Centre for Internet and Society

Eight Challenges That Indian-Language Wikipedias Need to Overcome

subha — 2016-03-29T17:05:36Z

Even after a decade of existence, Indian language Wikipedias are not yet known to many Indian language speakers. Wikipedia, being the largest available encyclopedia made in the human history, it what it is today because of the hundreds and thousands of volunteer-editors. But while native-language Wikipedias are becoming game-changers in other corners of the world, the scenario in India is skewed. In my experience, here are a number of challenges that Indian-language Wikipedias are currently facing.

The article was published in the Wire on March 17, 2016. A version of the article was also mirrored by Opensource.com on March 28, 2016.

1. Language communities:

The language communities of many of the Indian languages are such that many of them do not know how to search for information online, in their language typed in their script. Some of these communities even believe that because Google’s home page does not have their script, their language does not exist on the Internet. Starting with five Indian languages as the language of its interface, Google now has has nine Indian languages. But this does not stop a Santali or Manipuri user to search in Unicode Ol chiki (script for Santali) or in Unicode Meithei (script for Manipuri). Google or any search engine for that matter will display anything available in any script on the Internet. But the lack of this very thing is keeping many people away from being connected to the Internet in general and Wikipedia in particular.\

2. Wikipedia’s editor community:

Wikipedia is written by people like you and me. And from writing to editing everything happens voluntarily. As many people do not probably know, or do not try to learn, anybody can correct the mistakes and inaccuracies that exist in many Wikipedia articles. The Wikipedia editor communities for several Indian languages are really small. While these languages are spoken by millions of people, only a handful editors contribute in editing the Wikipedia in these languages. In January this year, the Hindi Wikipedia, for instance, had only 89 editors while the total number of Hindi speakers would be over 550 million.

3. Language input in computers:

A vast majority of people in this country do not know how to type in their own language.. There is also little documentation for users to learn about language input. Even though many government-run schools in India are seeing a proliferation of more computers and Internet access, native language input and several other essential training of basic computing are not widely taught in schools in all states. What is sad is that there is a wide variety of free software for native-language input and the challenges of typing in Indian languages that existed a few years back has almost gone.

4. Language input in mobile devices:

With over 1 billion people with mobile phones, the 15% internet penetration rate will soon grow at a faster pace. This in turn — and also tough competition that compel TSPs to drop data charges — will help many Indians get access to the Internet . If these people are not educated about native language input then they will be victims of the English-centric Internet rather than being able to enjoy the virtue of the same. Many Indians that have smartphones need full Indian language support and especially inbuilt input methods to be able to contribute in their own language Wikipedia.

5. Low availability of Indian-language content on the Internet:

Lack of native language content on the Internet is another major factor in the low adoption of Indian language Wikpedias. As per an Internet and Mobile Association of India survey conducted in 2012, over 6% of the population is left behind from joining the online sphere simply because of lack of content in their languages. Take, for instance, my state odisha.While the Kerala government’s official tourism portal is available in Odia and other Indian languages, the Odisha government’s tourism portal itself has no information in Odia-language today. Our languages are neglected largely in our own states.

6. Mismatch of conventional and new media:

Many conventional media houses still continue to use non-standard variants of the ASCII/ISCII script encoding systems, instead of adopting the Unicode standard. Unicode being a global standard, and having the advantage of unifying the world, has been available for Indian languages for almost 25 years now. But much of our vernacular print media has failed to adopt this. Consequently, many popular Indian-language newspapers are yet to become available in Unicode on the open Internet.

7. Lack of Open Access:

Majority of the information produced on the Internet in general and by the government, in particular, are mostly copyrighted. The paywalled garden of copyright restrictions keeps the information closed and stop people from sharing and learning more. On the contrary, Wikipedia is available under a Creative Commons Share-Alike license which allows anyone to make use of the content and even distribute commercial copies of its content. The idea of opening up information for masses in a free license could make information reach millions of people.

8. People with disabilities:

Many people cannot read, speak and write. India has over 60 million people with some form of hearing impairment. There is a desperate need for a high-quality text-to-speech and speech-to-text engine for people with physical disabilities. Also, these software products have to be free software so that common people, that cannot afford to buy expensive proprietary software like JAWS, can contribute to Wikipedia in their language. Many text-to-speech engines that are available today for Indian languages sound so mechanical that it is difficult for common speakers to use them.

Subhashish Panigrahi is an educator and free knowledge evangelist, and currently works for Communications, Program Capacity & Learning at Wikimedia Foundation, and Access to Knowledge at the Centre for Internet and Society. Portions of this article came from a speech that Panigrahi gave at BHASHA: Indian Languages Digital Festival in New Delhi.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/the-wire-march-17-2016-subhashish-panigrahi-eight-challenges-that-indian-language-wikipedias-need-to-overcome

Eight Challenges Indian-Language Wikipedias Need to Overcome

subha — 2016-06-18T17:09:38Z

Even after a decade of existence, Indian language Wikipedias are not yet known to many Indian language speakers. Wikipedia, the largest available encyclopedia made in the human history, is what it is today because of the hundreds and thousands of volunteer editors.

The article was published in Global Voices on April 27, 2016. A version of this post was previously published on The Wire.

But while native-language Wikipedias are becoming game-changers in other corners of the world, the scenario in India is skewed. Here, from my point of view, are some of the challenges that Indian-language Wikipedias are currently facing.

1. Language communities

The language communities of many of the Indian languages are such that many of them do not know how to search for information online, in language typed in their script. Some of these communities even believe that because Google’s home page does not display their script, their language does not exist on the Internet. Google, which starting with five Indian languages as options in its interface, now has has nine Indian languages. But this does not stop a Santali or Manipuri user from searching in Unicode Ol chiki (the script for Santali) or in Unicode Meithei (the script for Manipuri). Google, or any search engine, for that matter, will display anything available in any script on the Internet. But the perceived lack of this very function is keeping many people from connecting to the Internet, and to Wikipedia in particular.

2. Wikipedia’s editor community

Wikipedia is written by people like you and me. And everything, from writing to editing, is done by volunteers. And anybody can correct the mistakes and inaccuracies that exist in many Wikipedia articles. While several Indian languages are spoken by millions of people, the Wikipedia editor communities for these languages are very small, with only a handful editors contributing to editing those language versions of Wikipedia. In January this year, Hindi Wikipedia, for instance, had only 89 editors, while the total number of Hindi speakers is over 550 million.

3. Language input on computers

A vast majority of people in India do not know how to type in their own language. There is also little documentation instructing users about language input. Even though many government-run schools in India are seeing a proliferation in computer use and Internet access, native language input and other essential training of basic computing are not widely taught in schools in all states. This is unfortunate, as there is a wide variety of free software for native-language input, and the challenges of typing in Indian languages that existed a few years back are now almost non-existent.

4. Language input on mobile devices

With over 1 billion mobile phone users, India's 15% internet penetration rate will soon start growing at a faster pace. This in turn—along with the tough competition that will compel TSPs to lower data charges—will help many Indians get access to the Internet. If these people are not educated about native language input they will be victims of the English-centric Internet and fail to enjoy the virtues of the former. Many Indians who have smartphones need full Indian language support, and especially built-in input methods, to be able to contribute to Wikipedia in their own languages.

5. Scarcity of Indian-language content on the Internet

The relative lack of native language content on the Internet is another major factor in the low adoption of Indian language Wikpedias. According to an Internet and Mobile Association of India survey conducted in 2012, over 6% of the population is left behind with regard to joining the online sphere simply because of a scarcity of content in their languages. Take my home state of Odisha, for instance: while the Kerala state government’s official tourism portal is available in Odia and other Indian languages, at the time of writing the Odisha government’s tourism portal had no information in Odia. It is unfortunate that our languages are neglected largely within our own states.

6. Incompatibility between new and traditional media standards

Instead of adopting the Unicode standard, many traditional media outlets continue to use non-standard variants of the ASCII/ISCII script encoding systems Unicode, a global standard, has been available for Indian languages for almost 25 years now, but most of India's vernacular print media has failed to adopt it. As a result, many popular Indian-language newspapers are unavailable in Unicode on the open Internet.

7. Lack of Open Access

The majority of the information published on the Internet, and by the Indian government, in particular, is copyrighted. This paywalled garden of copyright restrictions restricts access of this information and prevents people from sharing and learning more. Wikipedia, on the other hand, is distributed under a Creative Commons Share-Alike license that allows anyone to make use of the content, and even distribute it commercially. Opening up information for the masses under free license regime could make it easily accessible to millions of people.

8. Failure to cater for people with disabilities

Many people in India cannot read, speak or write, and the country has over 60 million people with some form of hearing impairment. There is a desperate need for a high-quality text-to-speech and speech-to-text engines for people with physical disabilities. These products also be freely available so that those who cannot afford to buy expensive proprietary software like JAWS can contribute to Wikipedia in their languages. Many of the text-to-speech engines available today for Indian languages sound so mechanical that it is difficult for the average speaker to use them.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/global-voices-april-27-2016-subhashish-panigrahi-eight-challenges-indian-language-wikipedias-need-to-overcome

Economics of Cyber Security Part III

Admin — 2018-12-31T01:27:59Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/files/economics-of-cyber-security-part-iii

Economics of Cyber Security Part II

Admin — 2018-12-31T01:26:51Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/files/economics-of-cyber-security-part-ii

Economic, social and cultural rights in India: Synthesis Overview

praskrishna — 2017-04-20T16:26:39Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/files/economic-social-and-cultural-rights-in-india

Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in India: Opportunities for Advocacy in Intellectual Property

Sunil Abraham and Vidushi Marda — 2017-04-23T05:22:01Z

Centre for Internet & Society worked on a three part case study. The first case study on digital protection of traditional knowledge was published by GIS Watch in December 2016. The other two case studies along with the synthesis overview has also been published.

The rights established in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) are socioeconomic rights and are easily mapped onto rights to education, work, science and culture. These rights, however, are not as easily mapped onto intellectual property rights. This three-part case study contemplates the ICESCR through aspects of intellectual property in India, namely, mobile patents, free and open source software (FOSS), and India’s Traditional Knowledge Digital Library. Through these, it demonstrates the potential of these technologies in realising ESCRs.

A distinguishing factor of the ICESCR is the emphasis on the progressive realisation of rights within the Covenant, which indicates the necessity of parties to take steps for the realisation of ESCRs to the best of their ability given the resources available, with a view to fully realising these rights in the long term. This is particularly relevant in India, where the large population and scarcity of resources require gradual realisation and sustained planning. This case study advocates for the progressive realisation of the rights outlined below, and sheds light on the current state of progress in India, as well as providing an overview of the framework within which these rights will be realised.

Although these three case studies focus on distinct areas – mobile patents, FOSS and open standards, and traditional knowledge – they can also be understood as tied together through the central theme of a mobile phone. The first case study on mobile patents deals with the hardware of the phone, the second deals with the software in discussing open software and standards, and the third case study on traditional knowledge focuses on the person holding the phone who consumes information-embedded products such as traditional foods and medicines.

The report on digital protection of traditional knowledge was published by GIS Watch earlier and the rest of the reports have been published by the Association for Progressive Communications.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/apc-april-23-2017-sunil-abraham-and-vidushi-marda-economic-social-and-cultural-rights-in-india

Economic, social and cultural rights in India: Opportunities for advocacy in intellectual property rights - The Traditional Knowledge Digital Library

praskrishna — 2017-04-20T16:40:50Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/files/economic-social-and-cultural-rights-in-india-opportunities-for-advocacy-in-intellectual-property-rights-the-traditional-knowledge-digital-library

Economic, social and cultural rights in India: Opportunities for advocacy in intellectual property rights

praskrishna — 2017-04-20T16:36:46Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/files/economic-social-and-cultural-rights-in-india-opportunities-for-advocacy-in-intellectual-property-rights

Economic, social and cultural rights in India: Opportunities for advocacy in intellectual property rights: Access to mobile technology

praskrishna — 2017-04-20T16:32:57Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/files/economic-social-and-cultural-rights-in-india-opportunities-for-advocacy-in-intellectual-property-rights-access-to-mobile-technology

Economic, social and cultural rights in India: FOSS

praskrishna — 2017-04-23T05:14:13Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/files/economic-social-and-cultural-rights-in-india-foss

Easing the US-India divergence on data localisation

Shashidhar KJ and Kashish Parpiani — 2019-07-30T01:40:24Z

Addition of data localisation to the basket of persisting trade issues warrants greater compartmentalisation and consultative approaches to US-India ties.

The article by Shashidhar KJ and Kashish Parpiani was published by Observer Research Foundation on July 22, 2019.

The Reserve Bank of India’s (RBI) finally clarified its position eight months after it issued the controversial April 2018 circular mandating the storage of all payment data of Indians in the country and allowing the central bank “unfettered access”. The circular particularly aimed at US-based companies such as Mastercard, Visa, American Express, PayPal, Facebook and Google, as they scrambled to comply. The clarification was a welcome relief for companies seeking guidance on how to comply, what kind of data needs to be stored in India, and if the payment companies needed to move their processing infrastructure. Note, the RBI has yet to issue a formal directive with these clarifications.

Meanwhile, media reports have indicated that Facebook-owned WhatsApp would obey the RBI norm as it looks to kick off its payments business. This runs counter to what Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg had told investors in April:

“You should expect that we won’t store sensitive data in countries where it might be improperly accessed because of weak rule of law or governments that can forcibly get access to your data.”

India is still debating passing a Personal Data Protection legislation, and as such, India doesn’t have any legal safeguards protecting users’ data.

This has revealed yet another faultline in the persisting trade issues between the US and India.

India is still debating passing a Personal Data Protection legislation, and as such, India doesn’t have any legal safeguards protecting users’ data.

Indian data rights vs. American IPR protectionism

New Delhi has started to assert its right over its citizens’ data as India’s footprint on the Internet increases. Moreover, without clear guidance from Personal Data Protection legislation, there has been a glut of policy prescriptions from sector regulators. The Centre for Internet and Society published a paper in which it chronicles 10 policy measures for both ‘soft’ and ‘hard’ data localisation across health, telecommunications, e-commerce, insurance and others. These measures range from storing copies of specific data, local content production requirements, or imposing conditions on cross-border data transfers that act as a localisation mandate.

This oversupply of policy prescriptions is leading to blurring of jurisdictions. Often, the policy measures given have many a slip between the cup and the lip. For example, one of the reasons for insisting on localisation is security, but even if companies localise data, there is no framework to access this data by the local security apparatus.

India’s policy thinking on the matter often begins with the idea: ‘data is the new oil.’ The thinking is that data generated by Indians should be viewed as a natural resource that must be protected by the state through localisation. This notion is problematic. Data, unlike oil, which is found in limited quantities, has different properties. Newer ideas of regulation must be thought of and that’s where Indian policy makers have not been accommodative.

Oversupply of policy prescriptions is leading to blurring of jurisdictions. Often, the policy measures given have many a slip between the cup and the lip.

A gripe that US-based companies mention is that there is a distinctive domestic tilt and that company representatives have turned away from consultations as they do not serve the “national interests.” This was best exemplified in October 2018 when a closed-door discussion between the RBI and the US-India Strategic Partnership Forum (USISPF representing the interests of US companies) broke downand the latter accused the RBI of having a bias. During the discussions, the RBI placed a lot of emphasis on the inputs from iSPIRT (Indian Software Product Industry Roundtable), an Indian think tank which has been advocating for data protectionism.

The aforementioned sentiment has been carried over to international summits. At the recently concluded G20 summit, India boycotted the Osaka Track on the digital economy as it felt that it would undermine multilateral consensus-based decisions on trade and deny policy space for digital industrialisation. The Osaka Track pushed hard for the creation of laws which would allow data flows between countries and the removal of data localisation.

India’s foreign secretary, Vijay Gokhale, mentioned that data is a new form of wealth and wanted latitude on domestic rule-making on data. And in the age of digital commerce, this may signify a broader trend of a developed-developing nations’ impasse. The tussle has now moved beyond the security angle with the United States enacting the Clarifying Lawful Overseas Use of Data (CLOUD) Act for security agencies to procure data stored in servers regardless of whether in the US or foreign soil. With monetisation now at the core of the dispute, the discussed divergences on data localisation tie into the US’ broader, long-standing issues pertaining to US-India bilateral trade.

Divergence on data localisation issue crosses path with trade tensions

The 2019 National Trade Estimate (NTE) by the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) focuses on reducing “barriers to digital trade.” Taking a tone of American stewardship on open liberal market economics, it notes:

“When governments impose unnecessary barriers to cross-border data flows or discriminate against foreign digital services, local firms are often hurt the most, as they cannot take advantage of cross-border digital services that facilitate global competitiveness.”

At a time when the Trump administration has sought to re-calibrate America’s trade relationships via the adoption of punitive sanctions that run counter to the fundamentals of the liberal world order, the aforementioned American concern for the competitiveness of foreign nation’s local firms may seem like sardonic preaching.

President Trump’s ‘America First’ worldview in many ways upended conventional tenets of US foreign policy. But on some fronts, it has presented opportunities for marginal establishment agendas. For instance, Trump’s heightened focus on ties with Israel and the US’ Sunni allies in the Middle East, complements the realisation of neoconservatives’ penchant for regime change in Iran.

At a time when the Trump administration has sought to re-calibrate America’s trade relationships via the adoption of punitive sanctions that run counter to the fundamentals of the liberal world order, the aforementioned American concern for the competitiveness of foreign nation’s local firms may seem like sardonic preaching.

On Trump’s fixation with recalibrating US trade relationships on “fair and reciprocal” footing, the American trade establishment successfully addressed US’ belated concerns over absence of digital trade rules in case of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) with Canada and Mexico. Similarly, the emerging divergences over data localisation with India are subsumed under the ongoing — albeit repeatedly stalled, US-India trade negotiations.

Hence, the NTE underscores India’s decision with regards to payment service suppliers to be part of trade barriers hampering digital commerce and US-India trade at-large.

Fixing the strained Carter mantra via compartmentalisation and consultation

India has approached trade talks from the standpoint of addressing the Trumpian aberration of the US pushing for reduction of its trade deficits with other countries. Whereas, USTR negotiators have approached negotiations with India with regards to, what they view as longstanding issues in bilateral trade, such as market access for dairy products and price caps on medical equipment.

In the past, those outstanding issues were downplayed in view of the promising long-term trajectory of US-India strategic ties. The same has come to be known as the understated dictum of the Carter mantra — named after former US Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter and architect of the US-India Defense Technology and Trade Initiative. The approach encompassed the US to focus on harnessing strategic ties and not let differences on other fronts like trade to crowd out minimal-yet-positive developments.

In recent times, that dictum has come under strain as trade tensions have resurfaced. Cases in-point being, the Trump administration’s recent revocation of India’s designation as a “beneficiary developing country” under its Generalised System of Preferences programme, and India’s imposition of retaliatory tariffs on 28 US products.

The US-India dynamic is graduating from the erstwhile top-heavy approach based on the personal relations developed between head of states, to an institutionalised format of consultative platforms on varied bureaucratic, legislative, military, and even public-private partnership levels.

Furthermore, ahead of Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s visit to New Delhi last month, the Trump administration reportedly mulled capping the issuance of H1B visas to about 15 percent for any country that “does data localisation.” It bore ominous prospects for India’s $150 billion IT sector as 70 percent of the 85,000 H1B visas issued every year go to Indians. With regards to the broader trajectory of US-India ties, the report came to be seen as another blow to the Carter mantra’s prescription for compartmentalisation of issues from promising aspects of the bilateral relationship.

Both sides however, have attempted to temper tensions, and keep the Carter mantra in place with the continued focus on evolving strategic ties — with continued impetus on US-India defence trade and force interoperability agreements.

More importantly, there seems to be an overt attempt to reinstitute a sense of compartmentalisation. For instance, Secretary Pompeo, during his visit to New Delhi eased fears by denouncing reports about the US considering H1B visa caps. Whereas, India, too, has sought to institute a sense of compartmentalisation with Commerce Minister Piyush Goyal announcing that the contentious data protection issue will be kept out of the e-commerce policy draft, and will be dealt with by the IT ministry instead.

Lastly, the US-India dynamic is graduating from the erstwhile top-heavy approach based on the personal relations developed between head of states, to an institutionalised format of consultative platforms on varied bureaucratic, legislative, military, and even public-private partnership levels. Examples of which include, the US-India 2+2 consultative platform between foreign and defense portfolio chiefs, and the India-US Strategic Energy Partnership working groups between India’s Petroleum Minister and US Energy Secretary. The upcoming editions of these forums are set to be critical in addressing outstanding issues in the strategic realm, like India’s purchase of the Russian S-400 systems inviting the prospect of American CAATSA sanctions, and India’s push for a gas-based economy in light of reduced oil purchases from Iran following recent tensions between Washington and Tehran.

Similarly, on easing the hardening American and Indian stances on data localisation, in addition to compartmentalisation, a consultative approach must be explored. Towards that end, the India-US Commercial Dialogue and India-US CEO Forum could serve as appropriate starting points for a joint working group involving a diverse set of stakeholders from the public and private realm.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/observer-research-foundation-shashidhar-kj-and-kashish-parpiani-july-22-2019-easing-the-us-india-divergence-on-data-localisation

E-Governance, Identity & Privacy

praskrishna — 2012-09-26T06:17:03Z

This chapter will look at different legislations, projects, and policies pertaining to e-governance and identity that India has put in place, and examine both the strengths and the weaknesses of these, through the lense of privacy.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/e-governance-identity-privacy.pdf

E-Governance Interoperability Framework — Meeting in Iraq

praskrishna — 2011-08-18T05:04:49Z

A meeting to create a plan of action for the development of e-Governance Interoperability Framework (e-GIF) in Iraq and include formulation of an e-GIF policy and technical document within the larger framework of public sector modernization, was held from 25 to 27 January 2011. Sunil Abraham was the main resource person for this meeting.

Mr. Abdul Kareem Al-Samaraii, Minister of Science and Technology and Mr. Peter Bachelor, Deputy Country Director, UNDP gave the opening remarks.

E-GIF Meeting Agenda, ERBIL, 25-27 January 2011

Tuesday 25/1/2011
	08:30 – 09:00 Opening Remarks H.E. Mr Abdul Kareem Al-Samaraii, Minister of Science and Technology Mr. Peter Bachelor/ Deputy Country Director, UNDP 09:00 – 10:00 e-GIF overview Introducing the GIF: Benefits of Interoperability for e-Governance GIF Context GIF Technical Content: Standard Categorisation How we can Develop Effective GIF Policy Document and GIF Action Plan: Presentation on GIF templates (GIF text and action Plan) that required to be filled by the end of the workshop 10:00 – 10:30 Coffee Break 10:30 – 12:00 Survey and base-line for Map of existing and proposed e-governance and ICT4D projects. User Interface and accessibility Storage and database schema Multi-modal input and output Access control and security Network schema Document flow and work-flow Discussion on specific challenges and opportunities faced when attempting interoperability. 12:00 – 13:30 Discussion on the co-existence of the GIF with existing/proposed laws and policies E-governance and ICT4D Copyright Patents (software only) FOSS/Open Standards/Open Content/Open Data Privacy and Data Protection Right to Information/Freedom of Information/Access to Information/Public Information 13:30 – 14:30 Lunch Break 14:30 – 16:00 Discussion on definition of “Open Standards” Existing definitions of Open Standards RAND, FRAND and Royalty Free De Facto and De Jure Standards Standards Setting Organisations Governance of Standards Single Standard vs. Multiple Standards Relationship between FOSS and Open Standards Review of international best practice European Union US Brazil Russia India Indonesia China 16:00 – 16:15 Coffee Break 16.15 - 17.45 Discussion on degree of openness Hardware/Software/File Formats Maturity of the standard Adoption in Iraq Policy Objectives of the GIF Neutral playing-field / vendor independence Obsolescence Data convergence Cost-reduction Domestic ICT industry
Wednesday 26/1/2011
	08:30 – 10:00 Discussion on Organisational Architecture to Interoperability: Enterprise Architecture Service Oriented Architecture Example on Germany’s Slandered and Architecture of E-Government Application (SAGA) that contain both the architecture and standard for interoperability / or any other relevant example 10.00 - 10.30 Coffee Break 10.30 - 13.00 Governance of the Government Interoperability Framework: Creating the GIF Organisational Structure: Authority/Agency/Ministerial Committee/Adjunct to the President/Prime Minister's office. Light vs. Heavy regulation: Broad principles vs. Lists approach [Inclusion lists, exclusion lists, least common denominator approach] Exemptions and Limitation: Reactive vs. proactive. Formal vs. informal. Versioning: Mechanism and time-frame for revising the GIF. Pre-determined Monitoring of Compliance: Agency responsible and protocol to be observed. Random vs. blanket approach. Sanctions: Design of remedies and punitive measures to discourage non-compliance. Incentives: Design of awards and prizes for those who comply first, most, at the least-cost, etc. Documentation and Public Consultation: How will the process of developing, implementing and monitoring the GIF incorporate public consultation and be documented. Capacity Building 13.00 - 14.00 Lunch Break 14.00 - 15.30 Discussion on specific standards for the GIF [categorization based on Indian GIF] with a focus on current problem areas (G2G, G2B) Presentation And Archival Domain Data Integration Domain Data Interchange Domain 15.30 - 15.45 Coffee Break 15.45 - 17.15 Discussion on specific standards for the GIF [categorization based on Indian GIF] with a focus on (G2C) and local Governorates and emerging areas Presentation And Archival Domain Data Integration Domain Data Interchange Domain
Thursday 27/1/2011	08.30 - 11.30 Unplanned time for collaborative work on the text of the GIF Draft of E-GIF Action Plan and Working Groups 11.30 - 12.00 Coffee Break 12.00 - 14.00 Review on e-governance plan of action Out of GIF scope 14.00 - 14.30 Workshop Closing Session and Looking Forward

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/e-gif-iraq-meeting

E-commerce_submission_by_CIS.pdf

karan — 2019-04-10T11:34:32Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/e-commerce_submission_by_cis.pdf-2

E-Commerce Submission

karan — 2019-04-01T11:54:45Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/e-commerce-submission