Centre for Internet and Society

Freedom of Expression in a Digital Age: Effective Research, Policy Formation & the Development of Regulatory Frameworks in South Asia

jyoti — 2015-04-12T03:53:04Z

The Centre for Internet & Society cordially invites you to a panel discussion on Freedom of Expression in a Digital Age. The event organized by Center for Global Communication Studies at the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania, Observer Research Foundation and the Centre for Internet and Society will be held at Observer Research Foundation on April 21, 2015 from 11.00 a.m. to 6.00 p.m.

The discussion will highlight the challenges in promoting and strengthening online freedom of expression and evaluating the application of existing regulatory frameworks in South Asia. Click to view the invite.

International Frameworks and Freedom of Expression

Freedom of expression-an important fundamental right in itself, is also critical for defending and upholding other freedoms and rights. We exercise this right in our day-to-day lives, through the exchange of ideas, opinions and information. Understanding the means and structures of communication, and the regulation of environments that facilitate such exchange therefore become crucial for those seeking to realize freedom of expression.

Freedom of expression is enshrined in Article 19 of both theUniversal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The UDHR holds that " everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers" . The ICCPR holds that, " everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice".

Freedom of expression has also been enshrined in regional conventions and charters, for example the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the American Convention on Human Rights4, and the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights ("Banjul Charter") .

The former UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Frank La Rue, highlighted in his 2013 report report that these frameworks are applicable to actions that take place online.6 While there may be no disagreements on freedom of expression as a legal right, it is important to bear in mind that it is not a non-derogable right, and may therefore be limited subject to safeguards indicated, for example, in Article 19(3) of the ICCPR.

While there may be limitations are placed on the exercise of freedom of expression, there is limited clarity on when and how freedom of expression can be legitimately circumscribed. There have been attempts by civil society groups to articulate more clearly the specific conditions when freedom of expression may be derogated, most notably the Siracusa Principles on the Limitation and Derogation Provisions in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ("Siracusa Principles" ), and the Johannesburg Principles on National Security, Freedom of Expression and Access to Information ("Johannesburg Principles").

Freedom of Expression and Communications

Over the years, the norms and standards required for freedom of expression in the traditional media world have received much attention. When regulating communication, some restrictions upon freedom of expression have been regarded necessary and are enforceable by national or international courts. Such restrictions have been defined in international human rights laws and cover issues such as defamation, incitement to violence and hate speech. While these restrictions are not affected by the introduction of new means of communication, the proliferation of digital communications does warrant the recognition that there are new forms of censorship, unsettled questions of jurisdiction, and the need to develop new norms and standards that can keep pace with the myriad forms of expression and information sharing.

Communication in the digital age has led to the evolution of the Internet as a medium that has revolutionised largely local capacity for communication into a worldwide phenomenon that encompasses everything from personal one-to-one emails, social networks and reaching out to large audiences globally. The proliferation of digital technologies has not only fostered unprecedented access to information; the very environment stands transformed by the introduction of new kinds of information from voice, sound, image, text and code, that are accessible on a range of devices and across several types of technologies.

These networks and services democratized communication by lowering barriers to access and creating new space for publishing and peer-to-peer collaboration. Bypassing traditional gatekeepers of other forms of media, users can take on the role of writers, broadcasters or publishers on the Internet thus creating limitless possibilities for producing, sharing and exchanging all kinds of content. From this view, the Internet has sprung up as a globally accessible means of communication that is free from traditional restraints on free speech and expression. However, there are other unintended consequences that the Internet has had on both forms of power and control in the regulation of content, as online content has become increasingly contested, enclosed in a nationalized sphere challenging the free flow of information and freedom of expression.

Freedom of Expression in South Asia

As a network of networks, the internet has no overarching jurisdiction and with no single entity governing the totality of the internet, there exists a jurisdictional vacuum over content on the web. Further, there are no means of regulating content internationally or even a broad consensus on the norms that should be applied for restricting freedom of expression either on traditional or modern media. This has led to adverse consequences such as states adopting arbitrary actions and standards or companies exercising private censorship with content online.

South Asia has an important role in global development, with its share of the world's largest working-age population, a quarter of the world's middle-class consumers, the largest number of poor and undernourished in the world, and several fragile states of global geopolitical importance. With inclusive growth, South Asia has the potential to change the global order and communications and technology continue to play a critical role in realising the region's potential. Unfortunately, the history of colonial rule, authoritarian governments and a turbulent geo-political landscape have resulted in a tendency to over-regulate speech. Governments have construed the advent of the Internet as a challenge to their authority and their anxiousness to restrict use of the medium by citizens has resulted in often regressive and sometimes draconian laws such as Myanmar's Electronic Transactions Law, India's IT Act and Pakistan's Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act.

As the Internet expands and provides greater access, it also places censorship and surveillance capacities in the hands of states and corporations. It is therefore crucial that there exist strong protections of the right to freedom of expression that balance state powers and citizen rights. While the Internet has thrown up its own set of challenges such as hate speech, the verbal online abuse of women and the use of the Internet to spread rumours of violence, the regulation of content is a question that is far from being settled and needs our urgent attention. What role can and should the law play? When is it justified for the government to intervene? What can be expected from intermediaries, such as social networks and ISPs? And what can users do to protect the right to free speech - their own and that of others?

Balancing freedom of expression with other rights is further complicated by the challenges of fast paced and changing regulatory environment. By highlighting these challenges and questioning the application of existing frameworks we aim to contribute to further promoting and strengthening the right to freedom of expression, in India and beyond.

Introduction to panel and conference:

This is the context in which the Centre for Internet and Society, the Observer Research Foundation, the University of Pennsylvania's Internet Policy Observatory, and the Programme for Comparative Media Law and Policy at Oxford University are coming together to organise an event under the title 'Freedom of Expression in a Digital Age'. The event is a discussion and deliberation on 'Effective Research, Policy Formation, & the Development of Regulatory Frameworks in South Asia', aimed at bringing together policymakers, researchers, experts and civil society in discussing some of the most crucial issues in this space. The event would seek to look at past experiences, look at current realities and look ahead to how things could be made better in the South Asian context. The program agenda includes

Freedom of Expression in a Digital Age' Effective Research, Policy Formation, & the Development of Regulatory Frameworks in South Asia
Program Agenda and Article Submission Tracks
Learnings from the past		Current Realities		Looking ahead
11:00 - 1:00	1:00 - 2:00	2:00 - 4:00	4:00- 4:15	4:15-6:00
Welcome and Introductions		Welcome and Introductions		Welcome and Introductions
Overview of existing policies and regulatory models and their impact on FoEx online including the implementation of these models across South Asia	Lunch	How FoEx is being enabled online in different jurisdications and sectors of society across South Asia	Coffee break	Challenges associated with formulating a standard, harmonized, and adaptable regulation that is applicable to multiple digital platforms, both at the national and international level and possible solutions
FoEx as defined in jurisdictions across South Asia and as compared to international standards		Ways in which FoEx is, or may be, curtailed online		Ways forward to bridge existing gaps between policy formation and policy implementation with respect to FOEX online
Emerging technologies, markets, services and platforms and how they have shaped FoEx across South Asia		Online FoEx and the present need to balance it against other digital rights in jurisdictions across South Asia		Exploration of emerging regulatory questions such as whether online speech should be regulated in the same manner as offline speech or, if there are there are particular forms of online speech that are difficult to regulate such as defamation, hate speech, if there are effective models of remedy for violation of FOEX online
Impact of challenges on FoEx online such as barriers of entry, access, accessibility, cost, liability, policies and enforcement mechanisms differing across platforms across South Asia		The impact of jurisdiction, multi-national platforms, and domestic regulation on FOEX online		Ways in which civil society can impact and influence the development and implementation of Internet regulation
Research techniques that have been applied to the issue and have been effective in different political contexts across South Asia		Role and responsibility of intermediaries in regulating online speech as per governmental standards via content policies, terms of service, and other practices across South Asia		Exploration of the future role and interplay of technology and policy in enabling FOEX online
Q&A		Q&A		Q&A

About the Organisers

The Center for Global Communication Studies at the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania-has created the Internet Policy Observatory (IPO) to research the dynamic technological and political contexts in which these Internet governance debates take place. The IPO serves as a platform for informing relevant communities of activists, academics, and policy makers, and for displaying collected data and analysis. The Observatory encourages and sponsors research and studies ongoing events, key decisions and proposals, on Internet policy. The IPO seeks to deepen understanding of the evolution of mechanisms and processes that affect domestic Internet policies in key jurisdictions and the legal, political, economic, international and social factors that influence the implementation, or non-implementation, of such policies.The IPO also seeks to understand the relationship between national efforts and international policy formations and the role of civil society in domestic Internet policy processes and control.

The Centre for Internet and Society (CIS)-is a non-profit research organization working to explore, understand and affect the shape and form of the Internet and its relationship with the political, cultural, and social milieu of our times. CIS' multidisciplinary research, intervention and collaboration engages with policy issues relating to freedom of expression, privacy, accessibility for persons with disabilities, access to knowledge and IPR reform, openness (including open government data, free/open source software, open standards, open access to scholarly literature, open educational resources, and open video). CIS also engages in academic research on digital natives and digital humanities.

The Observer Research Foundation (ORF)- is India's premier independent public policy think tank and is engaged in developing and discussing policy alternatives on a wide range of issues of national and international significance. The fundamental objective of ORF is to influence the formulation of policies for building a strong and prosperous India in a globalised world. It hosts India's largest annual cyber conference - CyFy: the India Conference on Cyber Security and Internet Governance.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/events/freedom-of-expression-in-digital-age

Conference on Standards Settings Organizations (SSO) and FRAND, NLSIU

rohini — 2016-04-02T18:12:41Z

Rohini Lakshané attended the Conference on Standards Settings Organizations (SSO) and FRAND held at NLSIU, Bengaluru on March 21 and 22, 2015. It was organised by the MHRD Chair on Intellectual Property Rights, Centre for Intellectual Property Rights and Advocacy (CIPRA), National Law School of India University, Bengaluru in association with Intel Technology India. This post is a compilation of notes from the conference.

Programme Schedule

Significant Takeaways
It is anti-competitive to seek to exclude competitors from the market by seeking injunctions on the basis of SEPs, if the licensee is willing to take a license on FRAND terms. In these circumstances, the seeking of injunctions can distort licensing negotiations and lead to unfair licensing terms, with a negative impact on consumer choice and prices. -- EU Competition Policy Brief, Issue 8, June 2014. This is a very important issue for India as it thinks about how it can attract foreign investments. India has a unique opportunity to learn from these lessons from around the globe and craft India-specific solutions. India has the intellectual capability and the institutions capable of crafting these solutions, and in doing that we can support Make In India. India needs to be mindful about what is happening in the [South Asian] region. China has moved aggressively to try to curb FRAND abuse. The People's Court in China ruled in Huawei vs. InterDigital that for 2G, 3G, and 4G patents, the license fees of royalties should not exceed 0.019% of the actual sale price. Apple also stated that Ericsson was calculating royalties on the sale price of the iPhone or iPad, whereas the royalty should be calculated on the value of the baseband chip that runs this technology in the mobile device. If such litigation occurs in India, what would be India's position? If a building block contains the technology pertaining to a patent, then royalty should be calculated on the smallest possible patent practising unit and not the entire product. The government of India has adopted a royalty free (RF) approach to licensing open standards. Non-essential claims are excluded from disclosure. Pending patent applications are not. Only 16% patents declared as SEPs are actually SEPs, according to a study. The Delhi High Court has passed interim orders restraining the CCI from deciding these cases. Our appeal to the courts is that these patent infringement lawsuits should not be viewed in isolation. They should not be viewed as merely contractual issues between the licensor and the licensee. They should be seen in the context of their economic effects and their adverse effect on competition. The CCI should be enabled to deal with such cases. Matheson: The phrase "compulsory license" sends a shiver down every corporate's spine every time it is used. International experience is that the judicial system has been the only forum where we have been able to have due process to enable us to construct cases properly in order to explain to the judge or to the jurors how the system works. That has produced very sensible solutions to this problem. Handing it off to the government to institute a compulsory license wouldn't be fair to the SEP holders.

SSOs and FRAND: Licensing issues

John Matheson, Director of Legal Policy (Asia Pacific), Intel

The role of licensing policy

Ensuring market access
Standards often depend on patented technology, which is accessed through the Promise to License on FRAND terms.
It is equally critical to ensure that standards can be implemented without unfair legal games.
It is essential to prevent patent hold-up.
Reasonable compensation

Patent holders remain entitled to fair compensation and benefit from the proliferation of their technologies via standardisation.

Why FRAND?

A FRAND commitment embodies certain fundamental principles that have been recognised widely by the courts and regulators.

The fundamental purpose of a FRAND commitment is widespread adoption of the standard.

Because of the peculiar nature of SEPs, the process is open to abuse.

A FRAND commitment is aimed at preventing patent holders from exploiting a hold-up value and extracting unreasonable royalties and concessions that could otherwise follow from being in a very unique position. Often, the holders of the IP have a single solution to an interoperability or connectivity conundrum that technology is facing.

Why are SEP license negotiations different from Non-SEP ones?

In the context of non-SEPs, one may be negotiating to obtain a license to a patent for a particular feature. If the licensor is being difficult, one can discard the feature to include something else. In a competitive market, this negotiation is focused on the value of the invention to be licensed. Thus one can redesign to avoid a particular claim and, in turn, avoid injunction.

On the other hand, it is necessary to either obtain a license for or infringe an SEP to manufacture the mobile device. There is no workable alternative or workaround to obtaining a license for the desired technology. With the threat of an injunction looming over the negotiations, the prospective licensee is under pressure to obtain a license. So the market negotiations for SEPs and non-SEPs are very different. One-way negotiations raise the possibility of a patent hold-up, and abuse of the standard implementer.

IP policies inevitably involve compromise.

Common areas of misunderstanding include:

Valuations or meaning of "reasonable". Valuations of IP under consideration.
Injunctive relief or exclusion orders
Discrimination or refusal to license
Patent transfer (It requires a continuation of the FRAND commitment, and shouldn't get differential treatment in the IP policy.)

Competition authorities in the US and EU have asked SSOs to reconsider policies to reduce ambiguity in the context of these areas of misunderstanding.

The ex-ante or the incremental value of the SEPs before the standard is set needs to be understood. The SSOs look at several different ways to solve a connectivity problem. The patent owners bring their patents into the standards body and claim that theirs is the best way to solve that problem. The market and consumers want an uncomplicated solution which works and is as cheap as possible. In many cases, there is one single winner, simply because we need one solution. In exchange for being the winner, the FRAND discipline is quid pro quo.

European Commission's response to two different patent lawsuits:

In the Samsung and Motorola cases, the Commission clarifies that in the standardisation context where the SEP holders have committed to:

License their SEPs
Do so on FRAND terms

It is anti-competitive to seek to exclude competitors from the market by seeking injunctions on the basis of SEPs, if the licensee is willing to take a license on FRAND terms.

In other words, if there is a bona fide commitment on the part of the licensee to agree to that test, then it is anti-competitive to seek an injunction.

In these circumstances, the seeking of injunctions can distort licensing negotiations and lead to unfair licensing terms, with a negative impact on consumer choice and prices. -- EU Competition Policy Brief, Issue 8, June 2014.

Anyone who needs access to connectivity or needs interoperability requires to get a SEP license, and if that license is required to be obtained within a time limit, it almost -- by definition -- is not going to work. Patent licenses take years to negotiate, and they're incredibly complex. For example, a patent policy may offer up to 12 months to agree on a license, but that is not the way the market works. So we cannot expect policies that put forth time limits to work in the SEP arena. What we can expect is that the implementers make a bona fide commitment to seek a license.

Motorola vs. Microsoft, Germany:

Motorola sought injunctive relief against Microsoft in Germany. Microsoft moved its distribution centre from Germany to the Netherlands. This resulted in loss of jobs, relocation costs ($11.6 million), and annual increased operating costs of $5 million for Microsoft.

Samsung vs. Apple, Germany

Similarly, on the basis of one patent, a temporary injunction was granted on the sale of the Apple iPad and iPhone. Apple was forced to agree to terms it didn't want to agree to, so that the sale of its products would resume.

This is a very important issue for India as it thinks about how it can attract foreign investments. India has a unique opportunity to learn from these lessons from around the globe and craft India-specific solutions. India has the intellectual capability and the institutions capable of crafting these solutions, and in doing that we can support Make In India.

SEP holders that make FRAND commitments should not be allowed to obtain injunctions against alleged infringers, except in limited circumstances. This formula has been adopted by the IEEE, which has solved this problem. India has the opportunity to leapfrog a lot of patent litigation by adopting the IEEE test.

Learn from what happened with Microsoft in Germany. What kind of message do you want to send to the foreign community about investing in India? Do you want to use the scare tactics of injunctions or do you want to adopt a policy that will avoid litigation?

India needs to be mindful about what is happening in the [South Asian] region. China has moved aggressively to try to curb FRAND abuse. The People's Court in China ruled in Huawei vs. InterDigital that for 2G, 3G, and 4G patents, the license fees of royalties should not exceed 0.019% of the actual sale price.

Reasonable Compensation Considerations

Royalty based on the smallest unit that practices the standard.
Technical value of patented technologies vs. alternatives.
Overall royalty that could reasonably charged for all SEPs.

Non-discrimination

A commitment to license every implementer of the relevant standard.

Transfer

FRAND commitments follow the transfer of a patent to subsequent proprietors.

Dr. Krishna Sirohi, Impact Innovator, GISFI, President, I2TB

As per the Make in India programme, we have to achieve zero imports by 2020. Product development in India by Indian companies will happen with collaborative research and development and IPR sharing through licenses. We are looking at national capacity building through product development and patent uses.

Global Information and Communication Technology Forum for India (GISFI) is a standards setting body involved with standardisation and research. It is a telecommunications standards development body (TSDO) set up with the approval of the DoT. It has peer relationships with ITU, OMA, TTC and a bunch of other SDOs. Internet of Things (IoT), mobility and security are its three major research programmes.

GISFI is working towards defining 5G in India. The 5G standardisation theme in India is called WISDOM (Wireless Innovative System for Dynamic Operating Mega Communications). GISFI is considering the perspective of the Indian user, the network capability, the network architecture, network development and the Indian revenue model, strategic and special purpose networks, inclusive growth, and network security.

However, some India-specific aspects such as illiteracy and lack of basic civic infrastructure need to be considered in the standardisation process.

GISFI plans and stages for 5G definition and adoption

Stage 1 (2014-2018): National agenda for strategic research, innovation and experimentation

Focus on Digital India and Make in India programmes.

Stage 2 (2016-2019): Standardisation

Stage 3 (2017-2021): Product Development

Stage 4 (2019-2023): Early Development

Technical understanding required for IPR issues

Enhancement applicable to general scenarios
- Traffic capacity
- Cell coverage
- Edge cell performance
- Intercell interference
- Network congestion
- Mobility
- Energy consumption
Enhancements targeting new use cases
- machine-type communication
- national security
- public safety services
Carrier aggregation
- Higher throughput owing to intra and inter-band transmission bandwidth of more than 20 MHz.
- Reduced network congestion owing to load-balancing across multiple carriers.
- Improvement in mobility and reduction in inter-cell interference.
Enhanced MIMO
- Improved spatial diversity and multiplexing
- Improved beam-forming
- Multiple access with multi-antenna transmission
Coordinated Multi-Point Operation (CoMP)
- Reduction in intercell interference owing to coordinated scheduling or beamforming (CS/CB)
- Transmission from multiple distribution points (base stations, RRH) in a coordinated way (Dynamic point selection, and Joint transmission)

What do SSOs handle IPR in different parts of the world and what are the issues they face?

GISFI has adopted ITU's IPR policy.

In SSOs, the FRAND principle works well only when participating entities have equal or almost equal IPR clout, and can reciprocate with their own patents every time other entities share their patents. It is difficult to create a balance between entities that only own IPR and those that only consume IPR.

Most of the members of SSOs are IPR owners. The entities that develop [technological] solutions without owning the IPRs are usually not a part of SSOs. However, additional strategies need to be implemented for realising the "Make in India" goal. The goal of zero imports by 2020 can only be achieved if a large number of small companies use these standards to develop products locally. So small manufacturers should be represented even at the highest levels of the standards development body. An IPR policy should be defined/ modified to factor in these needs.

Evaluation of LTE essential patents declared by ETSI

Cyber Creative Institute, June 2013: http://www.cybersoken.com/research/pdf/lte03EN.pdf

A large number of LTE patents are held by a handful of companies. There is no Indian owner of any LTE SEP.

Ericsson sued Apple in the US over infringement of its LTE patents. As of January 2015, Apple countersued Ericsson in a federal court in California and claimed that it did not owe any royalties to the latter.

Apple also stated that Ericsson was calculating royalties on the sale price of the iPhone or iPad, whereas the royalty should be calculated on the value of the baseband chip that runs this technology in the mobile device. If such litigation occurs in India, what would be India's position? If a building block contains the technology pertaining to a patent, then royalty should be calculated on the smallest possible patent practising unit and not the entire product.

Dr. Kumar N. Shivarajan, CTO, Tejas Networks

TSDSI's (Telecommunications Standards Development Society of India) IPR policy states that a member's technology will become a part of a standard as long as the member licenses it on FRAND terms to other members.

By 2017, 70% of the global equipment spend will be on LTE.
TD-LTE subscriber base in India has been projected to reach 67 million by 2017.
Most of the data connections in India are still on 2.5G.
Smartphones have become affordable but 3G continues to languish in India; 4G yet to take off.
The number of 3G connections in India grew from 30 million to 33 million from 2013 to 2014.

Is 5G the answer to India's access problems?

The mobile industry is aiming to go beyond traditional 4G LTE in 2015 and there is increasing focus on adding new bells and whistles to 4G and realise 4G+.

LTE Licensed-assisted access (formerly LTE-Unlicensed)
LTE Direct/ Peer-to-peer
LTE-M for machine to machine communication
CoMP

Countries forming 5G groups to take an early lead:

China: IMT-2020 (5G) Promotion Group
Korea: 5G Forum
EU: 5G Public Private Partnership (5G-PPP)

5G in its current form is souped-up 4G.

Key India-specific requirements for 5G standard development

5G must factor in the Indian requirement for DSL-like connectivity: Always ON, low latency, affordable cost
To minimise costs, 5G must minimise the use of BTS sites and focus on spectral efficiency.
5G should allow virtual network operations enabling multiple operators to use the same physical network infrastructure.
5G must work well in Indian propagation environments: concrete buildings blocking signals, dense barriers.
5G infrastructure should be green as electricity shortfall is a problem. India has 400,000 cell towers. 10% of them are not connected to the electricity grid. More than 70% experience power outages longer than 8 hours per day, and work on diesel-powered generators. As a result, 25% of the operational costs of telcos are their energy bills. India imports 3 billion litres of diesel annually to run these cell sites.

India can try to get a headstart in owning the IPR that would eventually go into the 5G standard.

Prof. Ramakrishna, MHRD Chair, NLSIU, Bengaluru

The attitude of an SSO towards patented technology determines the objective of its IPR policy. For example, an SSO may want to:

Promote widespread implementation of a standard without unnecessary IPR implications.
Ensure transparency and certainty about the declaration of patents and patents' claims as SEPs.
Ensure that every patented technology is available at a reasonable fee, comparable to the value of the technology.

What happens when IP ownership is transferred to another owner? It continues to be a part of the SSO but things get complicated.

New owners, third parties, subsidiaries, and affiliates fall under the purview of the IPR policy, by extension.

IP and Disclosure policies of Indian SDOs

BIS (Bureau of Indian Standards) and TEC (Telecommunication Engineering Centre) do not have IP policies of their own. TEC refers to the ISO/IEC IP policies wherever the technology is equivalent or the same.
GISFI disclosure requirement: Each member is required to inform GISFI in a timely manner of essential IPRs. But members are not under any obligation to conduct IP searches. GISFI's IPR policy is based on that of ETSI.
DOSTI (Development Organization of Standards for Telecommunications in India) is not functional.

IPR policy for open standards in e-governance

The government of India has adopted a royalty free (RF) approach to licensing open standards.

Mandatory Characteristics of Open Standards:

The patent claims necessary to implement the standard should be made available royalty free for the lifetime of the standard.
The standard shall be adapted and maintained by a not-for-profit organisation.
The standard shall have a technology-neutral specification.

The RF approach and the maintenance by a non-profit may be a disincentive for IP owners.

IEEE patent policy:

IEEE invites participants to disclose patent claims essential to a standard under development. Upon disclosure, the patent holder needs to submit a letter of assurance that states:

License(s) will be made available without compensation or at a RAND rate.
A commitment to enforce the essential patent claims against any entity complying with the standard.
Or state its unwillingness or inability to license its essential patent claims.

Common patent policy for ITU-T/ ITU-R/ ISO/ IEC

Recommendations/ deliverables are non-binding -- ensure compatibility of technologies and systems on a worldwide basis.

The "code of practice":

It is desirable that the fullest available information should be disclosed although ITU, ISO or IEC are unable to verify the validity of any such information.

Major types of IPR policies:

Participation-based IPR policies

These are common in small, informal bodies such as consortia.
Members are bound by the terms of membership to commit to licensing SEPs on RAND or RF terms.
SEP holders notify the standards body in case RAND or RF licenses are not available after the draft standard has been published.

Commitment-based IPR policies
- These are commonly followed large, standards setting bodies.
- These bodies identify SEPs to a draft standard through disclosure and submission of licensing commitment.
- Parties may seek alternative solutions or work on a withdrawn standard is the the alternative solutions don't work out.

Basic building blocks of commitment-based IPR policies

Disclosure policies:

Disclosure is important for
- sending requests to SEP holders to make licensing commitments
- ensuring that experts' groups make informed decisions on inclusion of patented technologies
- providing information to prospective standards implementers about the SEP owners

Two forms of disclosure:

A call for patents is made at the start of meetings. This is more informational than binding.
Later, the member states its intentions regarding licensing the patent on RAND terms.

How disclosure obligations arise (and commitments are binding):

IEEE has by-laws that are binding on members.
ITU, IEC, and ISO: It is via a resolution or recommendation.

(Indicative list)

General disclosure procedure:

The nature of disclosure rules concerning self-owned patents depends on the status or the role of the entity.

A "submitter" is a participant in the working group making a conscious decision to submit its technology to the SSO for a license or free of royalty.
A participant in a working group may submit its technology to the SSO free of royalty, on RAND terms, on RAND terms with the right to charge a fee, or with a refusal to license it. (A working group participant who discloses technology is usually a technology expert. When someone who does not have adequate knowledge of patents discloses technology, it has complicated implications.)
A non-working group participant (third-party) may also submit its technology.

ANSI has left it to the accredited SSO to decide the terms of disclosure for participants of working groups. It has not laid out a policy in this regard. Other organisations have laid out obligations on the submitter to disclose SEPs.

Nature of disclosure terms for patents owned by third-parties:

ETSI: It is obligatory.

ITU/ ISO: Obligatory only for participants of the working groups.

IEEE: Entirely voluntary

Non-essential claims are excluded from disclosure. Pending patent applications are not.

Working groups prefer early disclosure so that they may adopt or discard the claim as early as possible in the standard setting process.

ITU: Disclosure from the outset

IEEE: During meetings of the working group

ETSI: "Timely manner"

AFSI: At a sufficiently mature level

There is no mandate for updating the disclosure in case a standard evolves.

Most SSOs make disclosed patents public. Failure to disclose patents may result in accusations of abuse of monopoly or anti-trust/ anti-competitive activities.

It is difficult to identify all potentially essential patents due to the complexity of specifications.

Some SSOs don't require IP disclosure at all. The obligations to license on FRAND terms would be sufficient.

Only 16% patents declared as SEPs are actually SEPs, according to a study.

It makes sense for rightsholders to go for blanket disclosures instead of disclosure of specific patents.

Vinod Dhall, ex-chairperson of the Competition Commission of India (CCI):

Our competition law is new, so there aren't any cases pertaining to patent litigation and involving the competition law, which we can treat as precedents. In one of the mobile phone patent litigation cases in India, the implementer has approached the CCI claiming that the licensor has been abusing its dominant position in the market by charging unreasonable royalties.

The Delhi High Court has passed interim orders restraining the CCI from deciding these cases. Our appeal to the courts is that these patent infringement lawsuits should not be viewed in isolation. They should not be viewed as merely contractual issues between the licensor and the licensee. They should be seen in the context of their economic effects and their adverse effect on competition. The CCI should be enabled to deal with such cases.

Questions-answers round:

What are the criteria for declaring a patent an SEP?

T. Ramakrishnan: SSOs have no role in declaring that a patent is an SEP. The SEP holder declares that their patent is essential to a technical standard. Most of the time, the SEP may turn out to be a non-SEP at a later stage. Statistically, 16 out 100 claimed SEPs are actually SEPs. There is no way for SSOs to tell if a patent is an SEP. IP policies of most SSOs state that they don't search [if a patent is an SEP]. The members of SSOs are under no obligation to search.

The commitment to license an SEP on FRAND terms is more important to an SSO [than determining if the patent is indeed an SEP].

Can compulsory licensing be implemented with government intervention in India so that the Central Government can fix a royalty and put an end to patent litigation?

Matheson: The phrase "compulsory license" sends a shiver down every corporate's spine every time it is used. International experience is that the judicial system has been the only forum where we have been able to have due process to enable us to construct cases properly in order to explain to the judge or to the jurors how the system works. That has produced very sensible solutions to this problem. Handing it off to the government to institute a compulsory license wouldn't be fair to the SEP holders.

With respect to the "safe harbour" approach towards SEP-based injunctions, what does the licensee need to do to prove to the courts that it is a willing licensee, in the event that licensing negotiations fail or take a long time?

Matheson: It gets down to the licensee showing its willingness to negotiate. The licensee cannot make a half-hearted attempt and decline to negotiate or decline the licensor's offer and then disappear. They should physically engage in the negotiation. If and when it gets to a judicial environment, the judges know when people are telling stories and when parties are bona fide. They can tell a ruse when they see one, and I think it is one of the things you observe in practice.

Ramakrishnan: The licensee should be able to demonstrate that it is willing to pay the royalty and should deposit an amount towards royalty. One recommendation from AIPP states that instead of using the terms "willing licensee" and "willing licensor", use "good faith response". For "good faith" we have very well established criteria. The entire licensing process should end within 12 months of starting. If the negotiations fail or if the process takes longer, then they should agree upon an arbitrator to fix FRAND terms. These are indicators that demonstrate the licensee being a "willing licensee" or a "good faith" licensee.

Often technology changes before the legal action can be taken or the lawsuit completed, and the patent over which litigation has happened may no longer be relevant to the technology. How do patent holders deal with this situation?

S.K. Murthy, Research Scholar, NLSIU: Even if the technology becomes obsolete, damages can be claimed retrospectively.

Matheson: You have a commitment to a FRAND solution, so that when you enter the protracted negotiation, you know that at the end of it you will get a fair solution. That's not always the case when you are dealing outside the FRAND world. You're dealing with a FRAND incumbent, not with unlicensed patents.

Why is putting a time limit to negotiations not a good idea? Also, IEEE seems to have done well by taking the threat of negotiations out of its way. Is it practical in India, because injunction is still the most potent weapon to protect intellectual property rights in India currently?

Matheson: Licensing is incredibly complex. There can be claims to the validity of the patent, there are claim charts to be drawn, there is expert evidence to be put together. Litigation over patents can take 2 to 3 years. To say that there must be a solution [arrived at] within a smaller framework gives the licensor the opportunity to wait around till the end of that period and assert its patents through an injunction. If you're leaving injunction at the table, you will not have a fair solution. The licensee will always be at a major disadvantage. The IEEE solution is a good one because it has taken the time limit away, but at the same time the policies that would adopt that solution need to include the discipline to ensure that the negotiations are bona fide.

What percentage of the sale price should be provisioned by a product developer for royalties? Can a mechanism be drawn up for this purpose?

Justice Ratnakala: Definitely. Such a mechanism should be drawn up in the near future.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/conference-on-standards-settings-organizations-sso-and-frand-nlsiu

The Data Revolution and education post-2015: Considering the promise and the risks

praskrishna — 2015-05-07T06:41:56Z

In August 2014, the secretary-general of the United Nations established the Independent Expert Advisory Group on a Data Revolution for Sustainable Development.

The blog post by Joshua Muskin was published in Brookings on March 31, 2015. Sumandro Chattapadhyay gave his inputs.

This group was charged with evaluating the global state of data and deriving recommendations that permit data to live up to their potential as “the lifeblood of decision-making and the raw material for accountability.” The resulting report, A World that Counts, posits that “Governments, companies, researchers and citizen groups are in a ferment of experimentation, innovation and adaptation to the new world of data, a world in which data are bigger, faster and more detailed than ever before.” This, they assert, “is the Data Revolution.”

Central to the group’s arguments is the assertion that data are and must be treated as a “public good.” Implicit is the notion that all data are good and that more data are “gooder.” Certainly there is much to laud and anticipate in the report’s definition of the Data Revolution and its recommendations. Perhaps most deserving of interest are the call for data that:

come “from other sources, such as qualitative data, citizen-generated data and perceptions data;”
are generated “from all parts of society;”
are “more detailed, timely and relevant;”
increase “usefulness...through a much greater degree of openness and transparency,” while “avoiding invasion of privacy and abuse of human rights;” and
lead to “more empowered people, better policies, better decisions and greater participation and accountability.”

come “from other sources, such as qualitative data, citizen-generated data and perceptions data;”are generated “from all parts of society;”are “more detailed, timely and relevant;”increase “usefulness...through a much greater degree of openness and transparency,” while “avoiding invasion of privacy and abuse of human rights;” andlead to “more empowered people, better policies, better decisions and greater participation and accountability.”

The blog entry by Joshua Muskin was published in Brookings on March 31, 2015. Sumandro Chattapadhyay was quoted.

What could go wrong?

Currently neck-deep in research on the use of student learning assessment data in education, I suggest that this implicit assumption and the promise of unwaveringly positive outcomes are not guaranteed. As we experience the emerging revolution, there is every reason to embrace this promise and to take up arms to ensure its fulfillment. But, as history shows, many a revolution has derailed, claiming the benefits of the rhetoric for a few while leaving many victims. While working towards the noble and indeed crucial aims laid out in the report, vigilance will be vital—as will very strategic action to ensure that the revolution does not veer away from its vision.

It is hardly the aim of this seemingly premature appeal to vigilance to unseat completely the objectives and recommendations of the Expert Advisory Group. (Indeed, the Data Revolution has barely launched, though its roots are already solidly planted, as evident in education in the surge of countries involved in international and national testing. See, for example, Benavot and Tanner, 2007.) Rather, in the spirit of Charles Tilly’s 1963 “Analysis of Counter-Revolution,” my goal is to remind all those ready to enlist in the revolution that this initiative does not necessarily “unite the people.” Regardless the document’s comprehensive and progressive appearance, there are many who take different positions, with some fearing what a reign of big data, irrespective of its origins and nature, will yield once it moves to implementation in its myriad forms and locations. While the document features the poor as a main beneficiary of the revolution, Neva Frecheville (2014), among others, notes the absence of low-income country representatives on the panel. Arguably more significantly, the emergence of citizen-led assessments in education may be perceived as a sort of reaction against the hegemony of centrally managed data regimes, taking control of the data by the local poor to ensure that its use fully serves this population. While the report embraces such initiatives, it would seem important to secure their independence, alert to the risk of a usurpation and hijacking of the mission, the program and the resulting information.

Sumandro Chattapadhyay, research director at the Centre for Internet and Society in New Delhi, has pointed in “An Open Data Agenda for post-2015 Sustainable Development Goals” to a few likely opportunities for the revolution to go awry once operating. For one, the modern technology thrust obvious in the report does not translate automatically into heightened generation, retrieval, or understanding of information for the world’s poor majority. Quite simply, this group does not have automatic access to either the modern modes of communication or the institutions by which the agents of the revolution will transmit the results. Two, come the revolution, there is on the one hand no obvious guarantee that data will supplant politics in policy and decision-making. Yet on the other, big data may provide an even bigger and potentially obfuscating weapon in the hands of politicians’ and other leaders, whether public or not. As one learns in Statistics 101, the same numbers can justify very different conclusions; and those who control the data usually control the story: information is power. Three, the push for standards and comparability in data risk negating or at least undervaluing the validity of non-standard idiosyncratic data and other information that may emerge at the local level and still have great worth; and sometimes be more meaningful, even if not “scientific.” Finally, Chattapadhyay asks “Who is empowered by using (opened up) data?,” warning that the “falling costs of collection and archiv[ing] of data... create strong attractions towards gathering as much data as possible without specific objectives for their collection.” Furthermore, the “...availability of data at a global scale has massive commercial value, [the] unlocking of which may [also] not necessarily lead to positive impacts.” The threats of such an outcome to privacy should be obvious and are widely documented (see, for example, this post from the MIT Big Data Initiative). The fact that in education we are dealing with children raises the danger of this prospect even higher (see, for example, the U.S. Student Data Privacy Act).

What does this mean for the education sector?

In a world where data are “bigger, faster and more detailed than ever,” what are the opportunities and vulnerabilities for the local actors to whom Chattapadhyay refers; in education, these comprise teachers, other “front-line” educators, and parents. This line of inquiry was also central to the analysis undertaken by the Learning Metrics Task Force Learning Champions at their February meeting in Kigali—the topic of a recent blog of mine.

There are many claims of data as a positive asset in education, and these are often matched by actual experience in many settings. Prominent are the impact of information on policy; on the allocation of resources (financial, material and human); on the validation, revision or termination of a particular strategy or initiative; and ultimately on strengthening quality and equity. At the school and classroom level, formative assessment (with feedback) is regarded by many—e.g., see Hattie (2011); Barber & Rivzi (2013), p.65; and Black & William, in Lucas, Claxton & Spencer (2009), p. 3—as the most robust factor in learning. It is a problem, though, that there is little evidence that system-level assessments have real “meaning for...teachers” (Long, Dunne & Mokoena, pg. 158) and that formative assessment is usually either poorly done or not at all (see Shiohata, 2015).

Three fears concerning the Data Revolution come quickly to mind, adding to those mentioned above like the privacy issue. One is that data on what is easily measurable in learning will overwhelm other aspects of information on education that are equally (or even more) essential, but are not easily measured, particularly in the classroom. Conversely, there is a strong risk of eschewing measures that can be both more accurate and more nuanced in the classroom, and therefore more useful in guiding learning. An example might be the assessment of personal competencies, such as creativity, curiosity, confidence, and collaboration. While possible to do, the methodological challenges of devising valid, standardized, and comparable assessment instruments for these are prodigious, particularly across cultures, and any measures would likely be difficult to interpret into pedagogic strategies. In contrast, a school-level inquiry by teachers into the characteristics, observation, and cultivation of these same traits can be very precise, strategic, and effective, especially when facilitated as captured in the OECD background paper by Lucas, Claxton and Spencer.

The third fear is that data will influence policy, planning, and practice to a degree that exceeds the reliability of the numbers and the “external validity” (see Rodrik) of their analysis—sometimes considerably. Such would be the case, as Rodrik explains, when applying the subject of a favorable randomized controlled trial from one setting to another. Related to this, an outsized faith in statistics or a reliance on overly sophisticated analyses—lured to the shoals by the siren song of what is possible—may simply undermine basic common sense; for example, can we not sometimes rely on a teacher to identify which students are struggling and need further help without imposing frequent, narrowly defined tests? (I am reminded of a pun shared by my Swiss friend, Pierre Jaccard, who reformulates the French phrase “panne d’essence”—a breakdown due to running out of gas—to indicate the all-too-frequent occurrence in policy circles of a “panne de sens,” or running out of common sense.)

Where I perceive “red flags” to arise and start flapping most frenetically around data regards its use. In particular, both the U.N. document and much of the discussion around student learning assessment highlight the value of data for central decision-making and policymaking: As stated in A World That Counts, “Without high-quality data providing the right information on the right things at the right time, designing, monitoring and evaluating effective policies becomes almost impossible.” The report hardly ignores local level actors and institutions—in education, the classroom, the school and parents—but this level is definitely under-represented and vaguer in terms of approach. But here is where the greatest clarity and strategic precision is required.

What the Data Revolution risks overlooking most are those education actors who are furthest from policy (even excellent policy), but upon whom positive outcomes ultimately depend. These are teachers, other educators, parents, and students. Even though the Advisory Group claims to speak on their behalf and to embrace them as part of the movement, are they really co-revolutionaries? While the citizen-led assessments clearly are eager to engage with the authorities, does their legitimacy and influence derive from their being fully within the system or, as I suggest above, does it exist because of their status as an honorable and powerful counter-balance? As politicians and policy leaders demand ever more and ever more sophisticated data, and as technology makes the collection, analysis, and dissemination of these data more elaborate and extensive, how great is the risk of overwhelming the capacity of classroom teachers, other local educators, parents, and other local institutions to absorb, let alone make sense of, the information and to use it appropriately and effectively? Are we running in the opposite direction of a solution to the oft-repeated issue of low-capacity with data, especially in the developing world? What does the Data Revolution furnish truly and directly to these critical actors in terms of information, resources, capacity, and authority to make decisions that improve teaching and learning for better education and to foster broader sustainable development outcomes?

The Data Revolution surely has much of vital importance to offer in gathering, organizing, and analyzing the vast array of information that relate to education and learning. As indicated above, the aim here is not to assail the expanded definition of data and their use per se. It is, however, an exhortation to gather, analyze, disseminate and use data on learning to inform decisions and actions that link directly to real education circumstances, challenges, and goals. The language of the Expert Group report claims this as its objective. The admonition addresses the need to be sure that this crucial dimension not get lost or overwhelmed in practice. So, as we hail the intent and elements of the Data Revolution and endeavor actively to attain its full promise, it will be vital to remain keenly vigilant and, if necessary, not to hesitate in summoning a counter-revolution in order to defend fully the ultimate goals: appropriate data in the service of all, including most critically the most marginalized of the world.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/news/data-revolution-and-education-post-2015

February 2015 Bulletin

praskrishna — 2015-03-30T16:09:05Z

It is my distinct pleasure to share with you the second issue of the CIS newsletter (February 2015).

Earlier this year, I joined the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) as the Research Director. I have been fortunate to periodically work with CIS in various capacities since mid-2012, mostly focusing on the topics of open data, open access, and visual exploration of data. Most importantly perhaps for my present responsibilities, for the last year or so, I have been in communication with various projects teams at CIS and supported their efforts through workshops on research methodologies, and by discussing and co-designing their research questions and approaches.

As the Research Director, I look forward to take these works forward, along with leading the Researchers at Work (RAW) programme, which has been shaped by Prof. Nishant Shah to host an exciting range of critical research initiatives into how the Internet and digital technologies reconfigure social processes and structures, and vice versa. Please keep an eye on the newsletter for further updates from the RAW programme.

Our sincere apologies for the delay in sending out this month's newsletter. We will soon be back in our usual rhythm. The past editions of the newsletter can be accessed at http://cis-india.org/about/newsletters

Sumandro Chattapadhyay
Email: sumandro@cis-india.org

Highlights

Forbes India in an article titled " Minds that (should) matter" names Sunil Abraham as one of the Thinkers who best explain a rapidly-changing India to the world (and the world to India). Errata: This story was shared in the last newsletter but with an error, which is now rectified.

NVDA team organized three workshops during the month for training participants on using eSpeak with NVDA software. The languages covered werePunjabi,Oriya and Hindi.
The Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP), Government of India invited comments on the First Draft of India's National IPR Policy. CIS sent its comments . CIS commended the DIPP for this initiative and appreciated the opportunity to provide comments on the National IPR Policy.

CIS sent out three different Right to Information (RTI) requests to find out more details about the constitution and working of the IPR Think Tank to draft the first national IPR Policy.
Anubha Sinha analyses the submission to the DIPP by Academia and Civil Society on the draft National IPR Policy from a public interest perspective.
In an Open Letter to the Prime Minister of India, CIS requests the Government of India to initiate the formation of a patent pool of critical mobile technologies and a five per cent compulsory license.
CIS's Access to Knowledge team (CIS-A2K) in collaboration with the Centre for Indian Languages (CILHE) at TISS, Mumbai conducted a two-day workshop at English and Foreign Languages University (EFLU) at Hyderabad on January 28 - 29, 2015. Tejaswini Niranjana captures the developments in a blog post.

Subhashish Panigrahi wrote an op-ed on the endangered languages in India. This was published by Odia daily Samaja on February 21 which is celebrated as the International Mother Language Day.
CIS-A2K team conducted the " Train the Trainer Program" (TTT 2015) at CEO Centre, Dodda Gubbi, Bangalore. About 25 delegates attended the programme.
CIS has joined an international campaign to allow anyone in the world to request whether Britain's intelligence agency GCHQ has illegally spied on them.
On January 30, 2015, Associated Chambers of Commerce & Industry of India (ASSOCHAM) held a consultation on Internet governance. A committee was set up to draft a report on Internet governance, with a focus on issues relevant to India. CIS is represented on the committee, and has provided its preliminary comments to ASSOCHAM .

As part of CIS's inquiry into 'Network Neutrality' in the developing world a set of definitions of the term from different sources was collected and published as a blog post.
Namita A. Malhotra in a blog entry examines the figure of the pornographer, as a mixed media figure entrenched in various networks of knowledge production, circulation and consumption.

Accessibility and Inclusion

Under a grant from the Hans Foundation we are doing two projects. The first project is on creating a national resource kit of state-wise laws, policies and programmes on issues relating to persons with disabilities in India. CIS in partnership with CLPR (Centre for Law and Policy Research) compiled the National Compendium of Policies, Programmes and Schemes for Persons with Disabilities (29 states and 6 union territories). The publication has been finalised and is being printed. The draft chapters and the quarterly reports can be accessed on the project page. The second project is on developing text-to-speech software for 15 Indian languages. The progress made so far in the project can be accessed here.

►NVDA and eSpeak

Monthly Update

February 2015 Report (Suman Dogra; February 28, 2015).

Events Organized

Joint Report on Training of the Use of eSpeak in Hindi with NVDA (Organized by NVDA team; National Association for the Blind, New Delhi, February 5 - 6, 2015 and Blind Relief Association, Delhi, February 13 - 14, 2015).
Report on Training in the use of eSpeak Oriya with NVDA (Organized by NVDA team; Orissa Association for the Blind, Bhubaneswar; February 8 - 10, 2015). Thirty six delegates attended the workshop.
Training of the use of eSpeak Punjabi with NVDA (Organized by NVDA team; Asha Kiran Training Institute, Chandigarh; February 20-21, 2015). The workshop was inaugurated by Shri Tilak Raj, Director, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Government of Punjab.

Access to Knowledge

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

►Pervasive Technologies

As part of the Pervasive Technologies project, Rohini Lakshané wrote an Open Letter to India's Prime Minister, Shri Narendra Modi for creation of a patent pool of critical mobile technologies. And as part of broader Access to Knowledge work CIS submitted comments to DIPP on the National IP Policy.

Blog Entries

National IPR Policy Series: CIS Comments to the First Draft of the National IP Policy (Nehaa Chaudhari, Pranesh Prakash and Anubha Sinha; February 4, 2015). Varnika Chawla assisted the team.
RTI Requests - DIPP: Details on constitution and working of IPR Think Tank (Nehaa Chaudhari; February 9, 2015).
Open Letter to Prime Minister Modi (Rohini Lakshané; February 10, 2015). Copies of the open letter were sent to various ministers.
Academia and Civil Society submit critical comments to DIPP on draft National IPR Policy (Anubha Sinha; February 16, 2015).

Participation in Event

India at Leisure: Media, Culture and Consumption in the New Economy (Organized by Jamia University; January 8 - 10, 2015). Maggie Huang attended the event and presented a paper titled "The Future of Music Streaming: Business Practices and Copyright Management in India". The paper was co-authored by Maggie and Amba Kak.

►Wikipedia

As part of the project grant from the Wikimedia Foundation we have reached out to more than 3500 people across India by organizing more than 100 outreach events and catalysed the release of encyclopaedic and other content under the Creative Commons (CC-BY-3.0) license in four Indian languages (21 books in Telugu, 13 in Odia, 4 volumes of encyclopaedia in Konkani and 6 volumes in Kannada, and 1 book on Odia language history in English).

Op-ed

Our Endangered Languages (Subhashish Panigrahi; February 21, 2015).

Blog Entries

A Wikipedia Presentation at BITS, Goa (Radhakrishna Arvapally; February 9, 2015). Arvapally was a guest blogger.
Developing Open Knowledge Digital Resources in Indian Languages (Tejaswini Niranjana; February 20, 2015).
Telugu Wikipedia Winter Camp at Andhra Loyola College (Rahmanuddin Shaik; February 26, 2015).

Event Organized

Train the Trainer (Organized by CIS-A2K; CEO Centre, Dodda Gubbi, Bangalore; February 26 - March 1, 2015). Rohini Lakshané took a session on GLAM.

News and Media Coverage

CIS-A2K team gave its inputs to the following media coverage:

More online free content in Telugu Wikipedia soon (A.D.Rangarajan; Hindu, February 16, 2015).
Cultural knowledge needs to be more open (Jen Wike Huger; OpenSource.com; February 18, 2015).
Online Free Content in Telugu Wikipedia (Andhra Jyothy; February 19, 2015).

Announcements

2015 Opensource.com Community Awards : Every year, Opensource.com awards people from our community who have excelled in contributing and sharing stories about open source. Subhashish Panigrahi from the CIS-A2K team won the award under the category 'People's Choice Awards'.
CIS-A2K team also published the Telugu Wikipedia Stats tables. Most metrics have been collected from a partial dump (aka stub dump), which contains all revisions of every article, meta data, but no page content.

Participation in Events

Hindi Wiki Community Baithak (Organized by Wikipedia Community; February 14 - 15, 2015). Subhashish Panigrahi attended the event.
An International Conclave of Odia Language (Organized by the Intellects; February 20 - 21, 2015; Constitutional Club, Rafi Marg, New Delhi). Subhashish Panigrahi participated in the event.

►Openness

Participation in Events

Regional Open Data Agenda-Setting Workshop 2015 (Organized by Open Data Lab, Jakarta Web Foundation; Jakarta; February 4 - 6, 2015). Sunil Abraham was a speaker.
Washington Meet on Open Data (Organized by World Bank; Washington; February 20 - 21, 2015). Sunil Abraham was a speaker and made a presentation on Open Data.

Internet Governance

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

►Privacy

Blog Entries

The Surveillance Industry in India - An Analysis of Indian Security Expos (Divij Joshi; February 19, 2015).
Right to Information (RTI) Requests to BSNL and MTNL Regarding Security Equipment (Maria Xynou; February 25, 2015). CIS had sent RTI requests to MTNL and BSNL in July 2013. MTNL responded recently whereas BSNL has yet to reply.

Announcements

CIS joins Worldwide Campaign to Discover Depth of GCHQ's Illegal Spying (Elonnai Hickok; February 28, 2015). Individuals who wish to take part in this process can sign up at https://www.privacyinternational.org/illegalspying.
Prof. Peng Hwa Ang from Nanyang Technology University visited CIS recently. He had a series of interactions with several researchers at CIS and has prepared a brief visit report. Impressed with the research work of CIS he had discussions with CIS on possible collaborations including publication in more academic journals, collaboration with academic institutions in research projects in Privacy / Data Protection and other areas of Internet Governance. He also discussed on the possible areas where he could contribute to CIS including conduction of training session on writing for academic journals.

►Freedom of Expression

Blog Entries

Requests to ICANN: CIS sent ICANN six requests to ICANN regarding ICANN's expenditure on travels and meetings, granular revenue, cyber-attacks on ICANN, ICANN's implementation of the NETmundial principles, complaints under the Ombudsman process, and information regarding revenues received from gTLD auctions. These were prepared by Geetha Hariharan: DIDP Request #1: ICANN's Expenditures on "Travel & Meetings" ; DIDP Request #2: Granular Revenue/Income Statements from ICANN; DIDP Request #3: Cyber-attacks on ICANN; DIDP Request #4: ICANN and the NETmundial Principles ; DIDP Request #5: The Ombudsman and ICANN's Misleading Response to Our Request ; and DIDP Request #6: Revenues from gTLD auction.

Collection of Net Neutrality Definitions (Tarun Krishnakumar; February 8, 2015). The definitions were compiled by Manoj Kurbet, Maitreya Subramaniam and Tarun Krishnakumar under the guidance of Sunil Abraham.
ICANN accountability, IANA transition and open questions (Geetha Hariharan; February 6, 2015).
Where Does ICANN's Money Come From? We Asked; They Don't Know (Geetha Hariharan; February 9, 2015).
Preliminary Submission on "Internet Governance Issues" to the Associated Chambers of Commerce & Industry of India (Geetha Hariharan; February 12, 2015).

►Miscellaneous

A Selection of Tweets on How to Make Crowdmaps Effectual for Mapping Violence against Women (Rohini Lakshané; February 19, 2015).
Reply to RTI Applications filed with respect to Foreign Contractors and Vendors of IT and Telecommunication Enterprises (Lovisha Aggarwal; February 25, 2015).

Event Co-organized

Digital Security Workshop for Journalists (Organized by CIS and Mumbai Press Club; Mumbai Press Club, Azad Maidan, Mumbai; February 7, 2015). Rohini Lakshané conducted the workshop as part of the Cyber Stewards project.

Upcoming Event

Cybersecurity and the Internet of Things (Organized by US Consulate Chennai, Cyber Security & Privacy Foundation and CIS; Hotel Atria, Palace Road, Bangalore; March 19, 2015).

Participation in Events

Winter School on Privacy, Surveillance and Data Protection (Organized by the Centre for Communication Governance (CCG) in collaboration with the UNESCO Chair on Freedom of Communication and Information at the University of Hamburg and the Hans Bredow; Delhi; January 19 - 23, 2015). Bhairav Acharya was a facilitator. Errata: This was wrongly mentioned in the last newsletter. We have corrected this.
NetGain: Working Together for a Stronger Digital Society (Organized by Ford Foundation; February 11 - 12, 2015).

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

Facebook offers free but limited access to the Internet in India (PC World; February 10, 2015).
Govt may turn to supercomputing for better use of Aadhaar database (Moulishree Srivastava; Livemint; February 10, 2015).
Analytics to help govt read public mood online (Surabhi Talwar; Business Standard; February 10, 2015).
Facebook launches Internet.org in India (Lalatendu Mishra and Sriram Srinivasan; Hindu; February 11, 2015).
Google's war on nude photos goes against user rights (Sahil Mohan Gupta; India Today; February 25, 2015).
Hacking of SIM card by spy agencies raises fears of sensitive documents being leaked (PK Jayadevan and Neha Alawadhi; Economic Times; February 25, 2015).
Delhi government in consultation with Centre to block Uber's Internet address (Harsimran Julka; Economic Times; February 25, 2015).
SC reserves judgement in cases against Section 66A (Shreeja Sen; Livemint; February 26, 2015).

Researchers at Work

The Researchers at Work (RAW) programme is an interdisciplinary research initiative driven by contemporary concerns to understand the reconfigurations of social practices and structures through the Internet and digital media technologies, and vice versa. It is interested in producing local and contextual accounts of interactions, negotiations, and resolutions between the Internet, and socio-material and geo-political processes:

Event Organized

Innovative Infrastructures for Research and Pedagogy in Interdisciplinary Social Sciences and Humanities (Co-organized by Centre for Study of Culture and Society and CIS, Bangalore): The RAW programme organized a consultation to discuss and conceptualise an upcoming project. The project will be hosted by the RAW programme.

Blog Entry

Figures of Learning: The Pornographer (Namita A. Malhotra; February 28, 2015).

About CIS

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

► Follow us elsewhere

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

► Support Us

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

► Request for Collaboration:

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

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

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/about/newsletters/february-2015-bulletin

Bangla Wiki turns 10

praskrishna — 2015-04-04T16:10:12Z

The 10th anniversary of Bengali Wikipedia was marked with a a gathering of Wikipedians of vernacular languages from across the country and beyond at Jadavpur University. Bengali is one of 20 Indian languages to have a Wikipedia presence. The event also celebrated 14 years of the mother edition in English of the open-access, crowd-sourced online encyclopaedia.

Contributed by Sudeshna Banerjee, Showli Chakraborty and Abhinanda Datta the story published in the Telegraph on March 29, 2015 quotes T. Vishnu Vardhan.

"We hear of digital divide all the time. Here it is about digital inclusiveness. The University Grants Commission talks of four factors to make a good university - access, equity, quality and employability. What a teacher cannot give in class, he can offer on the world wide web. The question of quality in Wikipedia can be addressed through workshops like this," said Calcutta University registrar Basab Chaudhuri.

Wikimedia Foundation trustee Bishakha Datta spoke of the uneasy relationship between Wikipedia and academia, especially over authenticity.

"Yes, we do not use original research. So our articles are not admissible as primary sources. At the same time, every piece of information in a Wikipedia article has to be cited and annotated. It is great that an institution like JU has come forward to host us," said Datta, thanking the university's School of Languages and Linguistics.

Joint registrar Sanjay Gopal Sarkar argued in favour of the existence of Wikipedia articles in the vernacular. "It is a part of the empowerment of my mother tongue."

Quantity was a problem, he said. "It is not enough to have 33,000 articles (the English version has 4.7 million). Workshops need to be held in Bengal and Assam on how to write articles. If Wikipedia and the universities join hands, a battalion of writers and editors can be created."

The Bangladeshi delegates revealed how Wikipedia's mission of making knowledge free was getting a technological boost back home. "Grameenphone and Bangla Link, two of our biggest mobile service providers, have made Facebook and Wikipedia free. Subscribers just have to log on to specific domains (0.facebook.com and zero.wikipedia.org) to see picture-less texts," said Ankan Ghosh Dastidar, a Class XI student from Dhaka.

Vishnu Vardhan from the Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore, urged for more institutional tie-ups so that instead of stopping students from going to Wikipedia, teachers would integrate their contributions to Wikipedia in the course. "Andhra Loyola College is the largest contributor to Telegu Wikipedia," he said. Hindi, he added, has the maximum articles among Indian languages, followed by Tamil and Telugu. "But Malayalam has the most active Wikipedians - around 100."

A workshop was held to teach how to type in Bengali and edit the Bengali Wikipedia. Techno India student Ayan Chaudhury addressed queries on downloading the Avro font and typing tricky conjoined letters in Bengali, as also how to create cross references and highlight terms. "Ask yourself two questions when you want to add any information: Is it relevant? Can it be verified? Also do not blindly turn on Google Translate. The quality of its translation is such that a word like 'swipe' becomes ' dhum dhadakka'."

A group editing session took place on the second day with 15 volunteers translating articles from the English Wikipedia and adding new articles in Bengali. Some also worked on Wiktionary, an online dictionary, and others on Wikisource, typing out pages of seminal texts outside copyright.

Crafts for a cause

Artisans from Bengal and Bangladesh joined hands to participate in a handcrafted jewellery and handloom exhibition organised by WIIN (Women and Infants in Need) at Shree Art Gallery in Ballygunge on March 25 and 26.

"The proceeds will be donated to Paripurnata, a home for women with mental disabilities (off EM Bypass). We emphasise on mental health awareness programmes and try and create job opportunities for the residents at Paripurnata. This helps in building their confidence and creates a sense of social acceptance," said Nilanjana Mukherjee, the general secretary of WIIN and Paripurnata.

The exhibition was inaugurated by actress Sonali Gupta, who plays Satyabati to Dhritiman Chaterji's Byomkesh Bakshi in Sajarur Kanta. "This cause is close to my heart. We must come together to help women and infants in need," said Gupta.

The exhibition showcased a collection of saris and jewellery from the Rajshahi district in Bangladesh, quirky handbags, hand-painted mugs, kurtas and dupattas.

Trilingual road trip

An independent film - or indie - by two graduates of the Satyajit Ray Film and Television Institute (SRFTI) has hit theatres this Friday. Titled Yahan Sabki Lagi Hai (Everybody Gets Screwed Here), the 100-minute trilingual (English, Hindi and Bengali) black comedy is directed by Calcutta girl Tina A. Bose and Mumbai boy Cyrus R. Khambata.

Produced by Vibrant Works, the film revolves around Kesang and Bharat, who are on their way to a birthday party but their road trip soon turns into a disaster as they find themselves in the middle of a jungle, robbed of all their belongings.

Road trip gone wrong has been done before, but according to the young film-makers, "while most of them have been horror or slasher films, ours travels the philosophical path and focuses on the issues we face in life."

The lead actress is a Tibetan girl, Eden Shyodhi. "We wanted to cast a girl from a minority community. We needed someone who was weird and interesting as the character of Kesang is very unusual. And when we met Eden, she had flaming red hair, just like how we had envisioned Kesang!" said Tina, who has studied in Lady Brabourne College and Jadavpur University. The cast also includes stand-up comedian Varun Thakur and Bengali actor Heerok Das, previously seen in Egaro.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/news/the-telegraph-march-29-2015-bangla-wiki-turns-ten

What 66A Judgment Means For Free Speech Online

geetha — 2015-03-27T16:50:43Z

This week India's Supreme Court redefined the boundaries of freedom of speech on the internet. With the Court's decision in Shreya Singhal & Ors. v. Union of India, Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, has been struck down in entirety and is no longer good law.

Geetha Hariharan's article was originally published in the Huffington Post on March 26, 2015.

This week India's Supreme Court redefined the boundaries of freedom of speech on the internet. With the Court's decision in Shreya Singhal & Ors. v. Union of India, Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, has been struck down in entirety and is no longer good law. Through a structured, well-reasoned and heartening judgment, the court talks us through the nuances of free speech and valid restrictions. While previously, intermediaries were required to take down content upon suo moto determination of lawfulness, Section 79(3)(b) of the Act -- the intermediary liability provision -- has been read down to require actual knowledge of a court order or a government notification to take down content. Section 69A of the Act and its corresponding Rules, the provisions enabling the blocking of web content, have been left intact by the court, though infirmities persist.

The Supreme Court's decision comes at a critical moment for freedom of speech in India. In recent years, the freedom guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution has suffered unmitigated misery: Wendy Doniger's The Hindus: An Alternative History was banned for hurting religious sentiments, publisher Orient Blackswan fearing legal action stayed its release of an academic work on sexual violence in Ahmedabad, the author Perumal Murugan faced harsh criticism for his novel One Part Woman and chose to slay his authorial identity.

"The Supreme Court's decision comes at a critical moment for freedom of speech in India. In recent years, the freedom guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution has suffered unmitigated misery."

The tale of free speech on the Internet is similar. In response to takedown requests, intermediaries prefer to tread a safe path, taking down even legitimate content for fear of triggering penalties under Section 79 of the IT Act. The government has blocked websites in ways that transgress the bounds of 'reasonable restrictions' on speech. Section 66A alone has gathered astounding arrests and controversy. In 2012, Shaheen Dhada and her friend were arrested in Maharashtra for observing that Bal Thackeray's funeral shut down Mumbai, Devu Chodankar in Goa and Syed Waqar in Karnataka were arrested in 2014 for making posts about PM Narendra Modi, and a Puducherry man was arrested for criticizing P. Chidambaram's son. The misuse of Section 66A, and the inadequacy of other provisions of the IT Act, were well-documented.

Section 66A: No longer draconian

In a writ petition filed in 2012, the law student Shreya Singhal challenged the constitutionality of Section 66A on grounds, inter alia, of vagueness and its chilling effect. More petitions were filed challenging other provisions of the IT Act including Section 69A (website blocking) and Section 79 (intermediary liability), and these were heard jointly by justices Rohinton F. Nariman and G. Chelameshwar. Section 66A, implicating grave issues of freedom of speech on the internet, was at the centre of the challenge.

"It is difficult -impossible, in fact - to foresee or predict what speech is permitted or criminalised under Section 66A. As a result, there is a chilling effect on free speech online, resulting in self-censorship."

Section 66A makes it a criminal offence to send any online communication that is "grossly offensive" or "menacing", or false information sent for the purposes of causing "annoyance, inconvenience, insult, injury, obstruction, enmity, hatred, ill will", etc. These terms are not defined. Neither do they fall within one of the eight subjects for limitation under Article 19(2). It is difficult -impossible, in fact - to foresee or predict what speech is permitted or criminalised under Section 66A. As a result, there is a chilling effect on free speech online, resulting in self-censorship.

With yesterday's decision, the Supreme Court has struck down Section 66A on grounds of vagueness, excessive range and chilling effects on speech online. What is perhaps most uplifting is the court's affirmation of the value of free speech. In the midst of rising conservatism towards free speech, the Court reminds us that an "informed citizenry" and a "culture of open dialogue" are crucial to our democracy. Article 19(1)(a) shields us from "occasional tyrannies of governing majorities", and its restriction should be within Constitutional bounds enumerated in Article 19(2).

What speech is protected?

There are three types of speech, the court says: Discussion, advocacy and incitement. Discussion and advocacy are at the heart of Article 19(1)(a), and are unquestionably protected. But when speech amounts to incitement - that is, if it is expected to cause harm, danger or public disorder- it can be reasonably restricted for any of these reasons: public order, sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the State and friendly relations with foreign states.

" The Union of India argued that Section 66A is saved by the clauses "public order", "defamation", "incitement to an offence" and "decency, morality". But as the court finds that these are spurious grounds."

Section 66A, however, does not meet the legal standards for any of the limitation-clauses under Article 19(2), and so is unconstitutional. The Union of India argued that Section 66A is saved by the clauses "public order", "defamation", "incitement to an offence" and "decency, morality". But as the court finds that these are spurious grounds. For instance, Section 66A covers "all information" sent via the Internet, but does not make any reference (express or implied) to public order. Section 66A is not saved by incitement, either. The ingredients of "incitement" are that there must be a "clear tendency to disrupt public order", or an express or implied call to violence or disorder, and Section 66A is remarkably silent on these. By its vague and wide scope, Section 66A may apply to one-on-one online communication or to public posts, and so its applicability is uncertain. For these grounds, Section 66A has been struck down.

For freedom of speech on the internet, this is fantastic news! The unpredictability and threat of Section 66A has been lifted. Political commentary, criticism and dialogue are clearly protected under Article 19(1)(a). Of course, the government is still keen to regulate online speech, but the bounds within which it may do so have been reasserted and fortified.

Section 69A and website blocking

Section 69A empowers the government and its agencies to block websites on any of six grounds: "in the interest of sovereignty and integrity of India, defense of India, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign states or public order or for preventing incitement to the commission of any cognizable offence relating to above". The blocking procedure is set out in the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009. It requires that a Committee for Examination of Request (CER) examines each blocking request, and gives the content-generator or host 48 hours to make a representation. The Secretary of the Department of Electronics and Information Technology then issues the blocking direction to the intermediary.

"[The court has] failed to consider the impact of Section 69A and its Rules. Our free speech rights as listeners are equally affected when legitimate websites containing information are blocked. Transparency, blockpage notifications and judicial review are essential to determine whether each blocking direction is valid."

Now, the Supreme Court decision has left Section 69A and its Rules intact, stating that it is a "narrowly drawn provision with several safeguards". However, the Court has overlooked some crucial details. For instance, no judicial review is available to test the validity of each blocking direction. Moreover, Rule 14 of the Blocking Rules requires that all blocking requests and directions are kept confidential. This means that neither the content-generator, nor the reader/listener or general public, will have any idea of how many blocking directions have been issued or why. There is no standard blockpage display in India, either, and this further aggravates the transparency problem.

Lamentably, the Supreme Court has not considered this. Though the court has recognised and upheld the rights of viewers, readers and listeners in its decision on Section 66A, it failed to consider the impact of Section 69A and its Rules on readers and listeners. Our free speech rights as listeners are equally affected when legitimate websites containing information are blocked. Transparency, blockpage notifications and judicial review are essential to determine whether each blocking direction is valid.

Section 79 and the intermediary as a judge

Section 79 provides a safe harbour for intermediaries: if they abide by the requirements of Section 79(2), they retain immunity. But under Section 79(3)(b), intermediaries can lose their immunity from prosecution if, after receiving a takedown notice, they do not take down content in three circumstances: (1) if they have actual knowledge that third-party information within their control is being used to commit an unlawful act (i.e., by suo moto deciding the lawfulness of content); (2) if a court order requires takedown of content; (3) if a government notification requires takedown. Rule 3(4) of the Intermediaries Guidelines Rules, 2011 has a similar provision.

"The Supreme Court has wisely put an end to private adjudication of lawfulness. Section 79(3)(b) and Rule 3(4) have been read down to mean that the intermediary must have actual knowledge of a court order or government notification."

This leads to a situation where a private intermediary is responsible for deciding what constitutes lawful content. Previous studies have shown that, when placed in such a position, intermediaries prefer overbroad blocking to escape liability. As readers, we can then only access uncontroversial content. But the freedom of speech includes, as the European Court of Human Rights emphasised in Otto-Preminger Institut, the freedom to "offend, shock and disturb".

In Shreya Singhal, the Supreme Court has wisely put an end to private adjudication of lawfulness. Section 79(3)(b) and Rule 3(4) have been read down to mean that the intermediary must have actual knowledge of a court order or government notification. Even if an intermediary chooses not to act in response to a private takedown notice, it will retain its immunity under Section 79.

With Shreya Singhal, India has reaffirmed its protections for freedom of speech on the internet. One may now freely speak online without fear of illegitimate and unconstitutional prosecution. However, a re-examination of the blocking procedure, with its infirmities and direct impact on speech diversity, is essential. But today, we celebrate!

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/huffington-post-geetha-hariharan-march-26-2015-what-66-a-judgment-means-for-free-speech-online

Civil Society Organisations and Internet Governance in Asia and India – Section Outlines

sumandro — 2015-11-13T05:40:49Z

The Centre for Internet and Society has been invited to contribute two sections to the Asia Internet History - Third Decade (2001-2010) book edited by Dr. Kilnam Chon. The sections will discuss the activities and experiences of civil society organisations in Asia and India, respectively, in national, regional, and global Internet governance processes. The draft outlines of the sections are shared here. Comments and suggestions are invited.

In the (draft) Foreword to the Asia Internet History – Third Decade (2001-2010), Prof. David J. Farber writes:

One of the early attempts to extend the reach of the Internet to Asia was via the “Johnny Appleseed” approach. That is a set of people responded to queries by people in Asian countries asking how they could connect with the growing Internet by offering to supply tapes to key people in the requesting countries, often by physically going with the tapes, as well as providing access points to the USA Internet. The people that we, I was one of the seeders, worked, with became the leaders in their nation and founded the initial national networks that blossomed with time and often formed the basis of commercial Internets. The traditions that these network frontier pioneers established lead to the eventual spread of the benefits of Internet access to not only their nations but became models for the spread to the rest of Asia…

I am honoured to contribute to the pioneering series titled Asia Internet History, edited by Dr. Kilnam Chon, by foregrounding a range of other individuals and organisations that often worked outside but in engagement with the national governments, and technical and academic institutions that govern the connecting tapes of the Internet, to ensure mass access to and effective usages of Internet in Asia.

The two sections, to be authored me, provides an overview of ‘civil society organisations’ working across Asian countries that have played a critical role in the shaping of policy-making and discourse around Internet governance during 2000-2010, and then undertakes a closer look at the organisations working in India and their interventions at national, regional, and global levels.

Please read the draft outlines of the overview section and the section on Indian organisations, and share your comments. The comments can be posted on the GitHub page where the outlines are hosted, on this page, or over email: sumandro[at]cis-india[dot]org.

The outlines can also be directly downloaded as markdown files: the overview and the India section.

Asian Civil Society Organisations and Internet Governance

Here is a tentative list of key civil society organisations from Asia that have participated and intervened in Internet governance processes during 2001-2010. Please suggest organisations missing from the list.

Bangladesh

Cambodia

China

Indonesia

EngageMedia, Australia and Indonesia
ICT Laboratory for Social Change (iLab)
Indonesian CSOs Network for Internet Governance
Indonesian ICT Partnership Association (ICT Watch)
Internet Society Indonesia Chapter [website is under construction]

India

Iran

Iranian Civil Society Organizations Training and Research Centre (ICTRC) [URL is not working]

Japan

Centre for Global Communications (GLOCOM) [Academia?]
Internet Society Japan Chapter
Japan Computer Access for Empowerment (JCAFE) [URL is not working]
Japan Computer Access Network (JCA-NET)

Kuwait

iJMA3 - Kuwait Information Technology Society (KITS)

Lebanon

Lebanese Center for Civic Education (LCCE)

Malaysia

Internet Society Malaysia Chapter

Myanmar

Myanmar ICT for Development Organization (MIDO)

Nepal

Internet Society Nepal Chapter

Pakistan

Philippines

Democracy.Net.PH
Foundation for Media Alternatives (FMA) [URL not working
Internet Society Philippines Chapter

Regional

Singapore

Internet Society Singapore Chapter

South Korea

Sri Lanka

Internet Society Sri Lanka Chapter

Thailand

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

India High Court: No Takedown Requests On Social Sites Without Court, Gov't Order

praskrishna — 2015-04-03T06:18:52Z

Indian police will no longer be able to threaten Internet users and online intermediaries with jail merely on the basis of a complaint that they have posted “offensive” posts online.

The blog post by Madhur Singh was published in Bloomberg BNA on March 25, 2015. Geetha Hariharan gave her inputs.

Following a landmark judgment by the Supreme Court of India March 24, law enforcement agencies will be able to take action in such cases only after an order has been obtained from a court or the government (Singhal v.Union of India, India Sup. Ct., 3/24/15).

The court struck down in its entirety Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, which authorized criminal penalties for sending “offensive” messages through electronic communication services. Opponents of the measure said the section defined “offensive” very vaguely and broadly, and that cases of arrest under the section frequently made headlines.

Freedom of speech activists and Internet-based businesses welcomed the judgment as a boost for civil liberties, freedom of speech and a conducive business environment for an entire gamut of online businesses.

The judgment is good news for intermediaries such as Facebook Inc. and the India-based review site MouthShut.com, both of which have been repeatedly inundated with takedown notices based on complaints against “offensive” posts.

Offensive Posts Were Actionable Under Section 66A

Section 66A, added to the Information Technology Act of 2000 through an amendment in February 2009, prescribed imprisonment of up to three years and a fine for anyone who sends via a computer resource or communication device:

(a) any information that is grossly offensive or has menacing character;
(b) any information which he knows to be false, but for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred or ill will, persistently by making use of such computer resource or a communication device; or
(c) any electronic mail or electronic mail message for the purpose of causing annoyance or inconvenience or to deceive or to mislead the addressee or recipient about the origin of such messages.

A supporting Section 79(3)(b) stated that “upon receiving actual knowledge, or on being notified by the appropriate government or its agency that any information, data or communication link residing in or connected to a computer resource controlled by the intermediary is being used to commit the unlawful act,” the intermediary would have to “expeditiously remove or disable access to that material or that resource.”

Together, these sections put ordinary Internet users at risk for arrest for simply posting online and obligated intermediaries such as Twitter Inc., Facebook, MouthShut.com and others to take down content simply pursuant to a complaint.

Earlier this month, Facebook revealed statistics indicating that India is second on its global list of governments demanding takedowns.

Court Removes Intermediaries' Discretion

Shwetasree Majumder, partner at Fidus Law Chambers, told Bloomberg BNA March 25 that after this decision, any blocking of content can now only take place via a reasoned order after complying with several procedural safeguards, including a hearing to the originator and intermediary either by the designated
officer or pursuant to an order passed by a competent court.

“So intermediaries like Google, Facebook etc. are no longer required to judge as to whether the take down notices received by them contain legitimate requests or not,” she wrote in an e-mail. “As an acknowledgement that a true intermediary should not concern itself with the merits of the content posted by third parties, the court takes away the intermediary's discretion as to what content must remain and what must go.”

Geetha Hariharan, program officer at the Centre for Internet and Society, told Bloomberg BNA that after “reading down” Section 79, the Supreme Court “has relieved the intermediary of its responsibility to judge the lawfulness of content. Now, the intermediary will lose immunity under Section 79(3)(b) (and be liable
to prosecution or penalty) only if it does not take content down after receiving ‘actual knowledge of a court order or government notification' requiring takedown of content.”

Prior to the judgment, an intermediary was required to judge whether a takedown notice concerned unlawful content on its website, which would constitute “actual knowledge” under the section. If the intermediary made an affirmative determination, it was required to take the content down or lose immunity under Section 79(3)(b).

Supreme Court Strikes Down 66A

Momentum against Section 66A built up over the last three years, particularly after law student Shreya Singhal filed a challenge in the Supreme Court after two Mumbai women were arrested and put in jail for 10 days in 2012 for Facebook posts against a shutdown of Mumbai city following a politician's death.

A Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Jasti Chelameswar and Rohinton F. Nariman heard ten such cases together, and ruled March 24 that Section 66A was unconstitutional as it directly affected the right of the public to know. Holding that Section 66A was “open ended, undefined, and vague” so that “virtually any opinion on any subject would be covered by it, as any serious opinion dissenting with the mores of the day would be caught within its net,” the court struck it down in its entirety.

The court said that Rule 3(4) of the Intermediaries (Guidelines) Rules, 2011, which pertains to an intermediary disabling access to material that is “known” to be violative of Rule 3(2), needed to be read down in the same manner as Section 79(3)(b).

The court, however, upheld Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, which gives the government the power to block web content if doing so is in the interest of the sovereignty, integrity or security of India.

Impact on Intermediary Liability

Overall, Majumder said that intermediary liability now stands significantly watered down. One particular case this might impact is the currently pending Super Cassettes India Ltd. v MySpace Inc. case before the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, which is considering the validity of the high threshold of intermediary liability prescribed by a single judge in copyright infringement cases.

Hariharan wrote in an e-mail that while intermediaries such as Internet service providers (ISPs) or content hosts may “choose” to take down content when they receive a private takedown notice, they don't “need” to do so to remain immune under Section 79(3)(b) or Rule 3(4) of the Intermediaries Guidelines.

“This reduces uncertainty in intermediary liability in India. It will also hopefully keep intermediaries from taking down content in an overbroad manner to escape liability,” Hariharan said, adding that the government nevertheless continues to have the ability to criminalize online acts. For instance, Sections 66B
to 67B of the IT Act define and criminalize different online conduct. Additionally, sections of the Indian Penal Code that criminalize speech acts (e.g., Sections 295A and 153A for incitement; Section 292 for obscenity) have also been applied to online acts in the past.

The Internet & Mobile Association of India said in a statement on its website March 24 that the judgment will mark a new phase for the growth and evolution of the Internet in India. While Internet users will no longer fear illegal censorship or harassment, it said that “online businesses, ranging from established international companies to small Indian startups, will be able to take advantage of a more conducive business environment.”

The IAMAI added that the judgment will be especially helpful to smaller companies such as Mouthshut.com that will “now not be harassed by the frivolous and mal-intentioned notices of take down.”

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/bloomberg-bna-march-25-2015-madhur-singh-india-high-court-no-takedown-requests-on-social-sites-without-court-govt-order

Interviews with App Developers: Open Source, Community, and Contradictions – Part III

samantha — 2015-04-03T08:15:25Z

The following is a third post within a series reporting on interviews conducted with 10 of Bangalore's mobile app developers and other industry stakeholders. Through this research, CIS attempts to understand how the developers interviewed engage with the law within their practice, particularly with respect to IP. Here we examine different attitudes and perspectives towards themes related to open software, as well as contract agreements.

While interviewing 10 of Bangalore's mobile app developers, the conversations that proceeded the immediate responses to our questions posed proved to be the most insightful. Previously, we examined responses surrounding different views on intellectual property rights (IPR) and potential factors influencing these individuals' attitudes and practices within their work. Within these preceding blog posts reporting on our interviews, a prevalent device we have made reference to is the dichotomy across positions that app developers take at polar ends of various spectrums. Here are some examples of the ways we have observed individuals to have opposing standpoints:

To work within a large corporate body	versus for a small startup enterprise
To develop mobile apps as one's own product	versus to develop apps as a service for another
To be familiar with intellectual property	versus to disregard intellectual property
To desire protection for one's intellectual property	versus not to care about protection for one's intellectual property

Contrary to some pro-IPR stances, several of our app developers strongly opposed notions of strict IPR regimes (patents, especially) and advocated on behalf of the open source community. And yet, others expressed their appreciation for open source software (OSS), all the while pursuing their own IP protection—a contradiction?

But is it really so cut and dry? Must an individual represent one side or the other? And if he or she does straddle the line that divides these opposing stances, is it by choice? Or necessity?

And what other dichotomies exist for the mobile app developer?

Open values and open source

Those interviewed who spoke highly of open source software often did so in referring to personal values of openness and the ability to share and use others' code freely within their work. One developer within a nonprofit enterprise explained that he would not want to restrict the future development and utilization of their idea, and would only consider licensing his source code under open source licensing, and not copyright.

Another common claim across developers is their involvement within the developer community, and contributions to open source libraries—and not only as a hobby. Large software development social enterprise, Mahiti, along with other interviewees representing social or nonprofit enterprises exhibited a particular interest in the use of and contributions to open source libraries.

Sreekanth S. Rameshaiah, cofounder and CEO of Mahiti explains that they “require all software to be GNU licensed, unless decided otherwise by the clients.” GNU General Public License (GPL) is considered a free software license—one that allows the licensed works to be freely accessible to all and to be used, copied, and altered as desired—as well as copyleft—in requiring all users of any component of the previous work to license their succeeding work under the same license as well. Some clients for Mahiti, of course, wouldn't find such conditions desirable, if they are ever to profit off or retain full ownership over their products and services.

Open source for future protection

One designer from a services SME enlightened us of a different reason for doing so: to guarantee their ability to use their work again. “Since we use a bunch of templates and things like that, those we license using a non-exclusive license, because we reuse those elements on different bits of code in different projects,” he explains, “so there are bits of it which is used over multiple projects and there are stuff that is built exclusively for the client.”

Here we are given some insight, that perhaps developers do not necessarily license for community values primarily, but for the ability to use their own work across clients. That being said, we begin to wonder what the possibility that open source code may serve as a loophole for work-for-hire contracts, which require the developer to assign all written intellectual property to whoever is commissioning the project. If the code happened to “already be available by open source,” a developer may still be honouring any restrictive agreements with clients, and ensuring their ability to use their code in this future again.

Such a strategy complies with the advice of Jayant Tewari of Out Sourced CFO & Business Advisory Services. Some advice Tewari has for startups is to first and foremost protect themselves by making wiser choices related to code in order to prevent being litigated against by others—such as using an open source equivalent to a piece of code that one does not have the rights to, or instead putting the extra time in to develop it from scratch.

Conflicting perspectives: hypocrisy or realism?

Of those who expressed an interest in the open source movement, not all had said that their products were to be open licensed as well. One developer explicitly stated: “I like the idea of open source, and building upon others' work...but our app is not open source, it's proprietary.” It may be a given, then, that all or most developers within our interview sample rely on open source code within their practice, but not all may contribute their resulting product's source code back.

Vivek Durai, from Humble Paper says that despite the fact that “open source has really taken route... on the smaller levels, people will come to a point when philosophies begin to change the moment you start seeing commercial.”

In our first blog post, we established the tendency for startup app developers to move away from the services model towards a product-oriented business model. If app developers most often contribute back to open source libraries when they do not have any mobile app products of their own to protect, I begin to wonder if we would see any change to the levels of content generation across open source libraries if, hypothetically speaking, all services app development enterprises began to solely develop their own products.

Which brings us to an additional mobile app ecosystem dichotomy:

To license mobile app code as proprietary VS to license mobile app code as open source

As individuals move away from the services model to focus their energy and investments on their own products, I begin to wonder if there is a tendency for them to also move away from the open source model as well...

Although perhaps irrelevant, we also consider the question concerning the reasons mobile app developers moving away from the services model to begin with. In the first part of this series, we heard from industry consultants of the little financial incentive the services sector has to offer, but can that be all there is to it?

Join us in our next post as we look closer at the mobile app ecosystem's business model trends, as well as its startup culture with regards to contracts and copyright.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/interviews-with-app-developers-open-source-community-and-contradictions-iii

Interviews with App Developers: Name of the Game (Part IV)

samantha — 2015-04-03T08:58:27Z

The following is a concluding piece in a series reporting on interviews conducted with 10 of Bangalore's mobile app developers and other industry stakeholders. Within this research, CIS attempts to understand how they engage with the law within their practice, particularly with respect to IP. Here we examine responses given across interviews regarding instances of infringement of IP within their work.

Before commencing our interviews with India's mobile app developers and other industry players, a small series of questions had been devised in hopes of enabling us a glimpse at the facets of the picture of our main interest: those related to intellectual property. What we soon came to find, was that these questions may have too bluntly stated, producing hesitant and wary responses from those interviewed. After breaking this immediate ice, however, we often were given the privilege of hearing from these talented and thoughtful individuals several times over. And it is through this set of questions that the space was created for us to work together to reach an understanding of how different types of players orient themselves within the industry, in relation to their practices, policies, and business relationships, and voice any concerns or questions of their own.

The last of these questions to look at, is arguably the most sensitive in nature, asking whether one has ever had their works infringed upon, or has been accused for infringement upon those of others. In asking this question, we had hoped to gain some insight about occurrences of infringement taking place within the mobile app ecosystem, how this occurs, and in what sort of context.

Preceding conversations revealed differing experiences related to infringement; some experiences common across most, while others limited to one or two individuals. What these experiences, in turn, revealed, is what seems to be polarized stances on the very notion of infringement, reflecting personal histories and differing interests.

But what even is “infringement?” The term may be generally defined as:

infringement

noun

The action of breaking the terms of a law, agreement, etc.; a violation

But what exactly does this mean for a mobile app developer? Having not been previously defined or explained to those interviewed, the term had been used across responses in reference to various instances of infringement, spanning across many areas related to mobile app development. These instances will be looked at to follow.

Mobile app content (i.e. logos, pictures, etc.)
Pirated apps in app stores
“Dummy apps” or imitations of another's app
Breaching app stores user agreement
License agreements of code created by another
Open source licenses
Breaching of terms of agreement for by commissioning clients
Breaching of terms of agreement for by those hired

Not a threat to the threatening

After implying that his enterprise uses components that are owned by another without the proper permission to do so (whether source code or visual components was not specified), one developer simply stated that “no one would come after us—we have no money!” IP Strategy Consultant, Arjun Bala, explained to us that “here, developers do not need to worry about being sued. The big companies do not go after small developers; it depends on how much money they're making.” Bala continues in saying that, “Patent lawsuits can cost something like millions of dollars, so unless they're going to get more back, they wouldn't go throught the trouble of doing so... but that is true even in the US.”

This soon revealed to be a demonstrated theme known across those within the developer ecosystem. Developer, Aravind Krishnaswamy stated that the “startup mentality is to break all of the rules first, then concern themselves with IP as a means of covering their own tracks.” There is a perceivable difference, he says in their motives regulating their behaviours that differ from “I shouldn't do this because I can get caught vs. I shouldn't do this because it's against the law.”

Towards being infringed upon

For those within service agreements, this was generally so due to the fact that one does not own their works and instead assigns ownership to their mobile apps to clients. Rahul of Uncommon explains that any cases of infringement upon their work is unconcerning to his team: “Because once we hand it off [to clients], it's their issue,” he says.

Contrasting to this perspective, however, is the apprehension exhibited by some towards not clearly knowing whether they are incidently infringing upon others people's work. Because of this unknowing, however, others are indifferent. "There's a few people who I think looked at what we're doing and tried to copy some of the features or just the positioning,” Krishnaswamy suspects, “but, ultimately there are some things you can be bothered about as a small company.” He continues in saying that those suspects to be copying you “could have been working on their product independently—it's quite possible.”

Sree of Mahiti, on the other hand is not too concerned about others infringing upon their products or copying them as such is “irrelevant to their business model.” In making their software products open source, Sree explains, that they do not care how people use it, but if he were to come across infringement, he would likely act upon it.

But how can one be indifferent to infringement while licensing under GNU, a perpetual copyleft license?

Name of the game

Perhaps one could even go a step further in arguing that being a developer (a startup developer, especially) necessitates bending the rules at some point. Of all of the bits of open source code used, how many of the licenses are actually considered and complied to in their entirety? As stated by Vivek Durai of Humble Paper: “In a mobile app where you're producing software, you could potentially be violating the terms of OS licenses.” Tewari argues that this actually occurs in pretty much all cases.

“Everyone is in non-compliance. That is a given,” Tewari asserts. However, the distinction he makes is that more corporate players are in non-compliance knowingly than not, where is more SMEs infringe upon others without being aware that they are. Just as well, the degree to which infringement takes place may differ between the two types of industry players: “At the corporate level, where they know they are not in compliance, the degree of non-compliance might be very small or specific, but it still exists.” On the other hand, for startup developers, a substantial amount of their code may not comply with the licenses and agreements they are obliged to—something that could pose problems for them later down the road if left unfixed.

“Everyone is in non-compliance. That is a given... It is similar to asking 'do I know anyone who has never paid a bribe?' My answer is no.”

To put simply, Tewari draws the following comparison “It is similar to asking 'do I know anyone who has never paid a bribe?' My answer is no.” Here, he suggests that non-compliance to legal agreement, although technically unjust, is as tacit to the software sector as bribes are to the justice sector. Although perhaps not a perfect comparison, it definitely helps to put things into perspective.

Mope App Matrix

After speaking with numerous mobile app developers, lawyers, and other community players, it is difficult to say whether our findings have brought clarity to the nature the problem at hand, or if our research has, instead, shed light on additional problems within our realm of vision—at varying heights and depths, cutting across one another to form a matrix of indivisible linkages, or just plain chaos.

In the next of our exercises, we hope to comprehensively illustrate this matrix, by categorizing the different stakeholders across this ecosystem according to their interests and the ways in which they operate, and in turn, affect each other.

We look forward to bringing to completion (even if only to return to later) the first of our stages within this chapter of the Pervasive Technologies Project, which, to recap, had initially been to understand the mobile app ecosystem in light of India's IP regime. But what we are arriving at may be regarded, instead, as an understanding of the ecosystem informed by the stories and experiences of the ecosystem's central organisms: its developers. Perhaps it can only be here, at the intersection of stories—whether complementary or contradictory in nature—where the intricacies of processes deeply-embedded and their implications begin to reveal themselves.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/interviews-with-app-developers-name-of-the-game-part-iv

Internet becomes vernacular with relaunch of e-bhasha

praskrishna — 2015-04-03T05:49:42Z

With the relaunch of e-bhasha as a mission mode project, there is a fresh urgency to create content and technical solutions in Indian languages.

The article by Ankita Lahiri was published in Governance Now on March 23, 2015. Sunil Abraham is quoted.

Computer literacy is often linked to the knowledge of English. With the launch of the e-bhasha project, the government is hoping to make the internet more accessible. The project aims at providing computing tools in Indian languages, thus making government services available to a substantial part of India. These tools were developed more than a decade ago, but sadly remained non-utilised. However, the government has now decided to bring in the e-bhasha project under the umbrella of the national e-governance plan (NeGP) as a mission mode project (MMP).

The project that is being jointly driven by the department of electronics and information technology (DeitY) and technology development for Indian languages (TDIL), will be implemented in all departments across states and promises to provide all government services in 22 scheduled Indian languages. It will also provide a range of technical solutions, browsers and content in local languages. The multilingual aspect will ensure that government services have a wider reach and are accessible to citizens in local languages. The department hopes to get approval for the MMP by early next year.

Although TDIL has been finalised as the nodal implementing agency, the idea is to create a separate body, the centre of excellence (CoE) for localisation of Indian languages that will do the actual implementation on the ground level. Discussing the wing’s role, Swaran Lata, officer-in-charge, human-centred computing division, TDIL, told Governance Now: “We are like the backbone MMP. We will provide tools and solutions that can be used to generate the content in Indian languages. We will also provide standards and guidelines for the electronic governance domain. The final service delivery will be the responsibility of the various departments.”

Elaborating on how this platform can potentially transform the lives of the common citizen, Rajat Moona, director general, centre for development of advanced computing (C-DAC), said, “More people will get connected to government services now. It will bring the government closer to the citizen. The platform will change the way people carry out government services.” C-DAC has been working on local language computing and has been a key player driving the initiative on the technology front.

As an MMP, e-bhasha will have two main components: productisation and capacity building. The first step towards creating the e-bhasha platform will be the productisation. As Rajendra Kumar, joint secretary, DeitY, pointed out, “E-bhasha is all about the use of computing tools in Indic languages. It is about the productisation of these software tools, which means the ultimate utilisation of these tools for the end user.” In order to fully implement the MMP, proper training as to how to implement it at the ground level has to be given. The capacity building module of the MMP aims to train both the government departments as well as their technical teams. The training will be implemented jointly by DeitY and TDIL.

Commenting on the need for capacity building Lata said, “People still don’t have the skills to develop applications in multilingual or bilingual languages.” The training will be given through classroom sessions and various trouble shooting groups. Lata explained that applications will be classified in two groups – new projects and continuing projects. For each group the challenges will be different. For pre-existing applications, the entire application might have to be rewritten since the application as such might not have any provision for local languages. “The localisation of applications will vary according to the existing applications,” she said.

After this, content in these languages will be generated by various institutes and research and development organisations. Explaining that the service delivery framework for the MMP has already been designed, Rajendra Kumar said that the centre will extend total support to all the states in implementing the project.

Where India stands

Work to provide support in the form of tools and content in Indic languages has been going on in the country for more than two decades. C-DAC has been involved in this since 1988. The centre has been working towards developing tools that support Indic languages. Moona said, “We have been supporting Indic languages since 1988, whether it is from left to right or vice versa and languages with multiple fonts, like Konkani.

“As an integral part of the e-bhasha MMP, the centre will provide software tools that will facilitate the citizen in accessing government services in the local languages,” Moona said adding that, “Through the tools, we provide localisation support of government services. We provide government frontend in local languages. That is what the e-bhasha MMP is all about.”

C-DAC has already developed a number of solutions that support the Indic languages including a mobile touch keypad that can be downloaded from its website. Further a screen reader and various templates are also available. “The keyboard is slowly disappearing. We have a touchscreen that supports 27 Indic languages,” Moona said.

One of the key initiatives by TDIL has been in the form of the Sakal Bharti font, a type of open font format (OFF). It is a standard font, applicable to all the 22 schedule languages, irrespective of the platform, programme and language. It allows one to view and edit any document without any loss of data. Similar efforts have also been made by private players in creating the required tools to increase the reach the Indian languages. The Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) has launched several initiatives, including translating Wikipedia in regional languages and creating screen readers that support indigenous languages.

With the increase in internet penetration and the resulting increase in demand, private players, including digital giants Google and Microsoft, have joined hands to promote content in Indian languages. The initiative called the Indian languages Internet Alliance (ILIA) was launched by Google to cater to the Hindi-speaking population by providing content and solutions. Launched around the same time as the e-bhasha project, the two projects are expected to complement each other.

“It is heartening to see support from the government for this initiative. The initiative would shape the thinking around the government’s e-bhasha initiative and we are happy to partner with the government around the three pillars of e-bhasha: e-governance, e-education and culture,” said a Google spokesperson.

In support of the private initiatives that are coming up, Lata explained that an ecosystem has been built. “What happens is that in areas where it is not commercially beneficial, it has to be the government which steps in first. I think the government has received a wake-up call in terms of both e-governance as well as languages.”

The chicken or the egg?

The resources have been available with the government for the last two decades, yet it is only now that the push for local languages has got the attention it much needed. According to Kumar, while C-DAC has been involved in developing these tools and their language department, GIST, has been around for at least 15 years the implementation in e-governance did not happen.

Lata further elaborated, “It is not the correct perspective to say that the localisation of languages is just a frontend issue. It is an architectural issue and a language solution should enable people to search access and retrieve data in the local languages.”

The surge in the number of users as well as the new government’s heightened interest in electronic governance has created an increased demand. “The push for Indian languages has been there for a long time. Many government websites are bilingual (English and Hindi). However, with the introduction of electronic governance a lot of activities have been happening. The need for Indian languages has become much higher,” Moona said. “It is an evolutionary process. Internet governance is still a new thing in India, it is only after its introduction that the tools and support for local languages has been required.”

Sunil Abraham, executive director, CIS, said, “Creation of Indic content cannot be left to a single government entity. It needs massive effort from all concerned stakeholders. The reason that there is very little Indic content online is because most internet users today either are comfortable using English or don’t have sufficient purchasing power to sustain different business models. As more and more Indians come online, more and more businesses will begin to leverage Indic content. However, focused and enlightened investments by the government would be very useful in helping Indic languages catch up on the internet.”

With Indic languages receiving a push from both the government and private players, it might just be time that the internet really becomes a tool for everyone.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/governance-now-march-23-2015-ankita-lahiri-internet-becomes-vernacular-with-relaunch-of-e-bhasha

Mobile App Developer Series: Terms of Agreement – Part IV

samantha — 2015-04-03T08:26:27Z

The following is Part Four in a series reporting on interviews conducted with 10 of Bangalore's mobile app developers and other industry stakeholders. Through this research, CIS attempts to understand how the developers interviewed engage with the law within their practice, particularly with respect to IP. Here we examine different attitudes and work practices related to contracts agreements and developer culture in the legal realm.

We left off in our blog series considering the reported reasons why one would protect their mobile app by intellectual property means and how they relate back to (or contradict) their values as a mobile app developer in India. Here, we would like to get into more of the nitty gritty of contracts—which clauses are most important to mobile app developers, and what they think of them—followed by a cultural interpretation of the dynamics of this developer community with respect to contracts, and then lastly, a look at copyright, more generally.

Contracts in mobile app developing services

Previously, we shed light on the tendency for mobile app developers, in India particularly, to create mobile apps or mobile app components for clients, often overseas, within a work-for-hire agreement. Within such an agreement, the rights to (or ownership over) one's work is generally handed over to the client the moment the code comes into creation. Simply put, if paid to carry out a particular project, whatever is created within the project belongs to the client.

This is not the only instance where we encounter contract agreements in the mobile app ecosystem, however. For startups where team players are small in number, it is likely that all will have access to any contract agreements entered into with clients. For larger corporate software developer firms, there may be a specialized department for legal-related matters. In such cases, the mobile app developers themselves would seldom lay eyes on the legalese of contracts, for the primary reason being that it doesn't concern them. Instead, the terms of agreement more familiar to them would be those that they obliged to upon working for their employer.

However, after conversing with multiple stakeholders within India's mobile app space, what we came into understanding is that the importance of contract agreements for mobile app developers may be generally underestimated by the developers—both from within the startup to the corporate employer.

Clauses of caution

Within a work-for-hire agreement, it is commonplace for developers to enter into restrictive agreements that obstruct the freedoms of what they can do with the code created for the client. Across interviews with developers in startups and SMEs working for clients, this seemed to be a prevalent problem. Problematic areas proved to be those related to the time periods in which the developer was not allowed to take up future work for competing clients (i.e. the non-compete clause), or could not talk about their work for the client at all (the “quiet period”).

Designer, Rahul Gonsalves explains how these areas of their contracts with clients may impact his team at Uncommon: “The non-compete and the quiet periods are the two bits which are most germane to us, because if I can’t do work for a year in the same area, that impacts my ability to run my company.” Fortunately, Gonsalves says that less frequently are they obliged into quiet periods—in which they would not be able to talk about the work they do for their clients—as this poses an even bigger problem when trying to keep a portfolio for prospective clients, or when writing or speaking on behalf of their experience at conferences.

On several occasions Gonsalves and his team have tried to license their work to clients while retaining ownership... without much luck. “Clients typically do not want a perpetual license, but complete ownership.” Gonsalves goes on in explaining that, “this means they could make a derivative work or use it for another project. Depending on how bad we want the project, we'll work out some middle ground.” But it does not seem to be so easy for he and his SME to do so: “The thing about contracts is it’s all about a sort of differential bargaining power that the two parties have... you’ll have very little control about what happens once you’ve got paid.”

“The thing about contracts is it’s all about a sort of differential bargaining power that the two parties have... you’ll have very little control about what happens once you’ve got paid.”

Contract confusion

To have any sort of bargaining power within a work-for-hire arrangement requires a lot of time for negotiating, and the space for communication to begin with. In many cases, contracts may not even be introduced into a work agreement, leaving a lot of intricacies to the unknown.

“Getting these things down in a legal document is a big deal. It matters,” says Aravind Krishnaswamy of Levitum. The topic came up while speaking about the process of creating the content for one of his startup's apps, which entailed arranging contracts with several third parties involved in. Krishnaswamy and his team did so to ensure that they retained ownership (or co-ownership) over all of the content featured within their app, which features instructional videos on Indian music.

Another developer interviewed, Naveen*, shared with us his experience coming out of college and into employment. Upon joining his first employer, who happened to be a large company, he along with the new “batch” of employees attended a legal session within their training, “but that was Greek and Latin to us then,” he jokes. “We were fresh out of college and had no idea what a software license was... and it was after lunch, so everyone was sleeping.”

Lucky for Naveen, he didn't need to deal with that area too much, as his employer had a legal team to take care of such matters when it came to transactions with clients or third parties. For his current employer, on the other hand, Naveen explained that he could not recall the terms of his employment, as it had been a very long time ago when he signed his employment contract.

Not a contract culture?

Naveen suggests that the problem is one of contract-illiteracy, or simply not having the background knowledge to truly understand the legal facets of the industry, especially as you move away from India's entrepreneurial hubs: “In tier 1 cities, like Bangalore or Chennai, the colleges and students do have some knowledge about open source, licensing and terms, but when you go to tier 2 cities, that's where the problem is.”

But is anyone contract-literate anyway? With the exception of lawyers or legal departments, of course, don't we all have the immediate impulse to click “Next” or sign our signature as soon as we see the words “User Agreements” followed by infinite paragraphs in the smallest font?

However, for the developer in the increasingly-complex mobile app space with numerous parties and transactions involved, terms of contractual agreements may dictate everything from whether one can develop for competing clients, to whether an employee can contribute to open source projects on their own time. Still think that reading those clauses are a waste of time?

We are not arguing that the fact that the developer community seems to be far removed from “contract culture” is in itself a bad thing. As Jayant Tewari of Outsourced CFO & Business Advisory Services asserts: “How mobile app developers regard IP laws—or better yet, disregard—is fine for their sake.” What they must instead learn is to maneuver the landscape to avoid troubles as best as possible.

A good way of going about it, however, may be to begin with the agreements that a developer is already committed to—with clients, employers, and third parties, alike. One should be able to articulate: What is expected of me? Within what limitations? What am I not allowed to do?

Better familiarizing oneself with one's own responsibilities and commitments may be the first step for a mobile app developer to educating him- or herself and become aware of what sort of choices could stir about conflicts in the future, potentially threatening their relationships, reputation, or even livelihood.

But is it even possible to comply to all of the rules of the game?

Within such an overcrowded industry, creation and innovation does not occur in a vacuum, and as a result, many may adjust their own creations as they see fit, according to whatever ways are most convenient and carry out the best function. But at what cost—or more appropriately, what risk?

The next, and final of this blog series will shed light on responses given across interviews to the question of infringement. Here, we intend to connect the dots between the legal practices of mobile app developers and cases of infringement. We hope that after examining such numerous and wide sweeping—yet interconnected—facets of how mobile app developers in India engage with the law within their work, we will be able to comprehensively illustrate the role that these developers play in this economy, and ultimately, pass judgement on the laws that govern this space.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/mobile-app-developer-series-terms-of-agreement-iv

Intellectual Property Rights — Open Access for Researchers

nehaa — 2015-03-24T01:22:20Z

In the year 2013, Nehaa Chaudhari had worked on a module on Intellectual Property Rights for United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)'s Open Access Curriculum (Curriculum for Researchers) as part of a project for the Commonwealth Educational Media Centre for Asia. UNESCO published the module this year. Nehaa Chaudhari and Varun Baliga were among the Module preparation team. Nehaa Chaudhari was the writer for Units 1, 2 and 3: Understanding Intellectual Property Rights, Copyright and Alternative to a Strict Copyright Regime.

This publication is available in Open Access under the Attribution - ShareAlike 3.0 IGO (CC-BY-SA 3.0 IGO) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/igo/). By using the content of this publication, the users accept to be bound by the terms of use of the UNESCO Open Access Repository (http://www.unesco.org/open-access/terms-use-ccbysa-en).

Module Introduction

Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) are set of rights associated with creations of the human mind. An output of the human mind may be attributed with intellectual property rights. These are like any other property, and the law allows the owner to use the same to economically profit from the intellectual work. Broadly IPR covers laws related to copyrights, patents and trademarks. While laws for these are different in different countries, they follow the international legal instruments. The establishment of the Wold Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) has established the significance of IPR for the economic growth of nations in the knowledge economy.

This module has three units, and while the Unit 1 covers the basics of IPR, Unit 2 expands in detail the components of copyright and explains the origins and conventions associated with it. Unit 3 discusses the emergence of liberal licensing of copyrighted work to share human creation in the commons. In the last unit, we discuss the Creative Commons approach to licensing of creative works within the structures of the copyright regime that permits the authors to exercise their rights to share in the way they intend to. Creative Commons provides six different types of licenses, of which the Creative Commons Attribution license is the most widely used in research journals part of the Open Access framework.

At the end of this module, you are expected to be able to:

Understand intellectual property rights and related issues
Explain copyright, authors’ rights, licensing and retention of rights; and
Use the Creative Commons licensing system

Acknowledgements

Nehaa would like to thank Varun Baliga and Anirudh Sridhar for their research and writing support in Unit 1, and Samantha Cassar for Unit 2.

Click to download the PDF containing the Modules. Also read UNESCO’s Open Access (OA) Curriculum is now online

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/unesco-nehaa-chaudhari-march-19-2015-communication-and-information-resources-news-and-in-focus-articles-unesco-open-access-curriculum-is-now-online

Announcing the dates, theme and tentative tracks for the Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest 2015

sinha — 2015-03-19T06:34:53Z

We are pleased to announce that the Global Congress will be held from 15th-17 December 2015. The theme of the 2015 Global Congress is Three Decades of Openness; Two Decades of TRIPS. The four tentative tracks include Openness, User Rights, Access to Medicines, and Intellectual Property and Development.

Save the date: 15th (Tuesday) to 17th (Thursday) December, 2015 (both dates inclusive) [and 18th (Friday) December, 2015]

This year's Congress will be held over three days, from the 15th to the 17th of December, 2015 (both dates inclusive). Additionally, the venue will be reserved for an extra day (18th Dec, 2015) to accommodate non-scheduled follow up discussions, spillovers and allow for individually organized meetings/discussion sessions.

Theme

The theme for the Global Congress is Three Decades of Openness; Two Decades of TRIPS. Discussions in all tracks, as well as cross track conversations will be tailored around this theme.

Tentative Agenda

Day 1 of the Congress (15th December, 2015) will be open to all interested participants, including representation from the government, the judiciary, industry, academia, research/advocacy/policy organizations and any others. However, Days 2 and 3 of the Congress (16th and 17th December, 2015, respectively) shall comprise closed-door sessions, open only to participants registered/invited for the Congress. An additional day (Day 4 - 18th of December, 2015) has been set aside for smaller meetings and discussions on existing or potential collaborations between participants; to continue conversations begun on Days 1, 2 and 3; or to have meetings/presentations/discussions which we might not be able to strictly accommodate within the agenda.

Tracks and the 'Room of Scholars'

Proposed tracks include the following:

1. Openness
2. User Rights
3. Access to Medicines
4. Intellectual Property and Development.

These may be modified based on funding and logistics. We shall put out more updates on funding, proposed agenda for each track and track leaders as soon as possible.

This year's Congress will also feature an additional 'Room of Scholars'. As in the past three editions of the Congress, since discussions in track sessions might be tailored towards evidence based policy making, a need was felt to create a space for academic conversation as well. 'The Room of Scholars' has been conceptualized as that cross-cutting space, not restricted to a particular track. but as running along side them. The 'Room of Scholars' will be an opportunity for the presentation of longer, more detailed academic research papers.

Venue - National Law University, Delhi.

National Law University, Delhi (http://www.nludelhi.ac.in/) shall be the venue for this year's Congress. Google Map Location - https://www.google.co.in/maps/place/National+Law+University/@28.599374,77.023701,15z/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x0:0x14217e8eec6152fa

Accommodation

We're negotiating discounted rates with various accommodation options close to the venue. We shall inform you as and when we have more updates.

About the Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest

The Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest was instituted in 2011 at Washington D.C. Since its inception, three editions of the Global Congress have engaged national and international governmental entities, the private sector, civil society, and academia in providing perspectives and future scenarios for intellectual property, innovation and development.

You may contact the following CIS members to send in your queries and suggestions for the event:

CIS Global Congress Planning Team

Swaraj Paul Barooah- swaraj,barooah@gmail.com
Nehaa Chaudhari- nehaa@cis-india.org
Anubha Sinha- anubha@cis-india.org
M.P. Nagaraj- nagaraj@cis-india.org
Maggie Huang- maggie@cis-india.org
Pranesh Prakash- pranesh@cis-india.org
Rohini Lakshane- rohini@cis-india.org
Sunil Abraham- sunil@cis-india.org

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/announcing-the-dates-theme-and-tentative-tracks-for-the-global-congress-on-intellectual-property-and-the-public-interest-2015

TRAI-ing Times: The Story So Far

tarun — 2015-03-30T13:32:13Z

24th December, 2014 marked a pivotal moment in the Indian experience with network neutrality. On this date, one of India’s largest telecom players, Bharti Airtel, announced the introduction of a new ‘VoIP’ usage policy for its mobile users.

Under this policy, usage of VoIP services would henceforth be excluded from standard data usage packs and would instead be charged at standard data rates (of 4p / 10KB on 3G and 10p / 10KB on 2G).^{^[1]} Alongside this modification to 2G and 3G packs, a separate data pack exclusively for VoIP services was to be introduced. ^{^[2]}

The flurry of activity the announcement precipitated included widespread consumer and civil society outrage^{^[3]}, a statement by the Union Minister for Telecom^{^[4]}, a justificatory counter-statement by Airtel itself^{^[5]} and ultimately, a statement by TRAI. ^{^[6]} While it remains to be seen whether this was a calculated move by Airtel to kick-start the neutrality discussion in India (as some suspect^{^[7]}), the implementation of the new policy/pack was deferred pending TRAI's proposed consultation paper on OTT services. ^{^[8]}

In the context of the impending (though seemingly delayed^{^[9]}) release this paper, we take this opportunity to study TRAI-linked output on network neutrality in the past. This study was carried out using RTI requests [Part I] and targeted keyword searches of the TRAI website [Part II].

Information received through RTI requests

We had filed the following request under the Right to Information Act, 2005 on the subject and net neutrality and any material available with them generated in the course of internal or other discussions:

Request for Information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 To Shri V.K.Saxena Dy. Advisor (GA.) & Central Public Information Officer-LO Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Mahanagar Doorsanchar Bhawan, Jawaharlal Nehru Marg, Old Minto Road, New Delhi-110 002 Date of application : 08-10-2014 Subject: Documents relating to Network Neutrality 1. Please provide a list of all the consultations/discussions/meetings that have taken place with respect to network neutrality by TRAI. 2. Please provide a list of all responses received by TRAI which concern network neutrality. 3. Please provide a list of other documents/memos/minutes regarding network neutrality available with TRAI. 4. Does TRAI possess power to punish ISPs for violating principles of network neutrality? If so, please mention the provision of law which permits this. 5. What measures are taken by TRAI to monitor network neutrality violations by ISPs? For example, throttling of internet content/protocols. 6. What is the procedure for a consumer to file a complaint with TRAI regarding network neutrality violations? 7. Please provide copies of any documents regarding complaints received / action taken with respect to network neutrality violations in the past three years. It is certified that I am a citizen of India and that I do not fall within the BPL category. I am enclosing Rupees thirty (Rs. 10) towards the application fee and photocopying costs under the RTI Act for the information and documents requested. Kindly inform me at the address stated below if any further fees are required to be paid. Applicant : Signature of the Applicant Tarun Krishnakumar Centre for Internet and Society 194, 2nd C Cross Road, Domlur II Stage, Bangalore - 560071

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

In response to the same, we received the following reply which smacked of non-application of mind by the concerned officer to the request:

To, Shri Tarun Krishnakumar Centre for Internet and Society 194, 2nd C Cross Road, Domlur II Stage Bangalore (Karnataka) - 560071. SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR SUPPLY OF INFORMATION UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005. Sir, Please refer to your application dated 08.10.2014 , seeking information under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 regarding Network Neutrality related matter. It is informed that the information sought by you vide the above referred application is not available in TRAI. The Appellate Authority in TRAl under section 19 (1) of the "Right to Information Act, 2005" is Shri Suresh Kumar Gupta, Pr. Advisor (CA&QOS), Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, Mahanagar Doorsanchar Bhawan, Jawaharlai Nehru Marg, Old Minto Road, New Delhi-110 002, Tele:011- 23216930, Fax : 011- 23235270. Yours faithfully, (V.K. Saxena) Central Public Information Officer (LO) Tele: 011-23211622

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

In reply, we filed the following appeal with the designated Appellate Authority:

Appeal under the Right to Information Act, 2005 To : Appellate Authority Shri. Suresh Kumar Gupta, Pr. Advisor (CA and QoS), Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, Mahanagar Doorsanchar Bhawan, Jawaharlal Nehru Marg, Old Minto Road, New Delhi - 110002 Date: 23.11.2014 Subject: Appeal under Section 19(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 with reference to your reply No. 1(658)/2014-RTI dated 10.11.2014 Dear Sir, I write to you with reference to my RTI Application dated 08.10.2014 for information relating to 'network neutrality' held by TRAI. The CPIO, Shri. V.K. Saxena, rejected my request vide letter no. 1(658)/2014-RTI dated 10.11.2014 stating that " the information sought by you vide the above referred application is not available in TRAI." (enclosed herewith). As the applicant, I am unsatisfied and aggrieved by the above decision and hereby appeal against the same. Circumstances and Grounds of Appeal : By way of my application (enclosed herewith), I sought any and all information held by TRAI in relation to 'network neutrality'. For example, questions 1 - 3 queried the list of consultations etc. that have taken place involving network neutrality and sought copies of all documentation pertaining to the same. The other questions sought information pertaining to the powers of TRAI in relation to internet service providers and complaints received by it in relation to network neutrality. I submit that the failure of the CPIO to provide any answer to my queries is erroneous and therefore liable to be set aside on appeal to you. It is well-documented that there is at least one consultation connected with the subject-matter of my application i.e. 'network neutrality' released by TRAI in December 2006 (Paper No. 19/2006). In fact, the paper is currently available on the TRAI website at the following URL: http://www.trai.gov.in/WriteReaddata/ConsultationPaper/Document/consultation27dec06.pdf (Please see heading 3.6 and 3.7). Therefore, if nothing else at least all information pertaining to this paper including the responses received to the question under Heading 3.7 must be supplied to me. You may also take note of TRAI's "Recommendations on Application Services" (available at URL: http://www.trai.gov.in/writereaddata/recommendation/documents/as140512.pdf ) dated 14.05.2014 where paras 1.29 - 1.31 pertain to net neutrality. This is another document that the CPIO failed to take notice of. The failure of the CPIO to even acknowledge the existence of TRAI's own papers as cited above shows that there has been no application of mind to my application and a mechanical denial has been issued. Prayer : In light of the grounds advanced above, I request that: i. My application for all information pertaining to 'network neutrality' be allowed and the relevant documents be released to me. ii. I receive a question-by-question response to each of my queries. List of Enclosures: 1. Original Application dated 08.10.2014 2. Reply of CPIO No. 1(658)/2014-RTI dated 10-11-2014 Name of Appellant/Applicant and Address : Tarun Krishnakumar Centre for Internet and Society 194, 2nd C Cross Road, Domlur II Stage, Bangalore - 560071

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The appellate authority vide dated decision 12-01-2015 replied as follows:

BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE RTI ACT, 2005 F. No. 1(658)/2014-RTI Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Mahanagar Door Sanchar Bhawan, Jawaharlal Nehru Marg (Old Minto Road), New Delhi-110002. APPEAL in terms of Section 19(1) of RTI Act, 2005 Date of Decision: 12th January, 2015 In the Matter of: SHRI TARUN KRISHNAKUMAR, CENTRE FOR INTERNET AND SOCIETY, 194, 2nd C CROSS ROAD, DOMLUR ll STAGE, BANGALORE (KARNATAKA)-560071 vs CPIO, TRAI. Shri Tarun Krishnakumar has preferred the present appeal dated 23.11.2014 against the reply of CPIO, TRAI, communicated to him vide letter No. 1(658)/2014-RTI dated 10.11.2014 in response to his application dated 08.10.2014 under the RTI Act. I have gone through the appellant's application dated 08.10.2014 addressed to the Central Public Information Officer, Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI), the reply dated 10.11.2014 given to the appellant by the CPIO and the present appeal. The appellant had requested for information regarding Network Neutrality and related matter. Since the said information was not available with the Public Authority, TRAI, the CPIO. TRAI informed this to the appellant. The appellant, however, not being satisfied with the reply has filed this appeal. Upon examination, it was noticed that the consultation paper on "Review of Internet Services" issued on 27'" December, 2006 has a reference to Net Neutrality in Chapter 3-Emerging Trends. Therefore, the concerned division has uploaded the comments received in response to the 2006 consultation paper for the information of stake holders, the same is available in TRAI website under the link http://www.trai.gov.in/content/consultation_ViewCommentDescription/144_11_ViewCommentDescription.aspx . Further, the "Recommendations on Application Services" was issued on 14.05.2012 and is available on TRAI website. There is no additional information which can be provided to the appellant at this stage. In view of the above, the appeal is accordingly disposed. Let a copy of this order be sent to the appellant. Sd/- (Suresh Kumar Gupta) Appellate Authority, TRAI Under RTI Act, 2005

This reveals the extent of TRAI-produced output on the issue of 'net neutrality'. Besides a reference to Neutrality in 2006 paper TRAI did not disclose any other instance where it had discussed the issue.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Targeted Keyword Searches of the trai.gov.in website

This leg of the survey consisted of conducting targeted keyword searches of the trai.gov.in website to gauge the engagement with the subject of Network Neutrality either in the form of TRAI Output, Submissions to TRAI or other outputs (from seminar, conferences etc.). The results - aggregated using Google and Bing - have been tabulated.

Note: The results do not include the OTT Consultation Paper of 27-03-2015.

Methodology : Keyword searches of specific website using the advanced search / site-search search operator ("KEYWORD + site:<URL>"); Repeated Hits were not tabulated.

i. Keyword: "Net Neutrality"

Total No. of search results returned = 10 (Google), 6 (Bing)

Relevant Hits: 8

	Hit URL		Name of Document	Date	Relevant Page		Remarks
1.	http://www.trai.gov.in/WriteReaddata/ConsultationPaper/Document/consultation27dec06.pdf		Consultation Paper on "Review of Internet Services" (No. 19/2006)	26-12-2006	References at Pg. 27-28.		Views were sought in relation to emerging trends one of which outlined was 'Net Neutrality.' Selected Extracts: " 3.6.2 The situation may also rise in India as Internet access providers may use their market power to discriminate against competing applications and/or contents. " " 3.6.3 The issue of net neutrality in the long term can threaten popularity of Public Internet based Internet telephony and similar 28 other applications as all the intermediate Internet providers may start asking commercial agreements in absence of which they may refuse to carry the content and provide desired quality of service. The future developments are likely to have new applications and contents. The business models of ISPs are concentrated around useful application. In this background views of stake holders are required whether regulatory intervention is needed to ensure net neutrality in India in times to come or it may be left to market forces. "
2.	http://www.trai.gov.in/WriteReadData/ConsultationPaper/Document/201410221229242471860Vodafone_Delivering%20Broadband%20quickly_Counter_21Oct2014.pdf		Vodafone's counter-response to TRAI's Consultation paper on 'Delivering Broadband Quickly'	22-10-2014	References at Pg. 3-4.		Here, Vodafone pledges support for an 'open internet' for all however comments " net neutrality has long been a solution in search of a problem" and criticises EU framework.
3.	http://www.trai.gov.in/WriteReadData/ConsultationPaper/Document/20120730022807389860713.Etisalat[1].pdf		Response of Etisalat DB to Pre-consultation paper on "IMT-Advanced (4G) Mobile wireless broadband services"	15-04-2010	References at Pg. 2 (Paragraph 12).		Etisalat notes that net neutrality is a topic that requires deliberation in reference to the proposed consultation paper on 4G. It defines neutrality as "Avoiding blockage of any specific web site on a particular network".
4.	http://www.trai.gov.in/WriteReadData/Recommendation/Documents/recom18aug08.pdf		TRAI Recommendations on "Issues relating to Internet Telephony"	18-08-2008	References at Pg. 46 and 78		At Pg. 46: " The very popularity and success of the Internet is due to Net neutrality, i.e packets of all services and applications shall be processed and delivered without any discrimination by the intermediate service providers." At Pg. 78: " Regulation in Argentina considers IP as a mere way to offer telecommunication services, such as telephony in the form of VoIP, thus there are no legal barriers that impede market access or any plans to regulate different types of the service. Any provider is free to offer telecommunication services with different technologies and network architectures, based on the network neutrality principle…"…" The foreign investment policy is liberal and there are no distinctions between local and foreign companies. According to the network neutrality principle, there are no regulated technological standards or protocols for VoIP "
5.	http://www.trai.gov.in/WriteReadData/ConsultationPaper/Document/201412300449107784040Dr%20Rohit%20Prasad.pdf		Response to the Consultation Paper (No: 13/2014) on "Interconnect Usage Charges" filed by (i) Dr. Rohit Prasad, Professor, Management Development Institute, Gurgaon (ii) Mansi Kedia, Researcher, Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations (ICRIER) (iii) Dr. V. Sridhar, Professor, International Institute of Information Technology Bangalore		Reference at Pg.7		Raises the question of Net Neutrality with reference to OTT services. At Pg. 7: "… Since an Internet Telephony call is a partial OTT service (i.e. from the origin until it hits the IP-Telco gateway), should Net Neutrality principles (as and when drafted) should be applicable for this as well. The above question, can be taken up when the Net Neutrality rules or OTT regulation rules are framed by the regulator. "
6.	http://www.trai.gov.in/WriteReadData/ConsultationPaper/Document/2.Infotel_Broadband..pdf		Response of Infotel Broadband Services Ltd to Consultation Paper on "Mobile Value Added Services" (CP 05/ 2011)	11-08-2011	Reference at Pg. 3		Opposition to Licensing regime for Internet Content and Application Providers: At Pg. 3: " 3. Internet/ Data Applications do not depend on Telecom Operator, and are not licenced in open mature countries The need to exercise restraint on regulation is stronger in the case of data/ internet services. In the case of VAS on data/ internet services, VASPs have no technical dependence on Telecom/ Internet Service Provider for providing the service, as the data connection is generally a dumb pipe. For some services, VASPs choose to partner Telecom Operators for billing convenience (as in the case with currently provided Games-on-Demand service and Anti-virus services over Broadband). Globally, Internet Application Companies and Regulators mostly operate on a net neutrality approach, wherein a broadband application is accessible across Telecom/ Internet Service Providers. Thus, especially in the case of data services, there is no case to govern a relationship/ arrangement that has no technical necessity. Licencing Regime for Internet Content and Application providers, like portals, e-commerce, etc is not in practice in any of the open countries and should not be introduced in India too."
7.	http://trai.gov.in/WriteReadData/ConsultationPaper/Document/201308221249488827971vodafone-final3.pdf		Response to Vodafone to Consultation Paper on "Valuation and Reserve Price of Spectrum"	21-08-2013	Reference at Pg. 11		Reference irrelevant / not-substantive.
8.	http://www.trai.gov.in/writereaddata/recommendation/documents/as140512.pdf		TRAI Recommendations on "Application Services"	14-05-2012	References at Pg.18 and 19.		At Pg. 18: " 1.29 Net neutrality advocates no restrictions by Service Providers on content, sites, platforms, on the kinds of equipment that may be attached, and no restrictions on the modes of communication allowed. Issue of net neutrality started in early 2007 when it was revealed that Comcast, a provider of broadband Internet access over cable lines intentionally blocked the traffic of peer-to-peer (P2P) applications and gave other Internet traffic preferential treatment. " At Pg.19:" 1.31 The issue of net neutrality for ASPs providing services on OTT model will be dealt as and when required."
ii. Keyword: "Network Neutrality" Total No. of search results returned = 16 (Google), 8 (Bing) Relevant Hits: 11.
S.No.		Hit URL	Name of Document	Date		Relevant Page		Remarks
1.		http://www.trai.gov.in/WriteReadData/Events/Presentation/PPT/201111291232282048929Matthias_Ehrler_Migration_NGN.pdf	Presentation titled "Regulatory implications of migrating to NGN" made at the TRAI - Seminar on Next Generation Networks by Matthias Ehrler	25-08-2011		Pgs. 6 and 15		Presentation by expert covers neutrality implications of migrating to next generation networks.
2.		http://www.trai.gov.in/WriteReadData/Events/Presentation/PPT/201111291229152361429Scott_Marcus_QoS.pdf	Presentation titled "Management of QoS" made at the TRAI- Seminar on Next Generation Networks by J. Scott Marcus of wik consult.	25-08-2011		Pgs. 10, 11, 15 etc.		Presentation by expert covers neutrality in the context of QoS.
3.		http://www.trai.gov.in/writereaddata/consultationpaper/document/3agust.pdf	Response of Microsoft to Consultation Paper on "National Broadband Plan"	27-07-2010		Pgs. 1-2		Extract: " 2. Network Neutrality Openness has been the key to the ever-expanding nature of the Internet. We would urge that the Authority adopt a light-touch regulatory approach to network neutrality that appropriately balances the needs of consumers, network operators, and those of content/ application / service providers as well as those of device vendors. Some respondents have called out the Authority's attention towards this aspect and it is important for the Authority to chart a course that harmonizes the interdependent values of innovation and continued evolution of a robust network infrastructure while promoting consumer choice and freedom online. e suggest that the Authority undertake the following three steps in this regard: a. First, adopt the widely-accepted principles that consumers have the right to access and use the content, applications, services and devices of their choosing and to receive reasonable information about their Internet access provider's practices; b. Second, adopt a behavioral standard intended to prohibit Access Provider discrimination that is anticompetitive or harms consumers, and bar Access Provider conduct that violates the other core, open Internet principles, such as allowing access to lawful content, applications, and services of the user's choosing; and c. Third, implement an expert and efficient enforcement mechanism to identify and prohibit unlawful forms of discrimination. This framework would achieve a sensible balance by allowing Access Providers the flexibility to not only appropriately manage their networks by distinguishing, if necessary, among different types of traffic but also enter into business arrangements with content providers that are transparent and do not discriminate in a manner that is anticompetitive or harms consumers ."
4.		http://www.trai.gov.in/WriteReadData/Events/Presentation/PPT/201301080620033272892NGN-Migration-Session6-Licensing-Issues-NGN_rev.pdf	Presentation titled "Migration to Next Generation Networks" made at the Workshop on Migration to NGN by Martin Lundborg, Stephan Wirsing Martin Lundborg, Stephan Wirsing	29-11-2012		Pgs. 30-36.		Presentation by expert covers Network Neutrality in the context of content and licensing.
5.		http://trai.gov.in/WriteReadData/Events/Presentation/PPT/201111291222335017679NGN_Dr.pdf	Presentation titled "NGN: UK and European Frameworks" made at the TRAI Seminar on NGN by Rekha Jain.	25-08-2011		Pg.18		Presentation by expert covers network neutrality as implemented by European authorities.
6.		http://trai.gov.in/WriteReadData/Events/Presentation/PPT/201111291226086423929NGN_Interconnection.pdf	Presentation titled "NGN Interconnection" made at the TRAI- Seminar on Next Generation Networks by J. Scott Marcus of wik consult.	25-08-2011		Pg. 41, 43 and 46		Presentation by expert covers neutrality in the context of QoS.
7.		http://www.trai.gov.in/WriteReadData/Events/Presentation/PPT/201301080612503134332NGN-Migration-Session1-Introduction-to-NGN_rev.pdf	Presentation titled "Migration to Next Generation Networks" (Introduction to NGN) made at the Workshop on Migration to NGN by Martin Lundborg, Stephan Wirsing Martin Lundborg, Stephan Wirsing	29-11-2012		Pg. 25		Cursory reference to important regulatory aspects of NGN Migration
8.		http://www.trai.gov.in/WriteReadData/Events/Presentation/PPT/201111291221446111429NGN_Case_Studies%20-%20Scott%20marcus.pdf	Presentation titled "Migration Studies Challenges and Migration Studies, Challenges, and Implementation Case Studies" made at the TRAI- Seminar on Next Generation Networks by J. Scott Marcus of wik consult.	25-08-2011		Pg. 6.		Cursory reference to public policy challenges in NGN Migration
9.		http://www.trai.gov.in/WriteReadData/ConsultationPaper/Document/Auspi.pdf	AUSPI's Response to the TRAI Consultation Paper No. 6/2011 on "IMT Advanced Mobile Wireless Broadband Services"			Pg.10		At Pg.10: " In an effort to encourage network neutrality, Google asked that the spectrum be free to lease wholesale and the devices operating under the spectrum be open. Google's specific requests were the adoption of certain policies such as open applications, open devices, open services and open networks. Currently many providers such as Verizon and AT&T use technological measures to block external applications. In return, Google guaranteed a minimum bid of $4.6 billion. However, this model of broader eco-system players playing a part in spectrum auctions has not seen significant success, with Google in this instance not winning any licenses. Even if regulator wants to keep the market open for non-telecom players, broader eco-system players can participate through M&As which are likely to be permitted under the new telecom policy. "
10.		http://www.trai.gov.in/writereaddata/consultationpaper/document/201304090446122006799casbaa.pdf	Response of the Cable and Satellite Broadcasting Association of Asia to TRAI Consultation Paper on "Issues relating to Media Ownership"	8-04-2013		Pg.30		At Pg.30: " Convergence: Despite convergence, there remains fragmentation in the approaches adopted by regulators towards intervention in telecoms and other sectors. However, issues of access, network neutrality, non-discrimination and protection of intellectual property rights ("IPR") are recurrent themes. These are issues that are familiar to competition authorities. Moreover, technological changes may break down these demarcations further. However the real challenge that convergence poses is increased uncertainty in respect of the speed of technical change and its effects in the short and longer runs. Regulators/competition authorities run the risk of 'getting it wrong' either by applying old style/stringent regulations and/or mistaking transitory profitability for abuse. A cautious and flexible approach is required. The application of old style regulations to such evolving markets is not recommended; it may stifle investment and innovation. Regulation should be flexible enough to take account of the evolving market dynamic and be informed by the best assessment of how markets are likely to evolve. TRAI's proposed intervention does not even come close to this dynamic approach since it is predicated on an assessment which is four years out of date. It does not take account of the increased diversity and competition currently prevailing and likely to develop in India over the next 3 to 5 years and beyond. "
11.		http://www.trai.gov.in/WriteReadData/ConsultationPaper/Document/201306240358500637086RCOM_CC.pdf	Counter Comments of Reliance Communications to TRAI Consultation Paper on "Interconnection Usage Charges"	25-05-2011		Pgs. 230 (Internal Pg. 41 of appended document)		Appended ERG DRAFT Common Position on Next Generation Networks Future Charging Mechanisms / Long Term Termination Issue document analyses questions in relation to QoS and Network Neutrality in the US and other jurisdictions.

[1] See http://telecomtalk.info/airtel-starts-charging-for-voip-data-viber-skype-charges/128118/ (Last visited on 08-03-15).

[2] See http://telecomtalk.info/airtel-voip-rs75-75mb-with-a-validity-of-28-days/128216/ (Last visited on 08-03-15);

[3] See http://www.medianama.com/2014/12/223-net-neutrality-violation-airtel-introduces-differential-pricing-for-type-of-mobile-internet-usage (Last visited on 08-03-15); http://yourstory.com/2015/01/net-neutrality-startups-in-india-airtels-voip-charges/ (Last visited on 08-03-15)

[4] See http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2015-01-15/news/58109002_1_net-neutrality-internet-governance-model (Last visited on 08-03-15); http://gadgets.ndtv.com/telecom/news/government-to-look-into-airtels-plan-to-charge-for-internet-calls-ravi-shankar-prasad-639713 (Last visited on 08-03-15)

[5] See http://www.medianama.com/2014/12/223-a-response-to-airtels-statement-justifying-net-neutrality-violation/

[6] See http://indianexpress.com/article/business/companies/airtel-move-to-charge-voip-calls-not-illegal-khullar/ (Last visited on 09-03-15); For a video of the interview, see http://youtu.be/d6QyapRBPXA (Last visited on 09-03-15).

[7] See http://www.medianama.com/2014/12/223-airtel-withdraws-voip-charges-for-now-after-forcing-trais-hand-on-net-neutrality-consultation/ (Last visited on 08-03-15).

[8] See http://www.financialexpress.com/article/industry/companies/airtel-to-roll-back-higher-voip-charges/24057/ (Last visited on 08-03-15)

[9] See NDTV report dated 16-02-15 at http://gadgets.ndtv.com/telecom/news/trais-paper-on-ott-players-to-also-cover-voip-calls-net-neutrality-in-india-661111 (Last visited on 09-03-15).

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/telecom/blog/trai-ing-times-the-story-so-far