Centre for Internet and Society

Govt narrative on Aadhaar has not changed in the last six years: Sunil Abraham

praskrishna — 2016-03-16T16:37:19Z

The bill is basically the same as the UPA version, with some cosmetic changes, and some tokenism towards the right to privacy, says Abraham.

Shreeja Sen interviewed Sunil Abraham. The article was published in Livemint on March 8, 2016.

The government’s bid to push financial inclusiveness and access to government services has received a fresh boost, with finance minister Arun Jaitley introducing a proposed law to give legislative backing to Aadhaar, being implemented by the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI).

This project, which uses a person’s biometric data like fingerprints and iris scans to authenticate identity of people receiving subsidies and other state benefits, will move India towards a cashless economy and help digital initiatives such as biometric attendance, Pradhan Mantri Jan Dhan Yojana, digital certificates, pension payments and the proposed introduction of payments banks.

Sunil Abraham, 42

Abraham is executive director of Centre for Internet and Society, a Bengaluru-based think tank focusing on accessibility, access to knowledge, telecom and Internet governance. He has written extensively on the UID scheme, and the intersection of privacy and security. He founded Mahiti—an enterprise that aims to reduce the cost and complexity of information and communications technology for the voluntary sector by using free software.

The Aadhaar project has faced its share of roadblocks with cases challenging it pending before the Supreme Court. A constitution bench of the court will decide whether the right to privacy is a fundamental right and if Aadhaar violates it.

Sunil Abraham, the executive director of Centre for Internet and Society, a Bengaluru-based policy research institute, is a critic of Aadhaar for several reasons. He explained his concerns in an interview. Edited excerpts:

Have any of the concerns regarding the Aadhaar project since its inception in 2009 been addressed?

Whatever we complained about six or seven years ago, whatever complaints were made by the civil society...all of those complaints remain in the exact same situation.

Nothing has changed.

What kind of concerns?

The first thing to remember is that privacy and security are just two sides of the same coin. You cannot have one without the other.

Our first concern with the project is centralization. Whenever you build an information system, and you create a central point of failure, then it will fail because the possibility of failure exists. The Internet has no central point of failure. That is why it is so difficult for you to bring the Internet down. Complaint number 2 is the opaque technology.

UIDAI keeps saying that “we have built a technology using a free software and open standard stack”. The first is a de-duplication software and the second one is the authentication software—those are the most important pieces of software.

This software is proprietary and nobody knows how they work and nobody can independently audit them.

The third complaint is the use of an irrevocable and non-consensual authentication factor. In the UID scheme, the biometrics serve two purposes: it can be used to identify a citizen and it can be used to authenticate a transaction. Authentication factors, commonly known as passwords, should always be revocable. That means if the password is compromised, you should be able to change the password or at least say that this password is no longer valid. The use of biometrics eliminates those two important requirements.

Further, in most other authentication, the process of authentication ensures that you are consenting. For example, PIN (personal identity number) authentications. But suppose I am authenticating you through your irises, then as long as your eyes are open, the machine will think you’re authenticating. There’s no way of saying I don’t want to authenticate. Or if you’re sleeping, somebody can hold your fingers over a biometric reader and open your iPhone. So that’s complaint number three.

The fourth complaint from the privacy perspective is: there is a very important database that they don’t talk about. I call it the transactions database. Suppose there is somebody who is using the UIDAI service to authenticate a transaction, then UIDAI should keep a record of that successful or unsuccessful transaction authentication. That means you have been registered into the database.

You go to a fair price shop to purchase subsidized grain and at that fair price shop or ration shop, you use your finger on the biometric reader, and then the UIDAI system says “yes you are indeed who you say you are”.

So, at that point, later the shop should not be able to say X never came here, or X came twice. So, in order for them to not say all those things, a record should be made on the UID database, that on this day, from this geographical location, this particular biometric reader sent us X’s biometric template and asked if the template matched against X’s UID number...the transaction database can be used for profiling. They never talk about it.

They never tell us what that database holds and how long they’re keeping all those records. None of that is clear.

Does Aadhaar bill help assuage your doubts about the project?

The government narrative has not changed in the last six years; the bill is basically the same as the UPA (United Progressive Alliance) version, with some cosmetic changes, and some tokenism towards the right to privacy. The proof that the technology is fallible is in the bill.

If the technology was infallible, as the UIDAI would like us to believe, then the bill would not criminalize the following: (1) impersonation at the time of enrolment; (2) unauthorized access to the Central Identities Data Repository.

Imagine that the bill admits that every Indian’s biometric can be stolen from one single centralized database. Now why don’t we have a similar offence for stealing all private keys from the Internet—we don’t because that is technical impossibility thanks to decentralization.

Therefore we don’t need a law to make (it) illegal. We’ve suggested changes to both the technology and the law. We’ve written seven open letters to the UIDAI, and we’ve never gotten any response. Very few of our concerns have been addressed. We’ve seen dogs getting UID, various other things getting UID, so there’s a lot of evidence that the system does not work. From Kerala we have stories of one person getting several UIDs, so we have no idea about technological feasibility of the project.

One of our distinguished fellows, Hans Varghese Mathews, has published an academic paper in the latest EPW (Economic and Political Weekly), by extrapolating UIDAI field trial data to national scale. He predicts that by the time the number crosses 1 billion, every time UIDAI tries to register someone new, they will match with about 850 people already in the database positively. So, the unique identification capability of the UIDAI will not scale above the billion. The consequence of the technology failing is not trivial. If someone replaces your biometrics in the central database, then the onus is on you to prove that you are a resident of India.

Previously, human beings determined the answer to this question, and they had to find proof that you were not a resident. Now, a fallible technology will be asked to answer this important question.

Isn’t the basic function of the Aadhaar project to ensure that benefits reach the person they are meant for, and it’s easier for people to get an identity proof for those who have no other ID, like migrant workers?

Two responses: is it good anti- corruption technology? Unfortunately not, because it is intended at retail fraud. The person under surveillance is very poor. But the person responsible for corruption is not poor. So, I believe you should be surveilling those responsible for corruption.

What I had said is UID should be first given to every single bureaucrat and every single politician in the country. From Delhi till the Panchayat office, till the ration shop in the village, that supply chain must be monitored and documented using cryptography, so that nobody can deny anything. We need non-repudiatable audit trail from New Delhi to the village because according to all analyses, that is where the theft is happening—in the supply chain. The villager who is taking false benefits, that is called retail fraud.

The bulk of the fraud is actually wholesale fraud. Please tackle wholesale fraud using non-repudiatable public audit trail from New Delhi to the village first, before you start surveilling the poor.

The second point is that people find it easy to get the UID. That is fine, but there is a problem; that it’s not uniquely identifying anybody. So, people will keep registering and the UID system will keep giving them more and more UIDs because there are no human checks and balances. Because you’ve gone with a pure technological solution, it’s very easy to fool (the system).

So, the ease of registration has not served the purpose.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/livemint-march-8-2016-shreeja-sen-govt-narrative-on-aadhaar-has-not-changed-in-last-six-years-sunil-abraham

Govt for legalising parallel import of copyright works; publishers oppose

praskrishna — 2011-08-30T04:24:05Z

This article by Shamnad Basheer was published in the Economic Times on 17 March 2011.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/govt-legalising-parallel-import

Government to hold talks with stakeholders on Internet censorship

praskrishna — 2012-09-04T03:39:32Z

In an unprecedented move, the government, through the Department of Telecommunications and the Department of Electronics and Information Technology, has agreed to initiate dialogue on Internet censorship with mega Internet companies, social media giants such as Google and Facebook, members of civil society, technical community, media, ISPs and legal experts.

This article by Shalini Singh was published in the Hindu on September 4, 2012. Pranesh Prakash's analysis is quoted.

The triggers for the discussion, which will be held on Wednesday, are the riots in Assam, Mumbai and Uttar Pradesh, as well as the mass exodus of north-east Indians from Bangalore, which resulted in bringing the government, civil society organisations and the media to a flashpoint.

Two of India’s seniormost officers in the area of Internet censorship, DoT Secretary R. Chandrashekhar and Director General, CERT-IN, Gulshan Rai will engage with a range of stakeholders in a two-hour meeting titled ‘Legitimate Restrictions on Freedom of Online Speech: The need for balance – from Deadlock to Dialogue.’

Other panellists include representatives from Google and Facebook; Pranesh Prakash from the Centre for Internet and Society (a civil society group); Prabir Purkayasta, Delhi Science Forum (technical community); Paranjoy Guha Thakurta, president, Foundation for Media Professionals; Rajesh Chharia, president, Internet Service Providers Association of India; and Apar Gupta, an advocate dealing with cyber issues.

One analysis by the CIS has shown that 309 specific items, including URLs, Twitter accounts, IMG tags, blog posts and blogs were blocked. Complaints arose when blocking a page resulted in the blocking of an entire website — which has scores or hundreds of web pages. The government maintained that this was necessary as there was a sense of crisis. Home Minister Sushil Kumar Shinde insisted that the government was “taking strict action only against those accounts or people which are causing damage or spreading rumours.” However, the collateral damage of the move was the Twitter accounts of several people, including journalists like Kanchan Gupta, being blocked.

“Mass censorship is like killing a fly with a sledgehammer. Rather than blocking the sites, the government should have used the same media, Facebook, Twitter and Google to counter terrorism and hate speech. I am glad that they are now open to dialogue,” says Mr. Thakurta.

“It is an extremely productive move as it will generate awareness among content providers, government and users. In the absence of any dialogue, everyone was just sticking to their own positions without listening to the other stakeholders’ point of view,” says Mr. Chharia.

The meeting is to bring several stakeholders in dialogue on a single platform.

Nearly 50 other experts from industry, mobile service providers, Internet companies, intermediaries, academia and some international organisations as well as multilaterals are expected to join the conference, which will be held at 2.30 p.m. on September 4 at FICCI.

While this is seen as a brave attempt by some, there are an equal number of sceptics who believe that the discussion may not yield the desired result given the national security objectives governing law enforcement agencies on the one hand and the desire of users, media and civil society to preserve free speech on the other. Clearly, ISPs, Internet companies and social media are in a tough spot since they face legal obligations on legitimate orders for blocking on one hand while needing to protect their user privacy and rights to unhindered access to information.

If successful, it is possible that this dialogue will ensure that legitimate restrictions do not slide into illegitimate censorship.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/www-the-hindu-com-shalini-singh-sep-4-2012-govt-to-hold-talks-with-stakeholders-on-internet-censorship

Government of Odisha adopting Creative Commons License to Promote Transparency and Access to Knowledge

Sailesh Patnaik — 2018-01-18T01:22:40Z

This year started with an astonishing announcement by the Government of Odisha towards the free knowledge movement. On the Public Domain day, which is celebrated every year on 1st January, The Government of Odisha continuing its collaboration with the Odia Wikipedia community has announced to release the content of its two major departments under Creative Commons license.

Last year, the Government of Odisha became the first state government in India to release their social media content under free license and released the content of its 8 social media accounts and the website of 2017 Asian athletics Championships under CC-BY-4.0 international license, which has overall helped in adding 207 distinct images into various Wikipedia projects.

The decision about the relicensing of the content was announced to the public in a tweet by the twitter account of the Information and Public Relations department (I&PR) which says “On the occasion of Public Domain Day, the website and social media feeds of I& PR Department are being licensed under Creative Commons which means all content on the website and social media accounts are now free for public usage. That includes photographs, videos, government publications and much more. This is in continuation with State Government’s principles of Teamwork, Transparency & Technology for bringing about Transformation.”

The two departments announced by the state Government to be the part of the collaboration are Information and Public Relations department; that informs the public on the plans, policies and Programmes of the Government. The I&PR department also publishes 2 state magazines, Utkala Prasanga, a state magazine published in Odia language and Odisha Review, a 72 years old state magazine published in English language. Also the ST&SC Development department; which works for the welfare of the backward and minority communities in Odisha. This department holds a major source of information in the form of Adivasi journal and research papers on Indigenous community of Odisha from its Research and Training institute. Most importantly, the social media accounts along with the websites are released under the Creative Commons license. Social media channels are updated on a daily basis and provides fresh content everyday about different collaborations of the Government.

In near future, the Government of Odisha is also planning to release content of some major departments under open license for people to access the information for free.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/government-of-odisha-adopting-creative-commons-license-to-promote-transparency-and-access-to-knowledge

Government of India's Response to WGEC Questionnaire

snehashish — 2014-01-22T16:55:43Z

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Their roles and responsibilities include:-

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

Dispute resolution and arbitration.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Government gives free publicity worth 40k to Twitter and Facebook

Akriti Bopanna — 2018-04-27T09:52:26Z

We conducted a 2 week survey of newspapers for links between government advertisement to social media giants. As citizens, we should be worried about the close nexus between the Indian government and digital behemoths such as Facebook, Google and Twitter. It has become apparent to us after a 2 week print media analysis that our Government has been providing free publicity worth Rs 40,000 to these entities. There are multiple issues with this as this article attempts at pointing out.

We analyzed 5 English language newspapers daily for 2 weeks from March 12^th to 26^th, one week of the newspapers in Lucknow and the second week in Bangalore. Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and Alphabet backed services such as Youtube and Google Plus were part of our survey. Of a total of 33 advertisements (14 in Lucknow+19 in Bangalore), Twitter stands out as the most prominent advertising platform used by government agencies with 30 ads but Facebook at 29 was more expensive. In order to ascertain the rates of publicity, current advertisement rates for Times of India as our purpose was to solely give a rough estimation of how much the government is spending.

Advertising of this nature is not merely an inherent problem of favoring some social media companies over others but also symptomatic of a bigger problem, the lack of our native e-governance mechanisms which cause the Government to rely and promote others. Where we do have guidelines they are not being followed. By outsourcing their e-governance platforms to Twitter such as TwitterSeva, a feature created by the Twitter India team to help citizens connect better with government services, there is less of an impetus to construct better websites of their own.

If this is so because we currently do not have the capacity to build them ourselves then it is imperative that this changes. We should either be executing government functions on digital infrastructure owned by them or on open and interoperable systems. If anything, the surveyed social media platforms can be used to enhance pre-existing facilities. However, currently the converse is true with these platforms overshadowing the presence of e-governance websites. Officials have started responding to complaints on Twitter, diluting the significance of such complaint mechanisms on their respective department’s portal. Often enough such features are not available on the relevant government website. This sets a dangerous precedent for a citizen management system as the records of such interactions are then in the hands of these companies who may not exist in the future. As a result, they can control the access to such records or worse tamper with them. Posterity and reliability of such data can be ensured only if they are stored within the Government’s reach or if they are open and public with a first copy stored on Government records which ensures transparency as well. Data portability is an important facet to this issue as well as being a right consumers should possess. It provides for support of many devices, transition to alternative technologies and lastly, makes sure that all the data like other public records will be available upon request through the Right to Information procedure. The last is vital to uphold the spirit of transparency envisioned through the RTI process since interactions of government with citizens are then under its ambit and available for disclosure for whomsoever concerned.

Secondly, such practices by the Government are enhancing the monopoly of the companies in the market effectively discouraging competition and eventually, innovation. While a certain elite strata of the population might opt for Twitter or Facebook as their mode of conveying grievance, this may not hold true for the rest of the online India population.

Picking players in a free market is in violation of technology and vendor neutrality, a practice essential in e-governance to provide a level playing field for all and competing technologies. Projecting only a few platforms as de facto mediums of communication with the government inhibits the freedom of choice of citizens to air their grievances through a vendor or technology they are comfortable with. At the same time it makes the Government a mouthpiece for such companies who are gaining free publicity and consolidating their popularity. Government apps such as the SwachBharat one which is an e-governance platform do not offer much more in terms of functionality but either reflect the website or are a less mature version of the same. This leads to the problem of fracturing with many avenues of complaining such as the website, app, Twitter etc. Consequently, the priority of the people dealing with the complaints in terms of platform of response is unsure. Will I be responded to sooner if I tweet a complaint as opposed to putting it up on the app? Having an interoperable system can solve this where the Government can have a dashboard of their various complaints and responses are then made out evenly. Twitter itself could implement this by having complaints from Facebook for example and then the Twitter Seva would be an equal platform as opposed to the current issue where only they are favored.

Recent events have illustrated how detrimental the storage of data by these giants can be in terms of privacy. Data security concerns are also a consequence of such leaks. Not only is this a long overdue call for a better data protection law but at the same time also for the Government to realize that these platforms cannot be trusted. The hiring of Cambridge Analytica to influence voters in the US elections, based on their Facebook profiles and ancillary data, effectively put the governance of the country on sale by exploiting these privacy and security issues. By basing e-governance on their backbone, India is not far from inviting trouble as well. It is unnecessary and dangerous to have a go-between for matters that pertain between an individual and state.

As this article was being written, it was confirmed by the Election Commission that they are partnering with Facebook for the Karnataka Assemby Elections to promote activities such as encourage enrollment of Voter ID and voter participation. Initiatives like these tying the government even closer to these companies are of concern and cementing the latter’s stronghold.

Note: Our survey data and results are attached to this post. All research was collected by Shradha Nigam, a Vth year student at NLSIU, Bangalore.

Survey Data and Results

This report is based on a survey of government advertisements in English language newspapers in relation to their use of social media platforms and dedicated websites (“Survey”). For the purpose of this report, the ambit of the social media platforms has been limited to the use of Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Google Plus and Instagram. The report was prepared by Shradha Nigam, a student from National Law School of India University, Bangalore. Read the full report here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/government-giving-free-publicity-worth-40-k-to-twitter-and-facebook

Government blocks over 60 websites including github & sourceforge on anti-terror advisory

praskrishna — 2015-01-02T14:22:58Z

Over 60 websites and links, including popular online tools like Github and Sourceforge used by thousands of programmers have been blocked in India, triggering angry protests by Internet users.

The article by P.K. Jayadevan and Neha Alawadhi was published in the Economic Times on December 31, 2014. Pranesh Prakash gave his inputs.

The websites were blocked for hosting content that is pro terrorist group ISIS and not cooperating with government investigations, officials said.

Arvind Gupta, the head of IT Cell, BJP Tweeted: "The websites that have been blocked were based on an advisory by Anti Terrorism Squad, and were carrying Anti India content from ISIS. The sites that have removed objectionable content and/or cooperated with the on going investigations, are being unblocked."

Based on an order issued by the country's telecom department, in a letter dated December 17 and a subsequent letter on December 19, over 60 websites have been blocked by various internet service providers in the country.

While some internet service providers are yet to block these websites, many users have been reporting frequent outages in these web services over the last two weeks.

Websites like Pastebin don't host any content but are a platform for users to paste text. Popular video networks like Vimeo and Dailymotion are among the websites that have been blocked.

Officials from the department of Information Technology and the department of telecom were not available for comment. "These are all providing very dangerous kind of cut and paste services..You can take code, cut it, paste it, remove it, delete it," said one government official who requested anonymity.

The government has invoked section 69A of the Information technology Act (2000) and Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules ("Blocking Rules") to ban these websites.

Many websites have been blocked in India from time to time on various grounds. In September, following the Muzaffarnagar riots, over 80 websites and links on social media were blocked.

However, the inclusion of services like Github and Sourceforge that host code for open source software are causing much anger among the developer community. "Sometimes they might need to block specific URLs, but blocking the entire website is wrong or they haven't thought through it," said Thejesh GN, the co-founder of Datameet and an open source developer.

"There is also a lack of transparency where people don't get to know why their sites were blocked," he added.

"We're aware of reports of connectivity issues in India. We're looking into it, and will update with more information when we have it," a Github spokesperson said.

In June 2014, the Delhi High Court ordered a block of 472 file sharing websites including Google Docs and Pirate Bay following a complaint filed by Sony Entertainment. The entertainment company was hacked and contents from its servers were shared by hackers on various file sharing websites. In earlier instances, many websites have been blocked for copyright infringement as well.

"Courts unfortunately are not exercising restraint and are indulging ignorant copyright lawyers," said Pranesh Prakash, Policy Director at the Centre for Internet and Society. Prakash said that most of the sites on the list don't host copyrighted material themselves and a case can not be made against them.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/economic-times-december-31-2014-jayadevan-neha-alawadhi-december-31-2014-govt-blocks-over-60-websites

Governance in the Age of the Internet and Free Trade Agreements

praskrishna — 2013-07-03T05:04:39Z

Sunil Abraham was a speaker at this event organized by Thai Netizen Network on June 8, 2013 at Queen Sirikit National Convention Center. The Ministry of Information and Communication and the National Science and Technology Development Agency were co-hosts for the event.

Click to read the details of the event published on Internet Society website

In the age of accelerated international trade and the promotion of free flowing cross-border data transactions, countries and regions are working towards forming a commonly agreed modus operandi and protocols. These protocols seek to facilitate the growth of e-trade, ensure a secure data flow(economic transactions) and protection of its data in the network. In the recent, there has been strong attention by consumers and businesses with the growing scope and content of these agreements addressing Intellectual Property (IP). Emerging trend studies show that there is a growing practices to incorporate mutually exclusive arrangements without involving other stakeholders which happens in closed door negotiations i.e. government to government.

For instance, the European’s Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) proposal and the U.S. Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP).

The bigger concern raised by other stakeholders has been the secrecy of these arrangements and the insufficient protection of consumers and citizens rights in its consideration. So far, the lack of legitimacy and proportionality of legal policy measures has created unintended consequences and collateral damages in far reaching manners whether socially, economically or technologically. Citing practices of filtering technology, deep packet inspection, and Internet cut-off, are introduced by internet service providers to meet legal requirements. Activities in question may vary from country to country, some focus on violations of intellectual property, some on the control of political voices.

Notably, list of concerns have been raised explicitly by UN Special Rapporteur to adhere to the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression were recommended.

This workshop is aim to create discussion on the related topics among stakeholders both in Thailand and in the region of the direct and indirect implications of various developments.

Target: Regulators, consumer rights, human rights activities, Lawyers

Expected Outcomes

Understanding the dynamics of free trade agreements (i.e. APEC, TPP, and ACTA) and its implications on Internet regulations, national sovereignty, and civil rights from various perspectives. (Big picture)
Basic understanding of how various policy and technology related measures or solutions (i.e. digital rights management technology and deep-packet inspection) are used to address Intellectual Property (IP) and how it directly impacts freedom of expression and individual privacy.
Looking Ahead: The developments and upcoming legislations/regulation challenges in both Thailand and the region i.e. new draft of Computer-related Crime Act, new draft of Copyright Act, and the Personal Data Protection Bill.

Panelists

Sunil Abraham, Executive Director, Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore
Konstantinos Komaitis, Policy Advisor, Internet Society, Geneva
Nakorn Serirak, Policy Advisor, Thai Netizen Network, Bangkok
Sawatree Suksri, Lecturer, Faculty of Law, Thammasat University, Bangkok
Lokman Tsui, Policy Advisor, Google Asia Pacific, Hong Kong

Moderator

Mike Hayes, Chair, International MA Program in Human Rights, Mahidol University

Click the PDFs below to download the full details and the presentation:

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/inet-bangkok-june-8-2013-governance-in-the-age-of-internet-and-fta

Governance in the age of internet and fta

praskrishna — 2013-07-03T05:00:20Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/governance-in-the-age-of-internet-and-fta.pdf

Google's Optical Character Recognition Software Now Works with All South Asian Languages

subha — 2015-09-26T14:31:15Z

The Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software by Google now works for more than 248 world languages, including all the major South Asian languages, and it's easy to use and works with over 90 percent accuracy for most languages.

This was published by Global Voices on August 29, 2015.

OCR software has been extremely beneficial for the study of language, helping to extract text from images of virtually any printed text—and sometimes even handwriting, which opens the door to old texts, manuscripts, and more.

Ketan Pratap at NDTV Gadgets writes:

Users can start using the OCR capabilities in Drive by uploading scanned document in PDF or image form after which they can right-click on the document in Drive to open with Google Docs. After choosing the option, a document with the original image alongside extracted text opens, which can be edited. Google notes that users will not be required to specify the language of the document as the OCR in Drive will automatically determine it. The OCR capability in Google Drive is also available in Drive for Android.

On Twitter, many users have welcomed and even celebrated this new feature from Google:

Optical Character Recognition #OCR in Google Drive recongnizes many indic languages including #Kannada give it a try http://t.co/99UkCJQ6gb

— Omshivaprakash (@omshivaprakash) August 28, 2015

@shylobisnett if you have access to a scanner, you can do OCR through google drive. works a bit faster.

— Whet Moser (@whet) August 27, 2015

Wow. Searching Google Drive for a keyword also returns results for images containing that keyword in the image. Didn't realise it did OCR.

— Mark Osborne (@mosborne01) August 25, 2015

Typically OCR software has difficulty reading the text on old documents or pages with blemishes and ink marks, spitting out gibberish instead of legible text.

Google's support page on this project shares additional details about character formatting, like its ability to preserve bold and italicized fonts in the output text:

When processing your document, we attempt to preserve basic text formatting such as bold and italic text, font size and type, and line breaks. However, detecting these elements is difficult and we may not always succeed. Other text formatting and structuring elements such as bulleted and numbered lists, tables, text columns, and footnotes or endnotes are likely to get lost.

For some of the languages, like Malayalam and Tamil, the OCR works with almost 100 percent accuracy, and includes support for formatting things like like auto-cropping, separating text by discarding images, and ignoring color backgrounds, explains Tamil user and Wikimedian Ravishankar Ayyakkannu on Facebook:

[…] Google Tamil OCR works with 100% accuracy ! Keep testing with various samples and comment here. Performance has been the same for many other Indic languages too. […] Auto crops, discards images and colored background. Recognizes different layouts. I could find only 1 mistake in whole page. Testing latest Vikatan – https://docs.google.com/…/1OXre4…/edit.. […]

(Bangla, Malayalam, Kannada, Odia, Tamil, and Telugu-language users have commented in the same post with feedback after testing the updated OCR software. For a few scripts, like Gurmukhi (used to write Punjabi), it turns out that the output after OCR is quite poor, resulting largely in gibberish, when testing a screenshot image from Punjabi Wikipedia.)


Issues with Gurmukhi script after OCR using Google's OCR. Screenshot from Punjabi Wikipedia.

This is quite a large leap for the languages with lots of old texts that are not yet digitized. Old and valuable texts in many languages could now be digitized and shared over the internet using platforms like Wikisource and could be preserved and made available for sharing knowledge.

Google's OCR partly uses Tesseract—an OCR engine released as freeware. Developed as a community project between 1995 and 2006 (and later taken over by Google), Tesseract is considered to be one of the world's most accurate OCR engines and works for over 60 languages. The source code is now hosted at https://github.com/tesseract-ocr. Check this link for the OCR outputs in various South Asian scripts.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/googles-optical-character-recognition-software-now-works-with-all-south-asian-languages

Google Policy Fellowship Programme: Call for Applications

praskrishna — 2012-05-24T15:38:28Z

The Centre for Internet & Society (CIS) is inviting applications for the Google Policy Fellowship programme. Google is providing a USD 7,500 stipend to the India Fellow, who will be selected by August 15, 2012.

The Google Policy Fellowship offers successful candidates an opportunity to develop research and debate on the fellowship focus areas, which include Access to Knowledge, Openness in India, Freedom of Expression, Privacy, and Telecom, for a period of about ten weeks starting from August 2012 upto October 2012. CIS will select the India Fellow. Send in your applications for the position by June 27, 2012.

To apply, please send to google.fellowship@cis-india.org the following materials:

Statement of Purpose: A brief write-up outlining about your interest and qualifications for the programme including the relevant academic, professional and extracurricular experiences. As part of the write-up, also explain on what you hope to gain from participation in the programme and what research work concerning free expression online you would like to further through this programme. (About 1200 words max).
Resume
Three references

Fellowship Focus Areas

Access to Knowledge: Studies looking at access to knowledge issues in India in light of copyright law, consumers law, parallel imports and the interplay between pervasive technologies and intellectual property rights, targeted at policymakers, Members of Parliament, publishers, photographers, filmmakers, etc.
Openness in India: Studies with policy recommendations on open access to scholarly literature, free access to law, open content, open standards, free and open source software, aimed at policymakers, policy researchers, academics and the general public.
Freedom of Expression: Studies on policy, regulatory and legislative issues concerning censorship and freedom of speech and expression online, aimed at bloggers, journalists, authors and the general public.
Privacy: Studies on privacy issues like data protection and the right to information, limits to privacy in light of the provisions of the constitution, media norms and privacy, banking and financial privacy, workplace privacy, privacy and wire-tapping, e-governance and privacy, medical privacy, consumer privacy, etc., aimed at policymakers and the public.
Telecom: Building awareness and capacity on telecommunication policy in India for researchers and academicians, policymakers and regulators, consumer and civil society organisations, education and library institutions and lay persons through the creation of a dedicated web based resource focusing on knowledge dissemination.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the Google Policy Fellowship program?
The Google Policy Fellowship program offers students interested in Internet and technology related policy issues with an opportunity to spend their summer working on these issues at the Centre for Internet and Society at Bangalore. Students will work for a period of ten weeks starting from July 2012. The research agenda for the program is based on legal and policy frameworks in the region connected to the ground-level perceptions of the fellowship focus areas mentioned above.

I am an International student can I apply and participate in the program? Are there any age restrictions on participating?
Yes. You must be 18 years of age or older by January 1, 2012 to be eligible to participate in Google Policy Fellowship program in 2012.

Are there citizenship requirements for the Fellowship?
For the time being, we are only accepting students eligible to work in India (e.g. Indian citizens, permanent residents of India, and individuals presently holding an Indian student visa. Google cannot provide guidance or assistance on obtaining the necessary documentation to meet the criteria.

Who is eligible to participate as a student in Google Policy Fellowship program?
In order to participate in the program, you must be a student. Google defines a student as an individual enrolled in or accepted into an accredited institution including (but not necessarily limited to) colleges, universities, masters programs, PhD programs and undergraduate programs. Eligibility is based on enrollment in an accredited university by January 1, 2012.

I am an International student can I apply and participate in the program?
In order to participate in the program, you must be a student (see Google's definition of a student above). You must also be eligible to work in India (see section on citizen requirements for fellowship above). Google cannot provide guidance or assistance on obtaining the necessary documentation to meet this criterion.
I have been accepted into an accredited post-secondary school program, but have not yet begun attending. Can I still take part in the program?
As long as you are enrolled in a college or university program as of January 1, 2012, you are eligible to participate in the program.
I graduate in the middle of the program. Can I still participate?
As long as you are enrolled in a college or university program as of January 1, 2012, you are eligible to participate in the program.

Payments, Forms, and Other Administrative Stuff

How do payments work?*

Google will provide a stipend of USD 7,500 equivalent to each Fellow for the summer.

Accepted students in good standing with their host organization will receive a USD 2,500 stipend payable shortly after they begin the Fellowship in August 2012.
Students who receive passing mid-term evaluations by their host organization will receive a USD 1,500 stipend shortly after the mid-term evaluation in September 2012.
Students who receive passing final evaluations by their host organization and who have submitted their final program evaluations will receive a USD 3,500 stipend shortly after final evaluations in October 2012.

Please note: Payments will be made by electronic bank transfer, and are contingent upon satisfactory evaluations by the host organization, completion of all required enrollment and other forms. Fellows are responsible for payment of any taxes associated with their receipt of the Fellowship stipend.

*While the three step payment structure given here corresponds to the one in the United States, disbursement of the amount may be altered as felt necessary.

What documentation is required from students?

Students should be prepared, upon request, to provide Google or the host organization with transcripts from their accredited institution as proof of enrollment or admission status. Transcripts do not need to be official (photo copy of original will be sufficient).

I would like to use the work I did for my Google Policy Fellowship to obtain course credit from my university. Is this acceptable?

Yes. If you need documentation from Google to provide to your school for course credit, you can contact Google. We will not provide documentation until we have received a final evaluation from your mentoring organization.

Host Organizations

What is Google's relationship with the Centre for Internet and Society?

Google provides the funding and administrative support for individual fellows directly. Google and the Centre for Internet and Society are not partners or affiliates. The Centre for Internet and Society does not represent the views or opinions of Google and cannot bind Google legally.

Important Dates

What is the program timeline?

June 27, 2012	Student Application Deadline. Applications must be received by midnight.
July 18, 2012	Student applicants are notified of the status of their applications.
August 2012	Students begin their fellowship with the host organization (start date to be determined by students and the host organization); Google issues initial student stipends.
September 2012	Mid-term evaluations; Google issues mid-term stipends.
October 2012	Final evaluations; Google issues final stipends.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/google-policy-fellowship

Google Policy Fellowship Programme: Call for Applications

praskrishna — 2013-05-17T01:01:47Z

The Google Policy Fellowship offers successful candidates an opportunity to develop research and debate on the fellowship focus areas, which include Access to Knowledge, Openness in India, Freedom of Expression, Privacy, and Telecom, for a period of about ten weeks starting from July 7, 2013 upto October 1, 2013. CIS will select the India Fellow. Send in your applications for the position by June 15, 2013.

To apply, please send to google.fellowship@cis-india.org the following materials:

Statement of Purpose: A brief write-up outlining about your interest and qualifications for the programme including the relevant academic, professional and extracurricular experiences. As part of the write-up, also explain on what you hope to gain from participation in the programme and what research work concerning free expression online you would like to further through this programme. (About 1200 words max).
Resume
Three references

Fellowship Focus Areas

Access to Knowledge: Studies looking at access to knowledge issues in India in light of copyright law, consumers law, parallel imports and the interplay between pervasive technologies and intellectual property rights, targeted at policymakers, Members of Parliament, publishers, photographers, filmmakers, etc.

Openness in India: Studies with policy recommendations on open access to scholarly literature, free access to law, open content, open standards, free and open source software, aimed at policymakers, policy researchers, academics and the general public.

Freedom of Expression: Studies on policy, regulatory and legislative issues concerning censorship and freedom of speech and expression online, aimed at bloggers, journalists, authors and the general public.

Privacy: Studies on privacy issues like data protection and the right to information, limits to privacy in light of the provisions of the constitution, media norms and privacy, banking and financial privacy, workplace privacy, privacy and wire-tapping, e-governance and privacy, medical privacy, consumer privacy, etc., aimed at policymakers and the public.

Telecom: Building awareness and capacity on telecommunication policy in India for researchers and academicians, policymakers and regulators, consumer and civil society organisations, education and library institutions and lay persons through the creation of a dedicated web based resource focusing on knowledge dissemination.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the Google Policy Fellowship program?

The Google Policy Fellowship program offers students interested in Internet and technology related policy issues with an opportunity to spend their summer working on these issues at the Centre for Internet and Society at Bangalore. Students will work for a period of ten weeks starting from June 1, 2013. The research agenda for the program is based on legal and policy frameworks in the region connected to the ground-level perceptions of the fellowship focus areas mentioned above.

I am an International student can I apply and participate in the program? Are there any age restrictions on participating?

Yes. You must be 18 years of age or older by January 1, 2013 to be eligible to participate in Google Policy Fellowship program in 2013.

Are there citizenship requirements for the Fellowship?

For the time being, we are only accepting students eligible to work in India (e.g. Indian citizens, permanent residents of India, and individuals presently holding an Indian student visa. Google cannot provide guidance or assistance on obtaining the necessary documentation to meet the criteria.

Who is eligible to participate as a student in Google Policy Fellowship program?

In order to participate in the program, you must be a student. Google defines a student as an individual enrolled in or accepted into an accredited institution including (but not necessarily limited to) colleges, universities, masters programs, PhD programs and undergraduate programs. Eligibility is based on enrollment in an accredited university by January 1, 2013.

I am an International student can I apply and participate in the program?

In order to participate in the program, you must be a student (see Google's definition of a student above). You must also be eligible to work in India (see section on citizen requirements for fellowship above). Google cannot provide guidance or assistance on obtaining the necessary documentation to meet this criterion.
I have been accepted into an accredited post-secondary school program, but have not yet begun attending. Can I still take part in the program?

As long as you are enrolled in a college or university program as of January 1, 2013, you are eligible to participate in the program.
I graduate in the middle of the program. Can I still participate?

As long as you are enrolled in a college or university program as of January 1, 2013, you are eligible to participate in the program.

Payments, Forms, and Other Administrative Stuff

How do payments work?

Google will provide a stipend of USD 7,500 equivalent to each Fellow for the summer.

Accepted students in good standing with their host organization will receive a USD 2,500 stipend payable shortly after they begin the Fellowship in June 2013.
Students who receive passing mid-term evaluations by their host organization will receive a USD 1,500 stipend shortly after the mid-term evaluation in July 2013.
Students who receive passing final evaluations by their host organization and who have submitted their final program evaluations will receive a USD 3,500 stipend shortly after final evaluations in August 2013.

*While the three step payment structure given here corresponds to the one in the United States, disbursement of the amount may be altered as felt necessary.

What documentation is required from students?

I would like to use the work I did for my Google Policy Fellowship to obtain course credit from my university. Is this acceptable?

Host Organizations

What is Google's relationship with the Centre for Internet and Society?

Important Dates

What is the program timeline?

June 15, 2013	Student Application Deadline. Applications must be received by midnight.
July 1, 2013	Student applicants are notified of the status of their applications.
July 2013	Students begin their fellowship with the host organization (start date to be determined by students and the host organization); Google issues initial student stipends.
August 2013	Mid-term evaluations; Google issues mid-term stipends.
October 2013	Final evaluations; Google issues final stipends.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/google-policy-fellowship-call-for-applications-2013

Google Gives Wikimedia Millions—Plus Machine Learning Tools

Admin — 2019-02-02T12:52:37Z

Google is pouring an additional $3.1 million into Wikipedia, bringing its total contribution to the free encyclopedia over the past decade to more than $7.5 million, the company announced at the World Economic Forum Tuesday.

The article was published by WIRED on January 22, 2019.

A little over a third of those funds will go toward sustaining current efforts at the Wikimedia Foundation, the nonprofit that runs Wikipedia, and the remaining $2 million will focus on long-term viability through the organization’s endowment.

Google will also begin allowing Wikipedia editors to use several of its machine learning tools for free, the tech giant said. What's more, Wikimedia and Google will soon broaden Project Tiger, a joint initiative they launched in 2017 to increase the number of Wikipedia articles written in underrepresented languages in India, and to include 10 new languages in a handful of countries and regions. It will now be called GLOW, Growing Local Language Content on Wikipedia.

It’s certainly positive that Google is investing more in Wikipedia, one of the most popular and generally trustworthy online resources in the world. But the decision isn’t altruistic: Supporting Wikipedia is also a shrewd business decision that will likely benefit Google for years to come. Like other tech companies, including Amazon, Apple, and Facebook, Google already uses Wikipedia content in a number of its own products. When you search Google for “Paris,” a “knowledge panel” of information about the city will appear, some of which is sourced from Wikipedia. The company also has used Wikipedia articles to train machine learning algorithms, as well as fight misinformation on YouTube.

Even efforts like GLOW—which will now expand to Indonesia, Mexico, and Nigeria, as well as the Middle East and North Africa—can help Google’s own bottom line. When the initiative first launched in India, Google provided Chromebooks and internet access to editors, while the Centre for Internet and Society and the Wikimedia India Chapter organized a three-month article writing competition that resulted in nearly 4,500 new Wikipedia articles in 12 different Indic languages. Smartphone penetration in India is only around 27 percent; as more people in the country start using Android smartphones and Google Search, those articles will make the tech giant’s products more useful. Wikipedia’s blog post announcing Google’s new investment makes this strategy fairly clear, noting that the company also provided Project Tiger with “insights into popular search topics on Google for which no or limited local language content exists on Wikipedia.”

Google is also providing Wikipedia free access to its Custom Search API and its Cloud Vision API, which will help the encyclopedia’s volunteer editors more easily cite the facts they use. Each time a Wikipedia editor adds a new piece of information to an article, they need to cite the source where they learned it. The Search API will allow them quickly look up sources on the web without having to leave Wikipedia, while the vision tool will let editors automatically digitize books so they can be used to support Wikipedia articles too. Earlier this month, Wikimedia also announced Google Translate was coming to Wikipedia, allowing editors to convert content into 15 additional languages, bringing the total available to 121.

These machine learning tools will absolutely make it easier for Wikipedia to reach people who speak languages currently underrepresented on the web. But the encyclopedia is also the reason many AI programs exist in the first place. For example, Google-owned Jigsaw has used Wikipedia, in part, to train its open source troll-fighting AI. The encyclopedia is also used by hundreds of other AI platforms, particularly because every Wikipedia article is under Creative Commons—meaning it can be reproduced for free without copyright restrictions. Apple’s Siri and Amazon’s Alexa smart assistants use information from Wikipedia to answer questions, for instance. (Both companies also have donated to the Wikimedia Foundation as well.)

Google’s new investments in Wikipedia, specifically in GLOW, will address a genuine problem. The majority of Wikipedia’s tens of millions of articles are in English or European languages like French, German, and Russian. (There are also lots of articles in Swedish and two versions of Filipino, but most of these pages were created by a prolific bot). As the estimated half of Earth’s population that still lacks an internet connection comes online, it will be important that reliable information is available in the native languages people speak. That doesn’t mean, though, that in helping solve these issues companies like Google—or Facebook—don’t also have something to gain.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/wired-january-22-2019-google-wikipedia-machine-learning-glow-languages

Google aims to win 40% of India with Android One

praskrishna — 2014-09-12T05:50:23Z

When Google launches its low-cost Android One devices next Monday, Indian users will be able to give voice commands, type messages and use almost all major mobile applications in Hindi.

The article by Varun Aggarwal was published in the Economic Times on September 11, 2014. Sunil Abraham gave his inputs.

This is because the California, US based internet giant is hoping that the devices, which have been tailor-made for emerging markets, will help it capture the non-English speaking user base in the country.

Over 40 per cent of the population in India lists Hindi as its first language. Android One will come bundled with local language support and users will not have to download any external application to access their smartphone in Hindi, a person with knowledge of the development told ET.

"Google has been constantly working on developing more salience around Indic computing, providing regional language support to users for its various products and services," a Google spokesman said in an email. Internet users in India could increase by nearly a fourth if local language content is provided, according to a 2014 report from Internet and Mobile Association of India and IMRB International.

In rural India, 43 per cent said they would adopt the Internet if they had content in their local language. Local language consumption growth is estimated to be more than four times that of English, according to Google. The company is trying to take a lead over its competitors by taking advantage of this trend.

Google is working to create more Hindi content online through local partnerships and is expected to launch more products keeping the Indic audience in mind.

"So far different vendors were offering different ingredients of the Indian language meal and users were expected to cook it themselves," said Venkatesh Hariharan, founder of Alchemy Business Solutions, a company which works on Indic computing and technology for development.

"If Google offers a comprehensive experience that works out-of-the-box in Indian languages that could attract millions of new users." Indic computing has so far been limited to enthusiasts who had to download a keyboard from one site, a local language dictionary from another and fonts from a third.

"If we really want widespread adoption, then using a mobile phone in Indian languages should be as easy as using it in English," Hariharan said. This is what Google hopes to achieve by introducing devices in partnership with Indian handset makers Micromax, Spice and Karbonn, which will launch the Android One devices for Rs 5,000 to Rs 7,000 next week.

The availability of such devices will also help internet companies such as Facebook and Yahoo promote their products in Indian languages. Facebook currently supports 13 Indian languages. "We are focused on enabling all major Indic languages and on actively promoting them on various platforms," a Facebook spokesperson said.

On the other hand, Yahoo shifted its multilingual support from websites to only mobile apps. For instance, the Yahoo Mail mobile app supports eight Indian languages.

"We can confirm we recently closed down the Indian language sites to better focus on our core offerings," a Yahoo representative said. While experts welcomed Google's push towards Hindi, some want the technologies to be open source.

"Now you'll have some people who will specialise on building Indic computing tools on Google and others doing the same on some other platform," said Sunil Abraham, executive director of Bangalore based research organisation, The Centre for Internet and Society. "At least Google, which seems to have understood and taken advantage of free software, should give back to the free software movement."

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-economic-times-varun-aggarwal-september-11-2014-google-aims-to-win-india-with-android-one

Good Intentions, Recalcitrant Text – II: What India’s ITU Proposal May Mean for Internet Governance

geetha — 2014-11-03T07:07:16Z

The UN's International Telecommunications Union (ITU) is hosting its Plenipotentiary Conference (PP-14) this year in South Korea. At PP-14, India introduced a new draft resolution on ITU's Role in Realising Secure Information Society. The Draft Resolution has grave implications for human rights and Internet governance. Geetha Hariharan explores.

Disclaimer and update (2 November 2014): India's Draft Resolution was discussed during the meeting of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Internet-related Resolutions at the ITU Plenipot on the evening of November 1, 2014 (KST). After the discussion, India revised the text of the resolution, seeking to address concerns raised by ITU member states. The revised resolution may be found here. However, this blog post was written with reference to the original text of India's Draft Resolution.

***

As I mentioned in my last post, India’s Draft Resolution on ‘ITU’s Role in Realising Secure Information Society’ raises security and equity concerns. The Draft Resolution has 3 security concerns: (i) security weaknesses in the network architecture that permit “camouflaging the identity of the originator of the communication” and make “tracing of communication difficult”; (ii) non-systematic, non-contiguous allocation of naming, numbering and addressing resources on the Internet, which makes it difficult to identify both the users and what states the IP addresses are located in; (iii) non-local routing and address resolution relating to traffic originating and terminating in the same country. Op. §§1, 3-7 seek to address these. It also identifies the present system of allocation of naming, numbering and addressing resources as inequitable, unfair, unjust and undemocratic (Op. §2 of the Draft Resolution offers a solution). I discussed some human rights implications of India’s Draft Resolution in my last post.

In this post, I explore the implications of the Draft Resolution for Internet governance and multi-stakeholder approaches (most notably, an equal footing model).[1] Given the uncertainties around defining multi-stakeholderism for Internet governance, this is rather ambitious. So I will try to point to concerns with certain textual interpretations of the Draft Resolution, map that against the positions India’s representatives have taken on Internet governance in the past, and the motivations/concerns that underlie the tabling of the Draft Resolution. This Resolution may not be the best way to allay India's concerns, for there are technical and rights implications. But the concerns it raises are worth discussion and knowledge, and at forums where concerns are heard, acknowledged and discussed collectively. The text of the Draft Resolution and its attendant implications are not, then, the sole subjects of this post.

The Draft Resolution and Internet governance:

The text of the Draft Resolution is problematic. Many of its clauses may be seen as taking positions against multi-stakeholder approaches to Internet governance. Introducing such a resolution at the ITU may itself bring back memories of the controversies surrounding Resolution 3 of the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT), 2012.[2] In 3 ways, the text of the Draft Resolution has indications for multi-stakeholder approaches.

First, the Draft Resolution frames issues primarily from the perspective security. In its preamble, the Draft Resolution makes several references to security threats posed by and on the Internet. For instance, it points to the ability of the network to “camouflage the identity of the originator of the communication” (Pream. §(e) [recognizing]), as well as national security concerns in the present-day system of routing Internet traffic through multiple countries (Pream. §§(f) and (g), [recognizing]). The apparent difficulty in tracing IP addresses, due to their random allocation, is another concern (Pream. §(h), [recognizing]). Among the “significant public policy issues” identified in telecom/ICT management, “security and safety of the Telecom/ICTs” is specifically noted (Pream. §(i) [considering]). In the Context note to the Draft Resolution and in several places in the Preamble, there are references to ITU Resolution 130 (‘Strengthening the role of ITU in building confidence and security in the use of information and communication technologies’) and ITU’s Cyber-security Agenda. Given the (legitimate or otherwise) disproportionate involvement of governments and not other stakeholders in matters of cyber-security, the framing of issues from a security perspective may lend itself to worries for multi-stakeholderism. Specifically, the Draft Resolution notes: “ensuring security of ICT networks is sovereign right of Member States” (Pream. §(b) [recognizing]).

Second, the Draft Resolution emphasizes the sovereign right of states to regulate and control telecom/ICT. It says, for instance, “it is the sovereign right of each state to regulate its telecommunication” (Pream. §(b) [considering]). With regard to the Internet, the Context note to the Draft Resolution (page 1) considers the Internet to be synonymous with telecom/ICTs: “the Telecom/ICTs, which in common lexicon is used interchangeably many times as Internet…”. Public telecom networks managed by telecom service providers, interconnected with other networks, are necessary for “proper functioning of a telecom network resources namely, among others, naming, numbering and addressing” (Pream. §(k) [considering]). It is worth noting that the sovereign authority of states over Internet public policy issues is settled text from §35 of the Tunis Agenda, though expressing it as synonymous with telecom may lead to possibilities of licensing and registration, which Bulgaria, for instance, does not do.

Third, the Draft Resolution identifies issues of equity and fairness in the allocation of Internet resources such as naming, numbering and addressing (Pream. §(g) [consdering], Op. §2). It states that to correct this inequity, “facilitation and collaboration among international, inter-governmental organizations and individual member states to ensure planning, implementation, monitoring and cooperation in its policies” is required (Pream. §(g) [considering]). In operative paragaphs, our Draft Resolution calls for collaboration with “all the concerned stakeholders including International and intergovernmental organizations to develop policies for allocation, assignment and management of IP resources including naming, numbering and addressing which is systematic, equitable, fair, just, democratic and transparent” (Op. §2). One may pay attention to the oversight over implementation and the necessity of inter-governmental involvement in planning and monitoring as problematic to iterations of multi-stakeholderism.

These concerns are valid and legitimate, and it is desirable that the text of the resolution be altered to address them. The text should also be altered to address the human rights concerns I point out in my previous post. But human rights enforcement or implementation is within the domain of states, though civil society may be a careful watchdog. The Draft Resolution's text, most certainly, will face certain oppositions: for instance, that it is outside the scope and mandate of the ITU. That the ITU does not deal with content regulation – and this issue touches upon content – will be mentioned. That Internet governance is already being discussed and performed in multiple other multi-stakeholder fora, such as ICANN, the NRO and RIRs, IGF and WSIS, will be emphasized. That the Draft Resolution implicates national security concerns will be mentioned as well. But as an aside, on national security: under international law, states always mention their prerogative over national security, and so as a matter of international custom, national security is outside the scope of agreements unless expressly surrendered.

At the same time, debates around the role of ITU in Internet governance are not new, and those familiar will remember the ITU’s views right before the creation of ICANN (also see Mueller, Ruling the Root 145-48 (2002)), Resolution 3 of the WCIT, and the constant tug-of-war since then. The new Secretary-General of the ITU, Mr. Houlin Zhao, wrote a note in October 2004, before the Tunis phase of the WSIS, justifying ITU’s involvement in Internet governance, advocating that IPv6 address blocks be allocated to countries. Mr. Zhao describes, with specific examples, ITU's role in the development and widespread growth of the Internet. He takes the examples of standards developed within the ITU and ITU's policy role in liberalisation and spread of telecommunications (such as Articles 4 & 9 of the 1988 ITRs).

Mr. Zhao’s concrete proposals are rendered inapplicable by the creation of the NRO and RIRs, and the growth and entrenchment of ICANN. But it may be argued that his principled justifications for ITU involvement remain. It is these that India hopes to highlight, I was told, along with the inequities in resource allocation (IPv4 was spoken of), and the disproportionate weight some states enjoy in Internet governance. Her concerns are, I am told, also shared by some other states. Given that the text exhibits a less-than-friendly approach to multi-stakeholderism, India's previous positions on the issue are of interest. While this would not correct the snags in the Draft Resolution's text, allaying these concerns may be ideal to craft an inclusive and transparent multi-stakeholder model for Internet governance.

India and Multi-stakeholderism in Internet Governance:

India’s position on multi-stakeholder models for Internet governance is a matter of some obscurity. Statements at various forums exhibit a certain disagreement – or at the least, lack of engagement – among India’s ministries on our position on multi-stakeholder approaches, particularly the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA), the Department of Telecommunications (DOT) and the Department of Electronics and Information Technology (DeitY), both within the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology (MCIT). While both the MEA and DOT have been cautious supporters of a diluted form of multi-stakeholderism (they have repeatedly emphasized §35 of the Tunis Agenda), DeitY has been more open in entertaining multi-stakeholder approaches for Internet governance.

At the 66^th session of UN General Assembly, Mr. Dushyant Singh, Member of India’s Parliament from the Bharatiya Janata Party, presented our proposal for a Committee on Internet-related Policies. The proposal sought the establishment of a UN committee comprising 50 member-states, with advisory groups including the private sector and civil society, to deal with Internet-related matters.[3] Though India was not opposed to multi-stakeholder advisories in its CIRP proposal, it was less than inviting in this regard.

At NETmundial (April 2014), the Indian government’s contribution document highlighted §35 of the Tunis Agenda, which delineates ‘roles and responsibilities’ of ‘respective stakeholders’ – i.e., governments (with whom reside “sovereign policy authority”), the private sector (technical and economic development of the Internet) and civil society (grassroots participation). At NETmundial, Mr. Vinay Kwatra of the MEA echoed this, also noting the lack of consensus on what multi-stakeholderism means for Internet governance (page 64).

Admittedly, this is a legitimate concern. Internet governance at various fora does not seem to have a clear answer on what multi-stakeholderism means. The debate was/is alive, for instance, at NETmundial 2014, the ICANN-convened IANA transition process, the World Economic Forum’s new NETmundial Initiative, and in the many calls and suggestions (pages 38-46) made over the years on strengthening the IGF (see also, Malcolm, Multi-stakeholder Governance and the IGF (2008), chapter 6). It is hardly surprising then, that India and other states raise this as a concern.

With regard to multi-stakeholderism, the DeitY in India has been the outlier. Speaking at the 2014 IGF in Istanbul, Mr. R.S. Sharma, Secretary (DeitY), expressed “no doubt that Internet Governance mechanism require the involvement of all the stakeholders, since the evolution of Internet has been a product of many different diverse groups working together in a loosely coordinated manner”, advocating strengthening of the IGF and pointing to India’s proposed India-IGF as an example of multi-stakeholderism at home. Most interestingly, Mr. Sharma did not focus on international Internet-related policies being the “sovereign policy authority of states”. Also in the transcripts of the four meetings of the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation under the Committee for Science, Technology and Development (CSTD), I have been unable to find outright rejections of multi-stakeholder approaches, though India has not advocated multi-stakeholderism unequivocally either.

But this – the emphasis on “sovereign policy authority of states” in Internet governance – has been a consistent position for India, especially the MEA and DOT. Here at the ITU PP-14 as well, members of the Indian delegation also emphasized states’ sovereign monopoly over policy matters. “Why not take this to the ITU”, I was asked, as “many governments are uncomfortable” with the way Internet governance is being conducted at other fora. There are grave concerns, I was told, about the possibility of excessive control some governments have over both user and government data of other states (government-speak, of course, for the Snowden revelations).

These are, of course, concerns similar to those of authoritarian governments, or those reluctant to open up to multi-stakeholderism and looking for excuses to retain/increase government control. But it is equally possible that these concerns need not be limited only to such states. Perhaps for developing countries as well, these are real concerns. In conversation with members of the Indian delegation at the ITU Plenipot, I was able to discern 3 broad concerns. First, the definition of multi-stakeholderism in Internet governance. India has not shown herself comfortable with an all-out endorsement of multi-stakeholderism. This is troubling. Civil society and the private sector in India will attest to the difficulties in engaging with our government at all levels. For instance, seeking a place on India's delegation for the Plenipot proved a disheartening exercise for some members of India's civil society.

But there are also conflicting indications. India is in the process of instituting an India-IGF, and CIS' Executive Director, Sunil Abraham, is on the MAG. India expressed agreement, at least in informal conversation, to opening up ITU documents to the public on grounds of public interest. The Law Commission of India recently conducted a multi-stakeholder consultation on media laws in India, and Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) regularly conducts consultations, though the private sector is more active there. What is lacking in India, however, is a set of clear procedures and processes for multi-stakeholder engagement, particularly on Internet issues. Clear, public, accessible, foreseeable and predictable set of rules or processes on participation from civil society, private sector and academia would make a world of difference to multi-stakeholderism within India. But this lack should not blind states or other stakeholders to the genuineness of privacy/security or equity concerns - for instance, of the protection of our information from mass surveillance or the feasibility and actual participation of developing countries at many Internet governance fora.

Second, members of the delegation expressed concern over inequalities in the allocation of naming, numbering and addressing resources. While I am uncertain how IPv6 allocation falls within this concern, the inequalities of IPv4 allocations are well documented. To gather a sense of this, it would be useful to read chapter 5 of Professor DeNardis’ Protocol Politics, and to glance at Figure 5.7 (page 173). Africa controls, for instance, a mere 1% of all available IPv4 addresses, while North America and Europe control about 63%. A study on engagement from the Asia-Pacific in Internet standards organisations shows, for instance, greater participation from Western countries and from some states like Japan.[4] India and other states from Asia and Africa have lesser participation. Even at ICANN, with efforts to increase participation, meaningful engagement is still from a majority of Western countries. Perhaps states and other stakeholders on the other side of the table can address these concerns through clear, inclusive, non-discriminatory commitments and implementation.

Third, India emphasized how the Draft Resolution does not propose that ITU be involved in content management or resources control, but only seeks to systematize allocation by asking the ITU Secretary General to collaborate and coordinate with other Internet governance organisations to create a set of principles for fair, equitable, transparent and democratic - as well as secure - allocation of resources. ITU Resolution 101 already instructs the Secretary General to collaborate with relevant Internet governance organisations, and the Draft Resolution merely seeks to spell out his tasks. However, as I pointed out in my previous post, the text of the Draft Resolution is at odds with this intention of India's. By dint of its drafting, it gravely implicates human rights, as well as touching upon resource allocation oversight ("needs to be adhere to" in Op. §2). To reflect the above stated intention, the Draft Resolution would need to be redrafted.

Finally, the text of the Draft Resolution exhibits, unfortunately, a certain disregard for existing network architecture and efficiency within the Internet, and to the principles of a free, open and inter-operable and unified Internet, when it seeks to develop a network architecture that facilitates (domestic) localization of traffic-routing, address resolution and allocation of naming, numbering and addressing. An argument may, of course, be made in favour of efficiency and costs, including reduced latency. But it is clear that this has the potential to increase domestic surveillance capabilities and government censorship of content. In any case, traffic localization (if not local address resolution) can be achieved without ITU coordination: through Internet Exchange Points, and through more efficient and better-negotiated peering and transit arrangements (pages 14-17). Internationally coordinated rules for localized traffic routing is not necessary; you just need to have a more efficient Internet Exchange Point. How to get more ISPs to interconnect through India’s National Internet Exchange (NIXI) is one of the very questions that India’s Telecom Regulatory Authority has taken up in its recent consultation on expanding broadband access (page 49). So it is possible that India's concerns could be addressed without ITU involvement, though I am unsure of its impact on the global Internet.

The Draft Resolution will be discussed at the ITU Plenipot today. The discussion will allow India and sympathetic countries to raise several of their concerns relating to the present system of Internet governance, and the direction of its progress. I will report on these discussions upon their completion.

A Note on Limitations:

The aim of this post is to clarify. I would caution against its being the last word on anything, much less India’s positions on Internet governance. An issue as important as this needs far greater access to and confirmation from India’s government – and a more in-depth understanding of the politics – than I do, at the moment.

At the same time, India has not been a model for civil society engagement, as illustratively, the Narmada Bachao Andolan and/or P. Sainath’s evaluation of government policies in Everybody Loves a Good Drought reveal. It has been harder to effectively engage with India’s government than in many states in North America, Latin America and Europe. But I believe the complex dynamics of that is not unique to India. The NSA and GCHQ revelations (as an example of governmental trust deficit of unmatched proportions) have shown that where governments want to keep everyone out and oblivious, they do it well.

I am not in favour of a purely multilateral approach to Internet governance. But at the same time, I share concerns over definition and the evolution of processes as well, as I am sure others in civil society also do. Particularly on the issue of Internet governance and multi-stakeholderism, evidence reveals inconsistency among India’s various ministries. Until this is addressed by our government (hopefully in consultation with all concerned stakeholders), an open mind would probably be the best thing we - including states - could keep.

Acknowledgements: I would like to thank Sunil Abraham, Pranesh Prakash, Rishabh Dara, Arun Sukumar, Anja Kovacs and Parminder Jeet Singh for the freedom to bounce ideas, feedback and the many discussions about multi-stakeholder approaches and Internet governance. I also wish to acknowledge Samir Saran’s article in CFR, which offers an interesting perspective on India’s Draft Resolution.

[1] For this post, I will use ‘multi-stakeholder approaches’ as an umbrella term, but would urge readers to keep in mind the many uncertainties and disagreements about defining multi-stakeholderism for Internet governance. These disagreements exist among and within all stakeholders, including government and civil society. In addition to various iterations of the ‘equal footing model’, the model proposed in §35 of the Tunis Agenda is also multi-stakeholder, albeit in a different – and for many in civil society, less desirable – sense.

[2] For those unacquainted with WCIT, see Mueller, ITU Phobia: Why WCIT was derailed, Internet Governance Blog (18 December 2012), http://www.internetgovernance.org/2012/12/18/itu-phobia-why-wcit-was-derailed/; Kleinwächter, WCIT and Internet governance: Harmless resolution or Trojan horse?, CircleID Blog (17 December 2012), http://www.circleid.com/posts/20121217_wcit_and_internet_governance_harmless_resolution_or_trojan_horse/.

[3] For a commentary, see Mueller, A United Nations Committee for Internet-related Policies? A Fair Assessment, Internet Governance Blog (29 October 2011), http://www.internetgovernance.org/2011/10/29/a-united-nations-committee-for-internet-related-policies-a-fair-assessment/.

[4] Contreras, Divergent Patterns of Engagement in Internet Standardization: Japan, Korea and China. I am unable to find this paper online. Please email me for information.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/good-intentions-recalcitrant-text-2013-ii-what-india2019s-itu-proposal-may-mean-for-internet-governance