
Presented at the right level	8	12	1	3
Use Visual Aids	9	11	1	3

Presentation

	Excellent	Good	Need Improvement	Not Applicable
Instructor's Knowledge	12	9	0	3
Instructor's Presentation Style	10	11	0	3
Instructor Covered Materials Clearly	9	11	1	3
Instructor Responded Well to questions	11	10	0	3

Session IV

Title : Guideline 3 and 4

Topics Covered : Understandable, Natural Language, Predictable, Input Assistance, Robust, Compatible

Content

	Excellent	Good	Need Improvement	Not Applicable
Covered Useful Materials	10	11	2	1
Practical to my needs and interest	9	13	0	2
Well Organized	12	11	0	1
Presented at the right level	14	8	0	2
Use Visual Aids	12	10	1	1

Presentation

	Excellent	Good	Need Improvement	Not Applicable
Instructor's Knowledge	13	8	0	3
Instructor's Presentation Style	11	10	0	3
Instructor Covered Materials Clearly	12	9	0	3
Instructor Responded Well to questions	13	8	0	3

Session V

Title :Accessibility Testing

Topics Covered: Automated Testing + Tools, Manual Testing

Content

	Excellent	Good	Need Improvement	Not Applicable
Covered Useful Materials	15	9	0	0
Practical to my needs and interest	14	9	1	0
Well Organized	13	11	0	0
Presented at the right level	13	11	0	0
Use Visual Aids	14	9	1	0

Presentation

	Excellent	Good	Need Improvement	Not Applicable
Instructor's Knowledge	17	7	0	3
Instructor's Presentation Style	14	10	0	3
Instructor Covered Materials Clearly	14	9	0	1
Instructor Responded Well to questions	16	7	1	3

Workshop Organizers

Ms Nirmita Narsimhan (Programme Manager)
The Centre for Internet and Society
No. D2, 3rd Floor, Sheriff Chambers
14, Cunningham Road, Bangalore,
Karnataka 560052,
India

Phone: (+91)-080-4092-6283‎
Fax: (+91)-080-4114-8130
Email: nirmita@cis-india.org

Mr. Thomas Abraham (Training Coordinator)
Society for Promotion of Alternative Computing and Employment
C-11, Elankom Gardens,
Vellayambalam, Thiruvananthapuram
Kerala, India

Mobile: +91 94964 13317 Office Phone: +91 47123 18997
Email: tomuhs@gmail.com, contact@space-kerala.org

Consolidated Expenses of Web Accessibility Workshop, Trivandrum

Budget Head		Amount (Rs.)

Rent of lab and set up		15200
Accomodation		4963
Stationery		10285
Communication		507
Food		7535
Travel		6235
Coordination		10000
Total		54725

Please click here for the complete report.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/accessibility/blog/workshop-thiruvananthapuram-report

Digital Natives with a Cause? A Report

radha — 2012-03-13T10:43:09Z

Youth are often seen as potential agents of change for reshaping their own societies. By 2010, the global youth population is expected reach almost 1.2 billion of which 85% reside in developing countries. Unleashing the potential of even a part of this group in developing countries promises a substantially impact on societies. Especially now when youths thriving on digital technologies flood universities, work forces, and governments and could facilitate radical restructuring of the world we live in. So, it’s time we start listening to them.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/publications-automated/cis/nishant/dnrep.pdf

Open Debate

pranesh — 2011-04-02T14:34:00Z

Deepa Kurup's article in Frontline on the battle over open standards in e-governance.

Original report in Frontline.

Open Debate

With substantial public funding committed to e-governance projects, the issue of technological standards generates much heat.

by Deepa Kurup
(from Volume 26, Issue 23, dated November 07-20, 2009)

THE information technology (IT) industry in India is bitterly divided over the issue of technological standards to be adopted in e-governance processes. This problem stems from the fact that large, state-funded e-governance projects in the pipeline present the recession-hit IT sector with substantial business opportunities.

With the guidelines for setting these standards being finalised by the Department of Information Technology (DIT) under the National Policy on Open Standards for E-Governance, the debate on the nature of the standards – critical to the effective delivery of public e-services – is hotting up. Intense lobbying is on by those in favour of proprietary standards and by the Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) movement, which is against it.

When the draft policy was tabled at the meeting of the apex committee of standards for e-governance in June, the National Association of Software and Service Companies (NASSCOM) and the Manufacturers’ Association for Information Technology (MAIT) pushed for two modifications to it: the replacement of open and free standards with royalty-based ones, and allowing multiple standards in the same technological domain.

The FOSS community and open source technology firms have opposed these demands strongly. Fosscomm, a FOSS community network, wrote to the DIT seeking the withdrawal of both clauses. Leading open source technology firms such as Sun Microsystems, IBM and Red Hat have pointed out that the NASSCOM-MAIT position is at divergence with theirs and, therefore, does not reflect a unified “industry” perspective.

The DIT, which made public the first draft of the policy in June 2008, has not placed subsequent drafts for public review. Fosscomm has protested against the “unparticipatory nature” of this policymaking process, which has considerable public-interest implications, not to mention an outlay of over Rs.5,000 crore for 27 national e-governance projects.

The FOSS community believes that for a standard to be truly open, its specifications must be unconditionally accessible and royalty-free in perpetuity. This includes associated patents and extensions. NASSCOM, on the other hand, has sought standards that are open but tied to royalties, on what in policy parlance is called RAND (reasonable and non-discriminatory) licensing terms.

However, RAND standards are inextricably linked to intellectual property right (IPR) regimes. The government may have to pay royalties to patent holders throughout the lifetime of the standards. Further, the FOSS community argues that “reasonable/non-discriminatory” is a loose term that can be interpreted to the advantage of the patent holder. And with licence confidentiality being what it is, violations will be hard to monitor, it feels.

Prabir Purkayastha of the Delhi Science Forum believes that the policy, if implemented in its current form, will create an “anomalous position” for the government. “That would imply that India still does not legally recognise software patents, yet is willing to accept patent protection in its standards.”

Standards diluted

The first draft of the policy unambiguously states that the open standard chosen must be royalty-free for its lifetime, but subsequent drafts allowed for RAND terms to be invoked in the absence of an existing open standard. This loophole, FOSS supporters fear, may allow powerful lobbies to hijack these standards in a non-transparent environment inside committee rooms.

If, as the proprietary camp wishes, open standards are redefined as RAND exclusively, a substantial portion of the taxpayers’ money will go towards royalties and software monopolies will be entrenched into this growing segment.

Leading Indian IT companies have supported proprietary software; this was evident from the debate on India’s vote at the International Standards Organisation (ISO) on the Open Document Format versus Microsoft’s OOXML controversy.

Open standards

“If we do not pay for using weights and measures in the physical world, why should we in the digital world?” asks Venkatesh Hariharan, corporate affairs director, Red Hat. “It’s a trap. Proprietary formats are controlled by monopolistic outfits that drive adoption of a technology, file a thicket of patents, and litigate if royalties aren’t paid.”

The Internet, built on several open standards, is the best example of how open standards form the basis of major technological innovations. It allows for a level playing field, particularly in developing economies. By framing a purely open standards policy, India can show the way for the developing world.

Developed countries (such as those of the European Union) are moving towards mandating open standards in government departments, processes and interactions. However, it is developing countries that stand to gain most from open standards. “Proprietary standards place a larger burden on developing economies than developed as they have a greater need to participate in the global network by using standards, but do have lesser capabilities than developed economies in terms of paying for royalties,” writes Pranesh Prakash, Centre for Internet and Society, in his letter to the DIT. The “industry view” is not in the interests of small- and medium-size enterprises.

An Indian case study of how open standards can cut costs, foster monopoly-free competition and provide interoperability is the Smart Card Operating System for Transport Applications (SCOSTA). A standard for smart card-based driving licences and vehicle registration projects handled by different State governments, SCOSTA was developed by the National Informatics Centre with help from the Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur.

The number of vendors providing cards and card readers increased after an open standard was adopted and specifications were made freely available on a website.

While four foreign companies were marketing smart cards earlier, over a dozen Indian companies are doing the same now, according to a United Nations Development Programme report on e-government interoperability. More significantly, IPR rents dropped and the market price of a card came down from Rs.300 to Rs.30.

On the second issue – that of allowing multiple standards in a single technological domain – the policy allows adopting additional standards “in national interest”.

Multiple standards

Public data, like land records, lie at the core of every e-governance process; multiple standards create interoperability issues and increase the cost of conversion from one format to another. In fact, if a standard is truly open, and hence developed in a participative manner, it will automatically grow to incorporate any reasonable requirement of the community.

Although this tussle appears to be restricted to the e-governance space, much more is really at stake. In a developing economy such as India, open and royalty-free technological standards are critical because they enable domestic industries to grow and compete in a fair and monopoly-free market. And, by enabling access to technology, they foster an innovation-friendly environment.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/open-debate

Right to Read Campaign - Kolkata

radha — 2013-02-04T06:47:59Z

The nationwide Right to Read campaign which began with its first road show at Loyola College, Chennai is now having its second road show at the West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences, Kolkata. There will be half day events with publicity. Events shall comprise presentations, debates and demonstrations, book reading sessions and stalls where various accessibility tools will be demonstrated.

Problem Statement

Millions of Indians are unable to read printed material due to disabilities. There are technologies available which can help them read print if the material is converted into an alternate format such as large print, audio, Braille or any electronic format. While the Indian constitution guarantees the “right to read” as a fundamental right, the copyright regime does not permit the conversion of books into accessible formats for the benefit of persons with print impairment, as a result of which a “book famine” is created. International conventions that India is a party to specifically require India to amend its copyright laws for the benefit of persons with disabilities and to make available information and material to persons with disabilities on an equal basis as others. Publishers also do not make books available in accessible formats as a result of which less than 0.5% of books are available in accessible formats in India. As a result persons with print impairments get excluded from the education system and it impacts their career choices.
In addition to this, there are no national Policies or action plan to ensure that publications in accessible formats in all Indian languages are available to persons with print disabilities all over the country.

Objectives of the Right to Read Campaign

To accelerate change in copyright law
To raise public awareness on the issue
To gather Indian support for the Treaty for the Blind proposed by the World Blind Union at the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO).

Your Support:

No campaign is complete without the endorsement of leaders in the field. We invite you to lend your name and support to this campaign in large numbers and help us make this campaign a success. If you wish to do so, please e-mail Nirmita Narasimhan: nirmita@cis-india.org.

Agenda

Declaration on the Right to Read

Cookie Jar - Glass Jar full of cookies. The jar is locked by chains and a lock. Caption below in large letters saying "Open the cookie jar for 70 million people". Right to Read logo. Wording below: The right to read campaign seeks to accelerate change in copyright law, raise public awareness on issues of access to reading for the print impaired. Support the campaign by turning up for the event at Kolkata. Venue, date and time given. To know more about the campaign and to join us in our endeavor visit our website. www.righttoread.in

Daffodils - Poem Daffodils by Wordsworth. Black strips across many of the lines of the poem as a result only some scattered words of the poem can be seen. Caption below in large letters saying "Not Quite Right? 70 million people agree". Right to Read logo. Wording below: The right to read campaign seeks to accelerate change in copyright law, raise public awareness on issues of access to reading for the print impaired. Support the campaign by turning up for the event at Kolkata. Venue, date and time given. To know more about the campaign and to join us in our endeavor visit our website. www.righttoread.in

Videos
iframe>

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/events/right-to-read-campaign-kolkata

Arguments Against the PUPFIP Bill

pranesh — 2011-09-12T11:03:09Z

The Protection and Utilisation of Public Funded Intellectual Property Bill (PUPFIP Bill) is a new legislation being considered by Parliament, which was introduced in the 2008 winter session of the Rajya Sabha. It is modelled on the American Bayh-Dole Act (University and Small Business Patent Procedures Act) of 1980. On this page, we explore some of the reasons that the bill is unnecessary, and how it will be harmful if passed.

Summary

How is the legislation unnecessary?

The Indian government does not have vast reserves of underutilized patents, as the U.S. did in 1980.
Technology transfer is very important, but pushing IPRs aggressively is not the best way of ensuring technology transfer.

How is the legislation harmful?

Excessive patenting lead to gridlocks and retards innovation.
The legislation makes mandatory that which is optional now, and is anyway being followed in many institutions.
Copyright, trademark, etc., seem to be covered under the definition of “public funded IP”.
It will result in a form of double taxation for research, and will increase the consumer cost of all products based on publicly-funded research.
It could have unintended consequences of varied kinds, including discouraging fundamental research as well as discouraging industrial research.
Non-disclosure requirements in the Bill restricts the dissemination of research within the academic community, and curtails freedom of speech.
Exclusive licensing enables restriction on the dissemination of academic research in the marketplace, and increase in cost of products based on public-funded research.

Arguments

How is the legislation unnecessary?

1) The Indian government does not have vast reserves of underutilized patents, as the U.S. did in 1980.

The idea behind the Bayh-Dole Act was that the research funded by the government (and owned, in the US, by the government) was being underutilized. In 1980, over 28,000 unlicensed patents lay with the U.S. government.[1] The Act shifted the title of such works from the government to the University or small business that conducted the research, thus allowing them to take out patents on the research outputs. In India, under present laws, the researcher(s) own the rights over their research whether they be government-funded or not. Usually, due to employment contracts, the research institutes already have the right to patent their inventions. Thus, currently, there is no need for an enabling legislation in this regard, as there was in the U.S.

In fact, currently, the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) has over 5173 patents (counting both those in force and those under dispute), while only 222 patents are licensed (with 68 of them being under dispute). Thus, even with the IP being in the institute's hands, there is a "problem" situation similar to that which necessitated Bayh-Dole in the U.S. Thus, quite contrary to the aims of the Act, further patenting will only lead to a situation of even more underutilized patents.

2) Technology transfer is very important, but pushing IPRs aggressively is not the best way of ensuring technology transfer.

At a recent seminar held at NUJS Kolkata on the PUPFIP Bill, it was revealed that while IIT-Kharagpur’s TTO-equivalent (called the Sponsored Research & Industrial Consultancy division - SRIC) currently handles over Rs.300 crores through 850 projects, only around Rs. 5-15 crores (exact figures weren't available) are currently made through its patent portfolio.[2] Thus patents don't seem, on the face of things, to be the best way of ensuring technology transfer. Indeed, the oft-cited 28,0000 unlicensed patents held by the U.S. government were composed primarily of patents for which industry had refused to take exclusive licences.[3]

Many contend that one of the most important functions of a patent is to get inventors to disclose their inventions rather than keep them as secrets. This reason for awarding a patent is invalidated if stronger protection is granted to trade secrets (no term limit, for instance) than for patents. Secondly, this reason for granting patents is not valid in case of government-funded research in academia and research institutes. The culture of publication and the economy of reputation are sufficient to ensure disclosure. Even without these intrinsic factors, there grant requirements can necessitate publication. If mere publication is believed to be insufficient, then the government would do well to ask for technology dissemination plans before grants are made. At any rate, monopoly rights in the form of patents are thoroughly unnecessary.

How is the legislation harmful?

1) Excessive patenting lead to gridlocks and retard innovation.

It sees protection of IPR as the sole means of encouraging innovation and driving research to the doorstep of consumers. The trend around the world is that of exploring alternative forms of spurring innovation. Even in India, CSIR has gone for an innovative "Open Source Drug Discovery" project, which has proven very successful so far. Furthermore, recent literature shows that excessive patenting is harming research and innovation by creating gridlocks.[4] If platform technologies and basic research (such as SNP) gets mired in patents, then the transaction costs increase (not only in terms of money, but more importantly in administrative terms). This ends up in research clearances getting blocked, and thus retards innovation. It must be remembered that intellectual property is not only an output, but also an input. The more aggressively the outputs are guarded and prevented from being shared, the more the inputs will be affected. The study of patent thickets and gridlocks has reached such a stage that the U.S. law has been changed to reflect this. Firstly, the Bayh-Dole Act was amended in 2000 to state that the objectives of the Bayh-Dole Act were to be carried out "without unduly encumbering future research and discovery". Now, the courts (in the Bilski case) have increased the standard of obviousness in patent law (which means that less patents will be granted). Furthermore, the U.S.P.T.O. and the U.S. Senate are currently considering means of overhauling the U.S. patent system, which many fear is close to breaking down due to over-patenting. All these are signs that the footsteps we are seeking to follow are themselves turning back.

2) The legislation makes mandatory that which is optional now, and is anyway being followed in many institutions.

While the CSIR labs pursue patents aggressively, they also run the OSSD project. The latter might not be permissible if the Act is passed as it stands. Furthermore, this would increase the number of underutilized patents, which is a problem faced currently by CSIR, which has had an aggressive patent policy since the 1990s. Unlicensed patents constitute around 93% of CSIR's total patent portfolio. (In contrast, MIT averages around 50% licensing of patents.) If aggressive patenting is made mandatory, it adds substantially to administrative costs of all institutes which receive any grants from the government. These institutes might not be large enough to merit a dedicated team of professionals to handle

3) Copyright, trademark, etc., seem to be covered under the definition of "public funded IP".

This leads to a ridiculous need to attempt to commercialise all government-funded research literature (and the government funds science research, social sciences, arts, etc.). Furthermore, while the definition of "public funded IP" includes copyrights, trademarks, etc., yet the substantive provisions seem to only include those forms of IP which have to be registered compulsorily (copyright and trademark don't -- copyright comes into existence when an original work is expressed in a medium, and trademark can come into existence by use). Importantly, seeking to commercialise all copyrighted works of research would hamper the movement for open access to scholarly literature. The inititative towards open access to scholarly literature is something that National Knowledge Commission has recommended, and is a move that would result in increased dissemination of public-funded research, which seems to be an aim of the PUPFIP Bill as well.

4) It will result in a form of double taxation for research, and will increase the consumer cost of all products based on publicly-funded research.

This bill would increase the consumer cost of all products based on publicly-funded research, because of the additional burden of patent royalties.

Public funds research -> Institute patents research -> Pharma MNC gets exclusive license over research -> Drug reaches market.

Assuming an exclusive licence: Cost of the drug = cost of manufacturing, storage, etc. + mark-up (monopolistic) cost + cost of licence.

Thus, in effect, the public has to pay twice for the research: it pays once to enable the scientist to conduct the research, and once again in the form of royalties to have that research brought to the marketplace.

5) It could have unintended consequences of varied kinds, including discouraging fundamental research as well as discouraging industrial research.

The former could happen since institutions and individual scientists have a financial incentive to shift their focus away from fundamental research; the latter, conversely, because the filings and bureaucracy involved could drive scientists away from reporting or even engaging in industrial research [pdf]. Faculty and researcher involvement in the business of licensing is a sub-optimal usage of their talents, and there are scientists who would rather stay away from business (as is shown by the intake of former industry-researchers into government-funded labs such as those of CSIR).

6) Non-disclosure requirements in the Bill restricts the dissemination of research within the academic community, and curtails freedom of speech.

This will bring about a shift in science and research which is always done upon others' work. This is why in the U.S., the National Institute of Health (N.I.H.) has sought to ensure (without any legal authority) that it only finances that research that on single nucleotide polymorphism (S.N.P.) which is not patented, and is shared freely amongst scholars. Since this requirement of the N.I.H.'s does not have any legal backing (since it is contradictory to the Bayh-Dole Act), institutions are free to get the grant from N.I.H. and then go ahead and patent their inventions.

7) Exclusive licensing enables restriction on the dissemination of academic research in the marketplace, and increase in cost of products based on public-funded research.

The bill allows for both assignment of licences as well as exclusive licences. Both of these enable monopolistic pricing to be undertaken by the licensee/assignee. There are not even any mechanisms in the Act to ensure, for instance, that a public call is made to ascertain that no parties are willing to consider a non-exclusive licence. Patents are generally said to grant a monopoly right because of the opportunity to recover costs of research and development. When the research is being done by public-funded money, there is no justification for monopoly rights on that research, since there are no excessive costs to recover.

Footnotes:

[1] See So et al. and Thursby and Thursby, quoted in the National Knowledge Commission's letter to the Prime Minister.

[2] See Prof. Vivekanandans' presentation "Patenting and Technology Transfer-the IIT Khargpur Experience"

[3] See Anthony So et al., Is Bayh-Dole Good for Developing Countries, 6 PLoS Biol e262 (2008)

[4] See Michael A. Heller & Rebecca S. Eisenberg, Can Patents Deter Innovation? The Anticommons in Biomedical Research, 280 Science 698 (1998)

Additional Resources

On the PUPFIP Bill

February 5, 2004: NIPER holds parallel session of Indian Science Congress (Express Pharma)
October 27, 2006: Susan Finston, India to Propose New Technology Transfer Legislation (Bayh-Dole 25)
January 16, 2007: National Knowledge Commision's Letter to Indian Prime Minister (National Knowledge Commission)
April 15, 2007: Archita Bhatta, Proposed IPR law raises concern (Down to Earth)
May 31, 2007: Science & Technology needs to be core of the economic development says Kapil Sibal (PIB Press Release)
November 13, 2007: Government Accords Approval to National Biotechnology Development Strategy (PIB Press Release)
February 1, 2008: Yudhijit Bhattacharjee, Indian Government Hopes Bill Will Stimulate Innovation (Science)
February 19, 2008: Shamnad Basheer, Exporting Bayh Dole to India: Whither Transparency? (Part 1) (Part 2) (SpicyIP)
March 17, 2008: Kalpana Pathak, Varsities may soon own patent rights (Business Standard)
March 17, 2008: P.T. Jyothi Datta, Public-funded research may pay dividends for scientists (Business Line)
March 17, 2008: Joff Wild, India considers Bayh-Dole style legislation (IAM Magazine)
April 30, 2008: M.K. Unnikrishnan and Pradeepti Nayak, Lessons from Bayh Dole Act and its relevance to India (PharmaBiz)
July 2008: Sean M. O'Connor, Historical Context of U.S. Bayh-Dole Act: Implications for Indian Government Funded Research Patent Policy (STEM Newsletter)
July 7, 2008: Shamnad Basheer, Mysterious Indian "Bayh Dole" Bill: SpicyIP Procures a Copy (SpicyIP)
July 09, 2008: Latha Jishnu, Does India need a Bayh-Dole Act? (Business Standard)
September 2008: V.C. Vivekanandan, Transplanting Bayh-Dole Act- Issues at Stake Authors (13 Journal of Intell. Prop. 480)
September 18, 2008: Shamnad Basheer, Indian Patent Bill: Let's not be too hasty (SciDev.net)
October 28, 2008: Anthony So et al., Is Bayh-Dole Good for Developing Countries, 6 PLoS Biol e262 (2008)
October 31, 2008: Cabinet gives approval for Protection and Utilization of Public Funded Intellectual Property Bill, 2008 (PIB Press Release)
November 2008: Annette Lin et al., The Bayh-Dole Act and Promoting the Transfer of Technology of Publicly Funded-Research (UAEM White Paper on the Proposed Indian Bayh-Dole Analogue)
November 1, 2008: Editorial: Not in Public Interest (Mint)
November 12, 2008: Ben Butkus, As India Mulls Bill Modeled on Bayh-Dole, Critics Claim It May Stifle Innovation (Biotech Transfer Weekly)
December 16, 2008: Pranesh Prakash, Indian "Bayh Dole" Bill before Parliament (Commons Law)
January 23, 2009: Editorial: Time to Rethink Intellectual Property Laws (SciDev.net)
March 12, 2009: Feroz Ali Khader, Does Patenting Research Change the Culture of Science? (The Hindu)
April 24, 2009: Sunil Abraham & Pranesh Prakash, Does India Need Its Own Bayh-Dole? (Indian Express)
September 21, 2009: C.H. Unnikrishnan, Proposed Patent Bill Is Flawed, Say Experts (Mint)
September 23, 2009: Editorial: An Idea That's A Patent Misfit (Mint)
October 2009: Bhaven N. Sampat, The Bayh-Dole Model in Developing Countries: Reflections on the Indian Bill on Publicly Funded Intellectual Property (UNCTAD - ICTSD Policy Brief No. 5)
January 2010: Amit Shovon Ray & Sabyasachi Saha, Patenting Public-Funded Research for Technology Transfer: A Conceptual-Empirical Synthesis of US Evidence and Lessons for India (ICRIER Working Paper No. 244)
January 2010: Mrinalini Kochupillai, The Protection and Utilization of Public Funded Intellectual Property Bill, 2008: A Critique in the Light of India's Innovation Environment, 15 J. Intell. Prop. Rights 19 (2010)
January 16, 2010: Amit Shovon Ray & Sabyasachi Saha, Intellectual Bottlenecks (Financial Express)
January 21, 2010: Latha Jishnu, Perils of the US Model (Business Standard)
January 22, 2010: Rema Nagarajan, Scientists Fume Over New Patent Bill (Times of India)
January 26, 2010: Shamnad Basheer, The Problem with Patents (Mint)
February 5, 2010: Shalini Butani, Public Research May Become More Private (Business Line)
February 8, 2010: Anika Gupta, Scientists Want Changes in Innovation Bill (Mint)
February 9, 2010: C.H. Unnikrishnan, Parliament Panel Wants Govt Review on Innovation Bill (Mint)
February 15, 2010: Leena Menghaney, A Bad Example from the U.S. (Down to Earth)
February 19, 2010: Pranesh Prakash, A Patent Conundrum (Indian Express)
SpicyIP coverage by tag 'Bayh Dole'
Presentations from NUJS, Kolkata conference on the PUPFIP Bill

On Bayh-Dole

Newspapers and Magazines

Academic Journals

Amy Kapczynski et al., Addressing Global Health Inequities: An Open Licensing Approach for University Innovation, 20 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 1031 (2005)
Anthony So et al., Is Bayh-Dole Good for Developing Countries, 6 PLoS Biol. e262 (2008)
Arti K. Rai & Rebecca S. Eisenberg, Bayh-Dole Reform and the Progress of Biomedicine, 66 Law & Contemp. Probs. 289 (2003)
David C. Mowery & Arvids A. Aiedonis, Numbers, Quality, and Entry: How Has the Bayh-Dole Act Affected U.S. University Patenting and Licensing?, 1 Innovation Pol'y Econ. 187 (2000)
David C. Mowery, et al., Learning to Patent: Institutional Experience, Learning, and the Characteristics of U.S. University Patents After the Bayh-Dole Act, 1981-1992, 48 Mgmt. Sci. 73 (2002)
Donald Kennedy, Editorial: Enclosing the Research Commons, 294 Science 2249 (2001)
F.M. Scherer, The Political Economy of Patent Policy Reform in the United States, 7 Colorado J. Telecomm. High Tech. L. 167 (2009)
Henry Steck, Corporatization of the University: Seeking Conceptual Clarity, 585 Annals of Am. Acad. Pol. & Soc. Sci. 66 (2003)
Jason Owen-Smith, Trends and Transitions in the Institutional Environment for Public and Private Science, 49 Higher Educ. 91 (2005)
Jerry G. Thursby & Marie C. Thursby, University Licensing and the Bayh-Dole Act, 301 Science 1052 (2003)
Jerry G. Thursby & Marie C. Thursby, Who is Selling the Ivory Tower? Sources of Growth in University Licensing, 48 Mgmt. Sci. 90 (2002)
Josh Lerner, Review of 'Ivory Tower', 43 J. Econ. Litt. 510 (2005)
Joshua B. Powers, R&D Funding Source and University Technology Transfer: What is Stimulating Universities to Be More Entrepreneurial?, 45 Research in Higher Educ. 1 (2004)
Lita Nelsen, The Rise of Intellectual Property Protection in the American University, 279 Science 1460 (1998)
Marcia Angell & Arnold S. Relman, Patents, Profits & American Medicine: Conflicts of Interest in the Testing & Marketing of New Drugs, 131 Daedalus 102 (2002)
Maria Jelenik, Review: Two Books on Technology Transfer, 50 Admin. Sci. Q. 131 (2005) (Review of 'Ivory Tower')
Michael A. Heller & Rebecca S. Eisenberg, Can Patents Deter Innovation? The Anticommons in Biomedical Research, 280 Science 698 (1998)
Rebecca Henderson, et al., Universities as a Source of Commercia Technology: A Detailed Analsis of University Patenting, 1965-1988, 80 Rev. Econ. Statistics 119 (1998)
Rebecca S. Eisenberg, Public Research and Private Development: Patents and Technology Transfer in Government-Sponsorded Research, 82 Virginia L. Rev. 1663 (1996)
Rebecca S. Eisenberg & Richard R. Nelson, Public vs. Proprietary Science: A Fruitful Tension?, 131 Daedalus 89 (2002)
Richard Jensen & Marie Thursby, Proofs and Prototypes for Sale: The Licensing of University Inventions, 91 Am. Econ. Rev. 240 (2001)
Roberto Mazzoleni & Richard R. Nelson, Economic Theories about the Benefits and Costs of Patents, 32 J. Econ. Issues 1031 (1998)
Thomas A. Massaro, Innovation, Technology Transfer, and Patent Policy: The University Contribution, 82 Virginia L. Rev. 1729 (1996)
Walter W. Powell & Jason Owen-Smith, Universities and the Market for Intellectual Property in the Life Sciences, 17 J. Pol'y Analysis Mgmt. 253 (1998)
William M. Sage, Funding Fairness: Public Investment, Proprietary Rights and Access to Health Care Technology, 82 Virginia L. Rev. 1737 (1996)
Zach W. Hall & Christopher Scott, University-Industry Partnership, 291 Science 553 (2001)

Resources

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/publications/pupfip/why-no-pupfip

Resources

pranesh — 2009-10-20T03:29:16Z

A collection of resources that will help one navigate through the arguments and evidence for and against the Indian "Bayh-Dole" bill.

PUPFIP

Bayh-Dole

Technology Transfer

Innovation's Golden Goose (The Economist)

Improving Innovation(The Economist)

Scientific Culture

Patents and America's Universities(The Economist)

When Academia Puts Profits Ahead of Wonder(The New York Times)

Bayhing for blood or Doling out cash?(The Economist)

Evaluative Pieces

University Licensing under Bayh-Dole: What are the Issues and Evidence?(Thursby and Thursby)

Is Bayh-Dole Good for Developing Countries? Lessons from the US Experience(So et al.)

The Law of Unintended Consequences(Fortune Magazine)

The Growth of patenting and licensing by U.S. universities and the Bayh-Dole Act (Mowery et al.)

Overall Assessment of the Bayh-Dole Act (Nelson, Mowery, et al.)

General Resources

Joint Ventures and Intellectual Property(Andreas Panagopoulos)

Patents vs. Other Knowledge Transfer(Agrawal and Henderson)

Incentives Structure and Licensing Success(Dan Elfenbein)

University Licensing and Research Behavior(Lach and Schankerman)

Open Science and Private Property(Paul David)

IP Alternatives

New Approaches to Filling the Gap in TB Drug Discovery (Casenghi, Cole and Nathan)

The Role of Prizes in Developing Low-Cost Point-of-Care Rapid Diagnostic Tests and Better Drugs for TB(James Love)

How to boost R&D for essential drugs and diagnostics

Scrooge and intellectual property rights (BMJ January 2006)

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/publications/pupfip/resources

The South African Telecommunications Sector: Poised for Change

radha — 2011-10-21T09:59:51Z

CIS in collaboration with the LINK Centre, Graduate School of Public and Development Management, University of the Witwatersrand, South Africa and in association with different institutions across India is organizing a Lecture Tour on:
“The South African Telecommunications Sector: Poised for Change” By Sagie Chetty, Senior Manager, Eskom, South Africa.
It will be our pleasure to have you join us for the talks.

The Co-hosts, Dates and the Venues for the Talk are given below –

Co-Host: Indian Institute of Technology, Madras
Date: 19th October, 2009 at 3.30pm
Venue – IIT-M, Chennai

Co-Host: Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay
Date: 20th October, 2009 at 4.00pm
Venue – IIT-B, Mumbai

Co-Host: International Institute of Information Technology, Bangalore
Date: 23rd October, 2009 at 4.00pm
Venue – IIIT-B, Bangalore

Co-Host: Indira Gandhi National Open University, Delhi
Date: 26th October, 2009 at 3.00pm
Venue – IGNOU, Delhi

Co-Host: National Institute of Science Technology and Development Studies, Delhi
Date: 27th October, 2009 at 3.00pm
Venue – NISTADS, Delhi

Co-Host: CCMG - Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi
Date: 29th October, 2009 at 2.00pm
Venue – CCMG - Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi

About the Speaker:

Sagie Chetty is a Senior Manager in Eskom, South Africa’s largest electricity utility. Sagie spent the first part of his career at Eskom as Information Manager in the Generation Division. In that time he was responsible for information systems strategy development and implementation. Some of the key projects he has been involved in are the implementation of SAP Plant Maintenance, Business Intelligence systems and other bespoke Information Systems for Generation Power Stations.

Abstract of the Lecture: The South African Telecommunications Sector: Poised for Change

With a gross domestic product of over $506 billion (PPP, 2008) South Africa is one of the leading economies on the African continent. Only Nigeria with a GDP of $328 billion and Egypt with a GDP of $453 billion currently rival the South African economy. The economy is strong in manufacturing and agriculture, but is still based significantly on mining of gold, diamonds, platinum, coal and iron ore. Its main trading partner is the European Union. Bilateral trade with India amounts to $6, 2 billion (2008) with the balance of trade in South Africa’s favour to the value of about $1 billion.
Although one of the leading economies in Africa, South Africa’s Information and Communications (ICT) sector has not shown the concomitant level of development that reflects its economic position in Africa. ICT usage – telephony and Internet – has historically been low, and electronic transactions are utilised largely by business. There are a number of reasons for this; however the high cost of telecommunications is certainly a contributing factor. The high cost is attributed largely to policy and regulatory failure in the telecommunications sector. The sector is characterized by powerful incumbent telecoms operators that thwart competition and further entrench their dominant market positions. The consequence is that the high telecommunications costs impact access, affordability and the cost of doing business for the region.
Recent developments in the telecommunications sector, however could spell the end to high costs if policy and regulatory actions do not hinder competition. South African consumers can in the very near future look forward to lower telecommunications prices with the laying of new undersea cables, a new national backbone to compete with the existing one, new satellite ventures to provide the backhaul between cellular and broadband towers, a landmark court decision allowing value added network service providers (VANS) to build their own networks and the imminent entry of the incumbent telecommunications fixed line operator into the mobile arena. It is an opportune time for policy makers and regulators to take bold steps to free up the sector and open it up for true competition.
Lines that historically demarcated fixed, mobile, voice, data are blurring, causing shifts in market structures. However, currently the market is structured around the incumbent Telkom for fixed lines services and Vodacom and MTN for mobile services. A second PSTN, Neotel has been licensed but is only offering limited services. A third mobile operator, Cell C is operating but has yet to gain any significant market share.

The talk is open to all and there are no registration or entry fees.
Please let us know if you require any further details.

VIDEOS

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/events/lecture-tour-by-sagie-chetty

Centre for Internet and Society

Free Culture Roadshow

The Right to Share: What Does Copying Have to Do with Freedom?

Speaker Profile:

The Revolution Will Be Recorded, Remixed, and Redistributed: The Promise of Open Video

Speaker Profiles:

Open Standards Workshop at IGF '09

DFI and Cambridge University Press join hands for getting print access to the "print impaired"

Copyright Access for the Disabled and Collaborative IP Policy

Address delivered during the IGF Closing Ceremony

Access to online information and knowledge – advancing human rights and democracy

The Role of ICT in Judicial Reform- An Exploration

Imagining the Internet – A History and Forecast

Workshop description:

Workshop participants included:

National workshop on Web Accessibility - Thiruvananthapuram (Report)

About the Host Organizations

About the Resource Persons

Schedule of the Workshop

Day I

Day II

Participants List

Feedback

Session I

Session II

Session III

Session IV

Session V

Workshop Organizers

Digital Natives with a Cause? A Report

Open Debate

Open Debate

Standards diluted

Open standards

Multiple standards

Right to Read Campaign - Kolkata

Arguments Against the PUPFIP Bill

Summary

How is the legislation unnecessary?

How is the legislation harmful?

Additional resources

Arguments

How is the legislation unnecessary?

1) The Indian government does not have vast reserves of underutilized patents, as the U.S. did in 1980.

2) Technology transfer is very important, but pushing IPRs aggressively is not the best way of ensuring technology transfer.

How is the legislation harmful?

1) Excessive patenting lead to gridlocks and retard innovation.

2) The legislation makes mandatory that which is optional now, and is anyway being followed in many institutions.

3) Copyright, trademark, etc., seem to be covered under the definition of "public funded IP".

4) It will result in a form of double taxation for research, and will increase the consumer cost of all products based on publicly-funded research.

5) It could have unintended consequences of varied kinds, including discouraging fundamental research as well as discouraging industrial research.

6) Non-disclosure requirements in the Bill restricts the dissemination of research within the academic community, and curtails freedom of speech.

7) Exclusive licensing enables restriction on the dissemination of academic research in the marketplace, and increase in cost of products based on public-funded research.

Additional Resources

On the PUPFIP Bill

On Bayh-Dole

Resources

PUPFIP

News-related/General Coverage

Scientific Culture

Analytical Pieces

Bayh-Dole

Technology Transfer

Scientific Culture

Evaluative Pieces

General Resources

IP Alternatives

The South African Telecommunications Sector: Poised for Change

About the Speaker:

Abstract of the Lecture: The South African Telecommunications Sector: Poised for Change