Centre for Internet and Society

Report on CIS' Workshop at the IGF:'An Evidence Based Framework for Intermediary Liability'

jyoti — 2014-09-24T10:47:30Z

An evidence based framework for intermediary liability' was organised to present evidence and discuss ongoing research on the changing definition, function and responsibilities of intermediaries across jurisdictions.

The discussion from the workshop will contribute to a comprehensible framework for liability, consistent with the capacity of the intermediary and with international human-rights standards.

Electronic Frontier Foundation (USA), Article 19 (UK) and Centre for Internet and Society (India) have come together towards the development of best practices and principles related to the regulation of online content through intermediaries. The nine principles are: Transparency, Consistency, Clarity, Mindful Community Policy Making, Necessity and Proportionality in Content Restrictions, Privacy, Access to Remedy, Accountability, and Due Process in both Legal and Private Enforcement. The workshop discussion will contribute to a comprehensible framework for liability that is consistent with the capacity of the intermediary and with international human-rights standards. The session was hosted by Centre for Internet and Society (India) and Centre for Internet and Society, Stanford (USA) and attended by 7 speakers and 40 participants.

Jeremy Malcolm, Senior Global Policy Analyst EFF kicked off the workshop highlighting the need to develop a liability framework for intermediaries that is derived out of an understanding of their different functions, their role within the economy and their impact on human rights. He went on to structure the discussion which would follow to focus on ongoing projects and examples that highlight central issues related to gathering and presenting evidence to inform the policy space.

Martin Husovec from the International Max Planck Research School for Competition and Innovation, began his presentation, tracking the development of safe harbour frameworks within social contract theory. Opining that safe harbour was created as a balancing mechanism between a return of investments of the right holders and public interest for Internet as a public space, he introduced emerging claims that technological advancement have altered this equilibrium. Citing injunctions and private lawsuits as instruments, often used against law abiding intermediaries, he pointed to the problem within existing liability frameoworks, where even intermediaries, who diligently deal with illegitimate content on their services, can be still subject to a forced cooperation to the benefit of right holders. He added that for liability frameworks to be effective, they must keep pace with advances in technology and are fair to right holders and the public interest.

He also pointed that in any liability framework because the ‘law’ that prescribes an interference, must be always sufficiently clear and foreseeable, as to both the meaning and nature of the applicable measures, so it sufficiently outlines the scope and manner of exercise of the power of interference in the exercise of the rights guaranteed. He illustrated this with the example of the German Federal Supreme Court attempts with Wi-Fi policy-making in 2010. He also raised issues of costs of uncertainty in seeking courts as the only means to balance rights as they often, do not have the necessary information. Similarly, society also does not benefit from open ended accountability of intermediaries and called for a balanced approach to regulation.

The need for consistency in liability regimes across jurisdictions, was raised by Giancarlo Frosio, Intermediary Liability Fellow at Stanford's Centre for Internet and Society. He introduced the World Intermediary Liability Map, a project mapping legislation and case law across 70 countries towards creating a repository of information that informs policymaking and helps create accountability. Highlighting key takeaways from his research, he stressed the necessity of having clear definitions in the field of intermediary liability and the need to develop taxonomy of issues to deepen our understanding of the issues at stake towards an understanding of type of liability appropriate for a particular jurisdiction.

Nicolo Zingales, Assistant Professor of Law at Tilburg University highlighted the need for due process and safeguards for human rights and called for more user involvement in systems that are in place in different countries to respond to requests of takedown. Presenting his research findings, he pointed to the imbalance in the way notice and takedown regimes are structured, where content is taken down presumptively, but the possibility of restoring user content is provided only at a subsequent stage or not at all in many cases. He cited several examples of enhancing user participation in liability mechanisms including notice and notice, strict litigation sanction inferring the knowledge that the content might have been legal and shifting the presumption in favor of the users and the reverse notice and takedown procedure. He also raised the important question, if multistakeholder cooperation is sufficient or adequate to enable the users to have a say and enter as part of the social construct in this space? Reminding the participants of the failure of the multistakeholder agreement process regarding the cost for the filters in the UK, that would be imposed according to judicial procedure, he called for strengthening our efforts to enable users to get more involved in protecting their rights online.

Gabrielle Guillemin from Article 19 presented her research on the types of intermediaries and models of liability in place across jurisdictions. Pointing to the problems associated with intermediaries having to monitor content and determine legality of content, she called for procedural safeguards and stressed the need to place the dispute back in the hands of users and content owners and the person who has written the content rather than the intermediary. She goes on to provide some useful and practically-grounded solutions to strengthen existing takedown mechanisms including, adding details to the notices, introducing fees in order to extend the number of claims that are made and defining procedure regards criminal content.

Elonnai Hickok introduced CIS' research to the UNESCO report Fostering Freedom Online: the Role of Internet Intermediaries, comparing a range of liability models in different stages of development and provisions across jurisdictions. She argued for a liability framework that tackles procedural and regulatory uncertainty, lack of due process, lack of remedy and varying content criteria.

Francisco Vera, Advocacy Director, Derechos Digitales from Chile raised issues related to mindful community policy-making expounding on Chile's implementation of intermediary liability obligation with the USA, the introduction of judicial oversight under Chilean legislation which led to US objection to Chile on grounds of not fulfilling their standards in terms of Internet property protection. He highlighted the tensions that arise in balancing the needs of the multiple communities and interests engaged over common resources and stressed the need for evidence in policy-making to balance the needs of rights holders and public interest. He stressed the need for evidence to inform policy-making and ensure it keeps pace with technological developments citing the example of the ongoing Transpacific Partnership Agreement negotiations that call for exporting provisions DMCA provisions to 11 countries even though there is no evidence of the success of the system for public interest. He concluded by cautioning against the development of frameworks that are or have the potential to be used as anti-competitive mechanisms that curtail innovation and therby do not serve public interest.

Malcolm Hutty associated with the European Internet Service Providers Association, Chair of the Intermediary Reliability Committee and London Internet Exchange brought in the intermediaries' perspective into the discussion. He argued for challenging the link between liability and forced cooperation, understated the problems arising from distinction without a difference and incentives built in within existing regimes. He raised issues arising from the expectancy on the part of those engaged in pre-emptive regulation of unwanted or undesirable content for intermediaries to automate content. Pointing to the increasing impact of intermediaries in our lives he underscored how exposing vast areas of people's lives to regulatory enforce, which enhances power of the state to implement public policy in the public interest and expect it to be executed, can have both positive and negative implications on issues such as privacy and freedom of expression.

He called out practices in regulatory regimes that focus on one size fits all solutions such as seeking automating filters on a massive scale and instead called for context and content specific solutions, that factor the commercial imperatives of intermediaries. He also addressed the economic consequences of liability frameworks to the industry including cost effectiveness of balancing rights, barriers to investments that arise in heavily regulated or new types of online services that are likely to be the targeted for specific enforcement measures and the long term costs of adapting old enforcement mechanisms that apply, while networks need to be updated to extend services to users.

The workshop presented evidence of a variety of approaches and the issues that arise in applying those approaches to impose liability on intermediaries. Two choices emerged towards developing frameworks for enforcing responsibility on intermediaries. We could either rely on a traditional approach, essentially court-based and off-line mechanisms for regulating behaviour and disputes. The downside of this is it will be slow and costly to the public purse. In particular, we will lose a great deal of the opportunity to extend regulation much more deeply into people's lives so as to implement the public interest.

Alternatively, we could rely on intermediaries to develop and automate systems to control our online behaviour. While this approach does not suffer from efficiency problems of the earlier approach it does lack, both in terms of hindering the developments of the Information Society, and potentially yielding up many of the traditionally expected protections under a free and liberal society. The right approach lies somewhere in the middle and development of International Principles for Intermediary Liability, announced at the end of the workshop, is a step closer to the developing a balanced framework for liability.

See the transcript on IGF website.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/report-on-cis-workshop-at-igf

Report on CDIP-12

puneeth — 2014-04-22T09:53:55Z

The 12th meeting of the Committee on Development and Intellectual Property (CDIP) was held from November 18-21, 2013 at WIPO. This report discusses the proceedings of the meeting and issues that CIS could get involved at future CDIP meetings.

Agenda

The most important item on the Agenda of CDIP was to finalise the terms of reference for the Independent Review of the Implementation Development Agenda Recommendations under the Coordination Mechanism as per the request of the WIPO General Assembly (CDIP 12/5). However, the Committee was unable to reach a consensus on the Terms of Reference for the Independent Review and further discussion has been put off until the next CDIP.

In addition, the CDIP considered and discussed Progress Reports on the following ongoing WIPO projects:[1]

Specialized Databases’ Access and Support – Phase II;
A Pilot Project for the Establishment of “Start-Up” National IP Academies – Phase II;
Strengthening the Capacity of National IP Governmental and Stakeholder Institutions to Manage, Monitor and Promote Creative Industries, and to Enhance the Performance and Network of Copyright Collective Management Organizations;
Project on Intellectual Property and Product Branding for Business Development in Developing Countries and Least-Developed Countries (LDCs);
Project on Intellectual Property and Socio-Economic Development;
Project on Intellectual Property and Technology Transfer: Common Challenges – Building Solutions;
Project on Open Collaborative Projects and IP-Based Models;
Project on Patents and Public Domain;
Project on Enhancing South-South Cooperation on IP and Development Among Developing Countries and Least Developed Countries;
Project on IP and Brain Drain;
Project on IP and the Informal Economy;
Strengthening and Development of the Audiovisual Sector in Burkina Faso and Certain African Countries; and certain African Countries; and
Project on Developing Tools for Access to Patent information – Phase II.

The Committee also discussed ongoing projects like measuring WIPO’s contribution to the Millennium Development Goals, proposal for new WIPO activities related to the use of Copyright to promote access to information and creative content, and a study on Patents and the Public Domain.[2]

The following section discusses areas where CIS can play a role at future CDIPs.

Future work for CIS

Using Copyright to Promote Access to Information and Creative Content

This project is aimed at using copyright to promote access to information in three areas: education and research; software development practices, including free and open source software; and public sector information. In addition the WIPO is also looking at new projects that may help Member States achieve development goals through improved Access to Knowledge. In CDIP 11, the Committee identified six projects which could be carried out by the CDIP in the pursuance of these aims. These projects are a result of a paper by Sisule Musungu assessing the feasibility of WIPO projects in the area. [3] The implementation plan for the above was presented at CDIP 12. The six projects are as under:

Pilot Project on Creation of a Centralized Database in order to make IP-Related Education and Research (E&R) Resources Available on an Open Access (OA) Basis
Applicability of Open Licensing to E&R Resources produced by International Organizations
Development of a Training Module on Licensing and Open Source Software Development
Integrating Open Source Licensing in WIPO Copyright-Related Courses and Training Programs
Development of Model Copyright Policies and Legal Provisions for Different Copyright Approaches to Public Sector Information
International Conference for Least-Developed Countries (LDCs) on Copyright and the Management of Public Sector Information

Discussion at CDIP 12

Thiru of KEI proposed a project on a possible model copyright law similar to the Tunis Model Law for Developing Countries adopted in 1976.[4] However, the delegation from the US objected to such a proposal. Representatives from many countries suggested modifications to the 6 proposals under discussion. Revised findings will be discussed at the next CDIP.

Scope for CIS work

Many of the proposals under consideration speak directly to the work being done by the A2K team in the Indian context. I will be contributing to a critique by the TWN on these projects. Such critiques can continue on the one hand. On the other hand, CIS can get involved in the preparatory work in the lead up to future CDIPs by working closely with the south centre and TWN to mobilize opinion among developing countries. Our expertise from working with domestic policy issues in India will come in handy in shaping future work commissioned by the WIPO in these areas.

Study on the Public Domain (II)

This is the second in a series of studies commissioned by the WIPO under the Project on Patents and the Public Domain (CDIP/7/5/Rev). The paper was authored by James Conley, Peter Bican and Neil Wilkof. Among other things, it concludes that the patent process contributes to a richer public domain. While the conclusions are acceptable in principle, the paper makes some troubling assumptions with regard to the public domain and also some surprising claims with respect to Patent Pools.

Discussion at CDIP 12

TWN pointed out that the study was restricted in scope as it defined the public domain as being limited to information that has lost its patent protection either through expiration of the term of the patent or through other processes that make the patented information part of the public domain de facto. While the author offered to revise the scope of the study, the US objected to it. At a later point, the representative from Egypt picked up on this critique but wrongly attributed it to the EU. When this was pointed out, he withdrew his statement. As it stands, the study will not be revised.

Scope for CIS work

The most surprising conclusion of the paper is that Patent Pools serve to narrow the public domain or that on a scale of contribution to the public domain rank second to last to Non-Practicing Entities (NPEs). I will be contributing to the TWN critique and focus on the conclusions with respect to Patent Pools. Given the implications of the study to our Pervasive Technologies project, we should get involved in the larger project on Patents in the Public domain and respond to future work in the area as well.

[1]. For a summary of the Progress Reports, see CDIP/12/2

[2]. For a full list, see the Agenda of CDIP 12

[3]. CDIP/11/6

[4]. See http://portal.unesco.org/culture/en/files/31318/11866635053tunis_model_law_en-web.pdf/tunis_model_law_en-web.pdf

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/report-on-cpdip-2

Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy vs. The Leaked 2014 Privacy Bill

elonnai — 2014-04-14T06:10:20Z

Following our previous post comparing the leaked 2014 Privacy Bill with the leaked 2011 Privacy Bill, this post will compare the recommendations provided in the Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy by the Justice AP Shah Committee to the text of the leaked 2014 Privacy Bill. Below is an analysis of recommendations from the Report that are incorporated in the text of the Bill, and recommendations in the Report that are not incorporated in the text of the Bill.

Recommendations in the Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy that are Incorporated in the 2014 Privacy Bill

Constitutional Right to Privacy

The Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy recommends that any privacy legislation for India specify the constitutional basis of a right to privacy. The 2014 Privacy Bill has done this, locating the Right to Privacy in Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Nine National Privacy Principles

The Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy recommends that nine National Privacy Principles be adopted and applied to harmonize existing legislation and practices. The 2014 Privacy Bill also adopts nine National Privacy Principles. Though these principles differ slightly from the National Privacy Principles recommended in the Report, they are broadly the same, and importantly will apply to all existing and evolving practices, regulations and legislations of the Government that have or will have an impact on the privacy of any individual. Presently, the 2014 Privacy Bill locates the nine National Privacy Principles in an Annex to the Bill, but also incorporates the principles in more detail in sections relating to personal data. An analysis of the principles as compared in the Report and the Bill is below:

Notice: The principle of notice as recommended by the Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy differs from the principle of notice in the 2014 Privacy Bill. According to the notice principle in the Report, a data controller shall give sample to understand notice of its information practices to all individuals, in clear and concise language, before any personal information is collected from them. Such notices should include: (during collection) What personal information is being collected; Purposes for which personal information is being collected; Uses of collected personal information; Whether or not personal information may be disclosed to third persons; Security safeguards established by the data controller in relation to the personal information; Processes available to data subjects to access and correct their own personal information; Contact details of the privacy officers and SRO ombudsmen for filing complaints. (Other Notices) Data breaches must be notified to affected individuals and the commissioner when applicable. Individuals must be notified of any legal access to their personal information after the purposes of the access have been met. Individuals must be notified of changes in the data controller’s privacy policy. Any other information deemed necessary by the appropriate authority in the interest of the privacy of data subjects.

In contrast, the 2014 Privacy Bill requires that all the data controllers provide adequate and appropriate notice of their information practices in a form that is easily understood by all intended recipients. In addition to this principle as listed in an annex, the Bill requires that on initial collection data controllers provide notice of what personal data is being collected and the legitimate purpose for which the personal data is being collected. If the purpose for which the personal data changes, data controllers must provide data subjects with a further notice that would include the use to which the personal data shall be put, whether or not the personal data will be disclosed to at third person and, if so, the identity of such person if the personal data being collected is intended to be transferred outside India and the reasons for doing so; how such transfer helps in achieving the legitimate purpose; and whether the country to which such data is transferred has suitable legislation to provide for adequate protection and privacy of the data; the security and safeguards established by the data controller in relation to the personal data; the processes available to a data subject to access and correct his personal data; the recourse open to a data subject, if he has any complaints in respect of collection or processing of the personal data and the procedure relating thereto; the name, address and contact particulars of the data controller and all persons who will be processing the personal data on behalf of the data controller. Additionally, if a breach of data takes place data controllers must inform the affected data subject that lost or stolen; accessed or acquired by any person not authorized to do so; damaged, deleted or destroyed; processed, re-identified or disclosed in an unauthorized manner.

Though the 2014 Privacy Bill requires a more comprehensive notice to be issued if the purpose for the use of personal data changes, it does not specify (as recommended by the Group of Experts on Privacy) that notice of changes to a data controller’s privacy policy be issued.

Choice and Consent: The principle of choice and consent in the 2014 Privacy Bill is similar to the principle in the Report of the Group of Experts on privacy in that it requires that all data subjects be provided with a choice to provide or not to provide personal data and that data subject will have the option of withdrawing consent at any time. Though not a part of the specific principle on ‘choice and consent’ listed in the annex the 2014 Privacy Bill also contains provisions that address mandatory collection of information which require, as recommended by the Report of the Group of Experts, that the information is anonymoized. Furthermore, the 2014 Privacy Bill provides individuals an opt-in or opt-out choice with respect to the provision of personal data.

Different from as recommended in the principle in the Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy, the 2014 Privacy Bill does not specify that in exception cases when it is not possible to provide a service with choice and consent, then choice and consent will not be required.

Collection Limitation: The principle of collection limitation as recommended in the Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy and the principle of collection limitation in the Annex of the 2014 Privacy Bill are similar in that both require that only data that is necessary to achieve an identified purpose be collected. As recommended in the Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy, the 2014 Privacy Bill also requires that notice be provided prior to collection and content taken.

Purpose Limitation: Though the principle of Purpose Limitation are similar in the Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy and the 2014 Privacy Bill as they both require personal data to be used only for the purposes for which it was collected and that the data must be destroyed after the purposes have been served, the 2014 Privacy Bill does not specify that information collected by a data controller must be adequate and relevant for the purposes for which they are processed. The 2014 Privacy Bill also incorporates elements from the principle of Purpose Limitation as defined by the Report of the Group of Experts in other parts of the Bill. For example, the 2014 Bill requires that notice be provided to the individual if there is a change in purpose for the use of the personal information, and designates a section on retention of personal data.

Access and Correction: The principle of Access and Correction in the 2014 Privacy Bill reflects the principle of Access and Correction in the Report of the Group of Experts (though not verbatim). Importantly, the 2014 Privacy Bill incorporates the recommendation from the Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy that prohibits access to personal data if it will affect the privacy rights of another individual.

Disclosure of Information: The principle of ‘Disclosure of Information’ in the Privacy Bill 2014 is similar to the principle of ‘Disclosure of Information’ as recommended in the Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy (though not verbatim). As recommended this principle requires that personal data be disclosed to third parties only if informed consent has been taken from the individual and the third party is bound the adhere to all relevant and applicable privacy principles.

Security: The principle of security in the 2014 Privacy Bill reflects the principle of Security recommended in the Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy and requires that personal data be secured through reasonable security safeguards against unauthorized access, destruction, use, modification, de-anonymization or unauthorized disclosure.

Openness: The principle of Openness in the 2014 Privacy Protection Bill is similar to the principle of Openness recommended in the Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy in that it requires data controllers to make available to all individuals in an intelligible form, using clear and plain language, the practices, procedures, and policies, and systems that are in place to ensure compliance with the privacy principles. The principle in the 2014 Privacy Bill differs from the recommendation in the Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy in that it does not require data controllers to take necessary steps to implement practices, policies, and procedures in a manner proportional to the scale, scope, and sensitivity to the data they collect.

Accountability: The principle of Accountability in the 2014 Privacy Bill is similar to the principle of Accountability as recommended in the Report of the Group of Experts as both require that the data controller is accountable for compliance with the national Privacy Principles.

Application to interception and access, video and audio recording, personal identifiers, bodily and genetic material: The Privacy Bill 2014 incorporates the recommendations from the Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy and specifies the way in which the National Privacy Principles will apply to the interception and access of communications, video and audio recording, and personal identifiers. But the 2014 Privacy Bill does not specify the application of the National Privacy Principles to bodily and genetic material (though this information is included in the definition of sensitive personal information).

With respect to the installation and operation of video recording equipment in a public space, the 2014 Privacy Bill requires that video recording equipment may only be used in accordance with a prescribed procedure and for a legitimate purpose that is proportionate to the objective for which it was installed. Furthermore, individuals cannot use video recording equipment for the purpose of identifying an individual, monitoring his personal particulars, or revealing in public his personal information. The provisions in the Bill that speak to storage, processing, retention, security, and disclosure of personal data apply to the installation and use of video recording equipment. As a note the 2014 Privacy Bill carves out an exception for law enforcement and government intelligence agencies in the interest of the sovereignty, integrity, security or the strategic, scientific or economic interest of India.

With respect to the application of the National Privacy Principles to the interception of communications, the 2014 Privacy Bill lays down a regime for the interception of communications and specifies that the principles of notice, choice, consent, access and correction, and openness will apply to the interception of communications when authorised.

With respect to Personal Identifiers, the 2014 Privacy Bill notes that the principles of notice, choice, and consent will not apply to the collection of personal identifiers by the government. Additionally, the government will not be obliged to use any personal identifier only for the limited purpose for which the personal identifier was collected, provided that the use is in conformance with the other National Privacy Principles.

Additional Protection for Sensitive Personal Data

The Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy broadly recommends that sensitive personal data be afforded additional protection and existing definitions of sensitive personal data should be harmonised. The 2014 Privacy Bill incorporates these recommendations by defining sensitive personal data as data relating to physical and mental health including medical history, biometric, bodily or genetic information; criminal convictions; password, banking credit and financial data; narco analysis or polygraph test data, sexual orientation. The 2014 Privacy Bill also requires authorization from the Data Protection Authority for the collection and processing of sensitive personal data and defines circumstances of when this authorization would not be required including: collection or processing of such data is authorized by any other law for the time being in force; such data has already been made public as a result of steps taken by the data subject; collection and processing of such data is made in connection with any legal proceedings by an order of the competent court; such data relating to physical or mental health or medical history of an individual is collected and processed by a medical professional, if such collection and processing is necessary for medical care and health of that individual; such data relating to biometrics, bodily or genetic material, physical or mental health, prior criminal convictions or financial credit history is processed by the employer of an individual for the purpose of and in connection with the employment of that individual; such data relating to physical or mental health or medical history is collected an processed by an insurance company, if such processing is necessary for the purpose of and in connection with the insurance policy of that individual; such data relating to criminal conviction, biometrics and genetic is processed and collected by law enforcement agencies; such data regarding credit, banking and financial details of an individual is processed by a specific user under the Credit Information Companies (Regulation) Act, 2005; such data is processed by schools or other education institutions in connection with imparting of education to an individual; such data is collected or processed by the government Intelligence agencies in the interest of the sovereignty, integrity, security or the strategic, scientific or economic interest of India, the authority has, by a general or specified order permitted the processing of such data for specific purpose and is limited to the extent of such permission. The 2014 Privacy Bill also prohibits additional transactions from being performed using sensitive personal information unless free consent was obtained for such transaction.

Privacy Officers

The Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy recommends that Privacy Officers be established at the organizational level for overseeing the processing of personal data and compliance with the Act. This recommendation has been incorporated in the 2014 Privacy Bill, which establishes Privacy Officers at the organizational level.

Co-regulatory Framework

The Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy recommends that a system of co-regulation be established, where industry levels self regulatory organizations develop privacy norms, which are in turn approved and enforced by the Privacy Commissioner. The 2014 Privacy Bill puts in place a similar co-regulatory framework where industry level self regulatory organizations can develop norms which will be turned into regulations and enforced by the Data Protection Authority. If a sector does not develop norms, the Data Protection Authority can develop norms for the specific sector.

Recommendations in the Report that are not in the Bill

Scope

The Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy recommends that the scope of any privacy framework extends to all individuals, all data processed in India, and all data originating from India. The 2014 Privacy Bill differs from these recommendations by extending the right to privacy to all residents of India, while remaining silent on whether or not the scope of the legislation extends to all data processed in India and all data originating in India. Despite this, the 2014 Bill does specify that any organization that processes or deals with data of an Indian resident, but does not have a place of business within India, must establish a ‘representative resident’ in India who will be responsible for compliance with the Act.

Exceptions

The Report of the Group of Experts recommends the following as exceptions to the right to privacy:

National security
Public order
Disclosure in the public interest
Prevention, detection, investigation, and prosecution of criminal offenses
Protection of the individual and rights and freedoms of others

The Report further clarifies that any exception must be qualified and measured against the principles of proportionality, legality, and necessary in a democratic state.

The Privacy Bill 2014 reflects only the exception of “protection of the individual rights and freedoms of others”. The exceptions as defined in the 2014 Bill are:

Sovereignty, integrity or security of India or
Strategic, scientific or economic interest of India; or
Preventing incitement to the commission of any offence; or
Prevention of public disorder; or
The investigation of any crime; or
Protection of rights and freedoms others; or
Friendly relations with foreign states; or
Any other legitimate purpose mentioned in this Act.

Instead of qualifying these exceptions with the principles of proportionality, legality, and necessary in a democratic state – as recommended in the Report of Group of Experts on Privacy, the 2014 Privacy Bill qualifies that any restriction must be adequate and not excessive to the objectives it aims to achieve.

Constitution of Infringement of Privacy

The Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy specifies that the publication of personal data for artistic and journalistic purposes in the public interest, disclosure under the Right to Information Act, 2005, and the use of personal data for household purposes should not constitute an infringement of privacy. In contrast the 2014 Privacy Bill specifies that the processing of personal data by an individual purely for his personal or household use, the disclosure of information under the provisions of the Right to information Act, 2005, and any other action specifically exempted under the Act will not constitute an infringement of privacy.

The Data Protection Authority

The Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy recommends the establishment of Privacy Commissioners (and places emphasis on Privacy Commissioner rather than Data Protection Authority) at the Central and Regional level. The Privacy Commissioner should be of a rank no lower than a retired Supreme Court Judge at the Central level and a retired High Court Judge at the regional level. The privacy commissioner should have the power to receive and investigate class action complaints and investigative powers of the commissioner should include the power to examine and call for documents, examine witnesses, and take a case to court if necessary. The Commissioner should be able to investigate data controllers on receiving complaints or suo moto, and can order privacy impact assessments. Organizations should not be able to appeal fines levied by the Privacy Commissioner, but individuals can appeal a decision of the Privacy Commissioner to the court. The Commissioner should also have broad oversight with respect to interception/access, audio & video recordings, use of personal identifiers, and the use of bodily or genetic material. The Privacy Commissioner will also have the responsibility of approving codes of conduct developed by the industry level SRO’s.

Differing from the recommendations in the Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy, the 2014 Privacy Bill establishes a Data Protection Authority (as opposed to a Privacy Commissioner) at the Central level. Instead of creating regional Data Protection Authorities, the 2014 Privacy Bill allows for the Central Government to decide where other offices of the Data Protection Authority will be located. Furthermore, the 2014 Privacy Bill does not specify a qualification for the Data Protection Authority and instead establishes a selection committee to choose and appoint a Data Protection Authority. This committee is comprised of a Cabinet Secretary, Secretary to the Department of Personnel and Training, Secretary to the Department of Electronics and Information Technology, and two experts of eminence from relevant fields that will be nominated by the Central Government.

The 2014 Privacy Bill does not specify that fines ordered by the Data Protection Authority will be binding for organizations, but does allow individuals to appeal decisions of the Data Protection Authority to the Appellate Tribunal. Differing from the recommendations in the Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy, the 2014 Privacy Bill gives the Data Protection Authority the power to call upon any data controller at any time to furnish in writing information or explanation relating to its affairs, and receive and investigate complaints about alleged violations of privacy of individuals in respect of matters covered under this Act, conduct investigations and issue appropriate orders or directions to the parties concerned. Furthermore, the 2014 Privacy Bill does not specify that the Data Protection Authority will carry out privacy impact assessments, but the Authority can conduct audits of any or all personal data controlled by a data controller, can investigate data breaches, investigate in complaint received, and adjudicate on a dispute arising between data controllers or data subjects and data controllers. Unlike the recommendations in the Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy, it does not seem that the Data Protection Authority will play an overseeing role with respect to interception, the use of video recording equipment, personal identifiers, and the use of bodily and genetic material.

Tribunal and System of Complaints

Differing from the recommendation in the Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy, which specified that a Tribunal should not be established as under the Information Technology Act as there is the risk that the institutions will not have the capacity to rule on a broad right to privacy, the 2014 Privacy Bill does establish a Tribunal under the Information Technology Act. The Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy also recommended that complaints be taken to the district level, high level, and Supreme Court – whereas the 2014 Privacy Bill allows individuals to appeal decisions from the Tribunal only to a High Court. Similar to the recommendations of the Report of the Group of Experts, the 2014 Privacy Bill has in place Alternative Dispute Resolution mechanisms at the level of the industry self regulatory organization. The 2014 Privacy Bill also specifies that individuals can seek civil remedies and leaves the issuance of compensation for privacy harm to be from a Court. Unlike the recommendations in the Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy, the 2014 Privacy Bill does not specify that the Data Protection Authority will be able to take a case to the court.

Penalties and Offenses

The Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy did not provide specific recommendations for types of offences and penalties, but did suggest that offenses similar to those spelled out in the UK Data Protection Act and Australian Privacy Act be adopted – namely non-compliance with the privacy principles, unlawful collection, processing, sharing/disclosure, access, and use of personal data, and obstruction of the privacy commissioner. The 2014 Privacy Bill does create offenses for the unlawful collection, processing, sharing/disclosure, access, and use of personal data, but does not create offenses for obstruction of the privacy commissioner or broad non-compliance with the privacy principles.

Conclusion

The Centre for Internet and Society welcomes the similarities between the recommendations in the Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy and the leaked 2014 Privacy Bill, but would recommend that on areas where there are differences, particularly in the scope of the Privacy Bill and the powers and functions of the Data Protection Authority, the 2014 Bill be brought in line with the recommendations from the Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy.

In the upcoming post, we will be comparing the text of the leaked 2014 Privacy Bill to international best practices and standards.

References

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/report-of-group-of-experts-on-privacy-vs-leaked-2014-privacy-bill

Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy

praskrishna — 2012-11-06T09:39:43Z

The report covers international privacy principles, national privacy principles, rationale and emerging issues along with an analysis of relevant legislations/bills from a privacy perspective.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/report-of-group-of-experts-on-privacy.pdf

Report of the Global Accessibility Awareness Day 2017

nirmita — 2017-06-19T15:07:28Z

Aditya Tejas attended the Global Accessibility Awareness Day event organized at NIMHANS Convention Centre in Bengaluru. The event had multiple panels and presentations, including a talk on coding for accessibility, a panel on why accessibility is necessary and how India is lagging behind in implementing it, and a presentation on how accessibility principles are integrated into the product life cycle at Cisco.

Logo of Shuttleworth Foundation below:

Global Accessibility Awareness Day is celebrated across the world on May 3 every year. The objective of the event is to get everyone talking, thinking and learning about digital access/inclusion and people with different disabilities.

This year the Global Accessibility Awareness Day 2017 (GAAD 2017) organized by Prakat Solutions and co-hosted by CIS and Mitra Jyoti, was held on May 18 at NIMHANS Convention Centre in Bengaluru. The event was designed to raise awareness around digital accessibility issues for persons with disabilities. The Shuttleworth Foundation also supported this event. Approximately 250 people were in attendance. The URL for the event is here. A detailed agenda can be found here. Video recordings of the event will be made available shortly.

The event ran from 2:30-7:30 PM and featured various discussions and events, including dance ceremonies, skits, and talks by various figures.

The first event was an extended presentation on coding for accessibility by Nawaz Khan of PayPal, in which he discussed how developers can integrate accessibility principles into their software from the design phase, and how persons with disabilities can productively make their issues known to developers. He encouraged developers to adopt international standards such as WAI-ARIA, and also encouraged developers to use accessible open source libraries and testing tools. He took questions about standards for other types of disabilities beyond visual impairment, joining the global conversation around accessibility standards, and accessibility design for mobile platforms.

The main event was a panel on the awareness of accessibility issues in India and how they could be improved, both in the public and private spheres. In attendance were Abhik Biswas of Prakat Solutions, Pranay Gadodia of Deutsche Bank HR, Shalini Subramaniam of PayPal, Balachandra Shetty of Intuit, Sandeep Sabat of ZingUp Life, Kameshwari from Wipro, Mahabala Shetty from NIC, and Srinivasu from Informatica. The panel was moderated by Giri Prakash of Hindu Business Line. They discussed issues including how to promote a stronger government response to accessibility issues, initiatives that can be taken from the private or civil society sector in order to address accessibility issues, the lack of awareness around accessibility in the Indian context, and the responsibilities that developers have to make accessible apps and products. Shalini from PayPal talked about the potential for government initiatives such as Make in India could be used to further the availability of accessible consumer products and services in India.

The second speaker, Kameshwari Visarapu from Wipro, talked about how persons with disabilities need to make their voices heard in society. She stressed that, while the laws are already in place, people do not demand their rights. Without this, the government and any community, even those with the necessary power, would not be able to make the changes. Mahabala Shetty from NIC pointed out that NIC is responsible for developing and updating various government websites. He said he understood that the inaccessibility of government websites and services is a serious problem, and pledged to make sure that all websites would be made accessible in the coming months.

The fifth speaker was Sandeep Sabat of ZingUp Life, also a health tech company, which seeks to help people with issues not just around physical health, but also emotional, mental and spiritual health. He drew a comparison with the beginning of the mobile revolution, when people would say that web on mobile is a small, niche space, which eventually gave way to the idea of mobile-first design. Extending this analogy, he said that design must now be accessibility-first, in order to ensure that it becomes part of the culture of product development.

The sixth speaker at the event was Balachandra Shetty from Intuit. He pointed out that design principles needed to make a product accessible and making that product easy to use for the general public are the same, and that improving the user experience for 20% of the population effectively improves it for everyone.

The seventh speaker was Pranay Gadodia from Deutsche Bank HR, who argued that accessibility was important not just for persons with disabilities, but for everyone. He gave the example of ramps on public entrances, which make access easier for everyone. He demonstrated the use of a screen reader and tried to order food through Swiggy. When he found that the app was inaccessible, he pointed out that they had just lost a customer.

The eighth speaker, Srinivasu from Informatica, talked about his work in the accessibility space for various NGOs and companies. He argued that inaccessibility was never built into a product by design, and that any problems were the result of ignorance. He also said that accessibility work was the only career with two major benefits – that of creating an immediate impact among the community and being the kind of work that not only takes advantage of a business opportunity but also directly benefits consumers.

The ninth speaker, Abhik Biswas, said that he believes that accessibility is a nonissue, because if everyone wrote good code and followed best practices, all products would be accessible anyway. He said this was not always the case with software tools. He gave the example of work that Prakat did with a provider of legal software. In large corporate lawsuits, parties would usually share terabytes of data with each other, and legal e-discovery software is used to discover patterns for evidence. An inaccessible document would be useless to such software so, of course accessibility isn’t an issue only for a certain set of people. If you’re in the innovation space and trying to solve problems, he stressed, then accessibility is an issue.

The moderator then raised the issue of the lack of progress for persons with disabilities in the past five years. He asked what progress has been made in the legal area, and whether there are any solutions that users can come up with themselves rather than waiting for government action. Shalini pointed out the inaccessibility of the Swiggy app, and added that there are automated accessibility checkers for apps, both Apple and Android. She demonstrated this for the audience.

Kameshwari said that part of the problem is that a single person may not be able or willing to make much noise. There are a lot of communities that have been formed on a corporate/state/national level, but collectively making noise is important for major changes. One process that her own company tried was creating a repository of pre-tested accessible components, which has two advantages; the developer can pick the component from a standardized repository, and the component would have been pre-tested for accessibility and responsiveness. This is another possible solution – which people collectively come up with standardized repositories of accessible components.

She then gave the example of an accessible garden in Kerala, where persons with disabilities could visit and touch different types of plants in a guided experience to help them identify and understand them. When talking about inclusivity, she asked, why create a separate garden? Integrate these features into all gardens instead, she suggested.

The third speaker said that the government drains enthusiasm from people, and insisted that it could only play the role of a facilitator. The need is to inspire the necessary passion in people to carry forward the issues themselves.

Sandeep said that the intent is already there, but the government was not capable of doing it alone. The social fabric of the country needs to change, along with the attitude of the society. To that end, they suggested making accessibility a non-issue, and looking for opportunities to integrate it into society at large. Instead of thinking of it through a usability standpoint, consider how to improve the overall user experience of a product through the lens of a user with disabilities.

Balachandra pointed out that while love is a strong emotion, fear too is very powerful. The laws in the Commonwealth are much stricter than those in the US, he pointed out, and yet apps built in those countries are far more accessible than those in Indonesia, India etc. So, he suggested that if a product proved to be inaccessible to a certain segment of the population, the employees responsible could face down the CEO, and fear would drive them to make their products accessible. In addition, he called for stricter laws and a possible amendment of the IT Act, drawing upon laws in the Commonwealth and France. Disability discrimination in the US carries a high penalty, and suggested that similar laws would enforce accessibility in local products.

The moderator asked Pranay: is it possible for app developers or mobile platform providers to make accessibility mandatory for apps that are publicly released? He answered that as a tech developer he might not be the right person to answer that, however, he know that the iOS framework is much more stringent than Android in this regard. He called on users with disabilities to call out inaccessible design wherever they saw it, in order to inform developers and to create a healthy competition to make companies disability-inclusive. He also pointed out that many corporations hold events or draft policy for persons with disabilities without involving them in the decision-making process, and that this needed to change.

Srinivasu stressed that the job of making government services accessible fell on the developers within the government, who are in-house, or the vendors, who work for NIC. There are two things the government can do, he said; when asking for a vendor, they could refuse those who make inaccessible products, thus making accessibility a requirement for procurement.

The second is to raise accessibility issues at the level of education. He gave the example of several apps like TaxiForSure and Cleartrip, all of which responded to accessibility issues raised by their users. He stressed that any user could give feedback, and not just those with disabilities, and that raising awareness is a duty for everyone. He asked the audience to share the event on WhatsApp, and to type with their non-dominant hand, as a simple way of understanding disability. The other exercise he called on the audience to do is to write a post about the event on Facebook or their blogs using only the keyboard, without touching their mouse. In this way, he drew attention to thinking about accessibility whenever one uses a website or software.

Abhik took the opportunity to add one more dimension, an area of concern for app developers in India in particular – that of linguistic accessibility. Most apps, he pointed out, are being developed in English only, and most government apps have the additional burden of considering vernacular languages, while NVDA only supports 10-12. The government can’t solve this problem by making multilingual websites, as developers also need to contribute to projects like NVDA in order to build support for other languages. Accessibility, he stressed, wasn’t anyone’s problem, but everyone’s problem.

After this, Shekhar Naik, former captain of the Indian blind cricket team, talked about his life story. He mentioned that there are over 5c0k blind cricketers in the country. He talked about his passion for cricket, how it brought him to where he was today, and thanked the government for its increased recognition and felicitation of persons with disabilities.

After that, the owner of Pothole Raja, Pratap Bhimasena Rao, spoke about the importance of the accessibility of built environments such as roads. He pointed out that 25% of vehicular accidents cause a disability, and stressed the need to address these issues to promote not just accessibility, but prevent disability.

After this, Amit Balakrishna Joshi from the state government gave a brief overview of the Karnataka government’s accessibility and e-governance initiatives. He spoke about the Karnataka Mobile One app, an initiative to consolidate and digitize several state government services. As the world’s largest Mobile One platform, it would integrate about 40 departments, with the objective of bringing equality in service delivery across socioeconomic, linguistic and literacy divides.

At 7:00, Sean Murphy from Cisco gave a talk on universal design principles. He discussed how universal design is important to maximize market access, ensuring that a company reaches 100% of its market. In Cisco, accessibility is integrated into the product lifecycle right from the design phase to testing to rollout.

He also discussed regulatory standards such as Section 508 in the US, which he stressed were critical to securing industry-wide accessibility. The event ended at 7:30 p.m.

Images:

Participants light the lamp to commemorate the start of GAAD 2017.

Prakat Solutions co-founder Abhik Biswas speaks at GAAD 2017.

Panelists discuss accessibility challenges in India.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/accessibility/blog/report-gaad-2017

Report of the 30th Session of the WIPO SCCR by the Centre for Internet & Society

nehaa — 2016-04-04T14:39:05Z

This report was edited by Nehaa Chaudhari, Programme Officer; compiled with assistance from Nisha S.K., Administrator, and, Aarushi Bansal, Amulya P., and Saahil Dama, interns.

I. Broadcast Treaty Negotiations

Day 1: June 29, 2015

Opening Statements from Regional Coordinators

Japan, speaking for Group B, said that the Group continued to attach importance to the negotiation of the Broadcast Treaty. It emphasized the importance of the information session by technical experts to strengthen the understanding of technical issues. A better understanding of the legal aspects and language of the Treaty text would prove advantageous during Treaty negotiation.

It acknowledged that the presentation by Professor Kenneth Crews indicated that the Member States required an informative reference to adopt the limitations and exceptions. It recommended that the reference be made more user-friendly and accessible. Additionally, it proposed for an exchange of national experiences and a background check on the collection of outcomes.

Germany spoke next, on behalf of the Central European and Baltic States (CEBS). It supported a "forward-looking approach that would take into account the technical progress achieved in broadcasting systems so far". It argued for the inclusion of new media platforms used by broadcasting organizations into the Treaty.

It appreciated Kenneth Crews' study on limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives.
Germany believed that progress on these issues would be facilitated if the committee agreed on common objectives. It wanted to exchange best practices on both - limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives, and limitations and exceptions for educational and research institutions and for persons with disabilities.

Nigeria, on behalf of the African group, wanted equal time to be given to both the issues on the agenda - the Broadcast Treaty and limitations and exceptions. The African Group supported a balanced Treaty on protection of broadcasting organizations as per the mandate of the 2007 General Assembly. It welcomed Kenneth Crews' study on copyright trends. It also suggested a discussion on copyright exceptions for museums.

Argentina, speaking on behalf of GRULAC (Group of Latin American and Caribbean Countries), asked for equal time be given to all the issues on the agenda. This view was also supported by Mexico.

On behalf of the Asia Pacific group, Pakistan supported a balanced Treaty which followed the signal-based approach, for protecting broadcasting organizations as per the mandate of the 2007 General Assembly.

Belarus, representing the Central Eastern and Caucasian Countries, wanted a Diplomatic Conference for the conclusion of the Treaty soon.

The European Union (EU) stated that in building consensus on the Broadcast Treaty, the broad aim should be to make a meaningful Treaty that would be relevant to technological realities and needs of broadcasting organizations in the 21^st century.

Information Session on Broadcasting

Preceded by opening statements by regional groups and countries, the main event on Day 1 was an information session on broadcasting. The panel consisted of George Twumasi, Deputy Chairman and CEO of ABN Holdings Ltd.; Daniel Knapp, Director, Advertising Research; Shida Bolai, CEO of Caribbean Communications Network Ltd.; Anelise Rebello de Sa, Legal Manager of International Business and Contracts Compliance, TV Globo; Avnindra Mohan, President, Zee Network; and Tejveer Bhatia, Singh and Singh Associates, New Delhi.

Daniel Knapp started the information session by providing an outlook on broadcasting from a technical and revenue perspective. He highlighted that traditional broadcasting was different in different countries. In Greece, for example, there was little or no cable other than at the national level, while in the Middle East and Africa, a large proportion of access came from free satellite prescribers.

Knapp stated that despite digitization paid TV homes were growing at a 6% annual rate which was expected to slow down to 3.4% by 2018. While the growth was being led by India and China, pay TV homes in the US were declining as people were moving to over-the-top services. He added that users of connected devices such as smart-phones, broadband players and smart TVs were predicted to surge to more than 8 billion by 2017. This would result in the decline of TV-usage as audiences would move to online open source resources such as Facebook, YouTube, AOL and premium services such as Amazon and Netflix.

Kanpp voiced concerns about development in technology leading to piracy. He warned that traditional threats such as smart cards on set-top boxes and new methods of piracy such as online file-sharing needed to be checked.

John Simpson of the British Broadcasting Corporation ("BBC") outlined how broadcasting had changed through the years due to advancement of technology. He stated that the world was moving from analog TVs to digital services. Digital technologies had enabled broadcasters to offer more channels and programs, providing users with more choice and control. The definitional boundaries between broadcasting and digital video libraries were becoming increasingly blurred.

He argued that broadcasting was an important tool for social cohesion, economic development and ensuring public access to information. He believed that new content delivery mechanisms, such as computer networks or smart-phones, could bridge the knowledge-gap in developing countries. In Africa, for instance, the recent transition from analog television to digital television has the potential to improve both the quantity and the quality of content on television.

However, Simpson noted that the Treaty-text had no mention of the quality and accuracy of the information being broadcasted. It failed to discuss the need for televisions and videos to produce programs which did not just represent the beliefs of the government, but had a genuine observational truth to them. Simpson stressed upon maintaining quality and developing new ways in which things are broadcasted to people.

Shida Bolai of Caribbean Communications Network Limited spoke about challenges broadcasters faced during transition to digital technologies and migration of viewers and advertisers from traditional to new platforms. She noted that while most of the Caribbean was still grappling with standards and infrastructure to go digital, Bahamas and Surinam had already made the change. Legal protection offered to broadcasters in the Caribbean was inadequate and piracy in the form of CDs or fraudulent satellite use and internet were issues yet to be tackled.

Piracy was the result of the costly distribution of content on the internet leading to the broadcasters obtaining expensive licenses. Hence cable-operators pirated signals and free broadcasters had to look for new content. This showed that broadcasters were given inadequate protection. Bolai also indicated that it was difficult to invest in high-cost sports programmes due to financial losses arising out of piracy. She highlighted the need for the indigenous community to find primary channels of production and distribution.

George Twumasi from ABN Holdings LTD said that the central challenge for broadcasting in Africa was the creation of commercially viable content by Africans for Africans. If such content increased, the broadcast industry would grow to become a $75 billion industry over the next 15 years. With respect to piracy, he stated that Africans did not like foreign content and that it was not a pressing concern for them. He argued that the best way to stop piracy was through invasive technologies.

Twumasi wanted to create a lobby group to facilitate the growth of broadcasting. Given Africa's history, he emphasized on its need to define its role as a broadcaster and to entertain the world through its powerful mythology and culture.

Yaw Owusu from University of Ghana stated that copyright could be protected to the extent of monetizing what existed in the marketplace. He explained that the business strategy would operate by broadcasters driving the digital content and revenue system. Intellectual property and ownership would be protected through encryption software. Since English content had also been pirated in Africa, expert enhancement of existing content was required.

Anelise Rebello de Sa from International Business and Contracts Compliance, TV Globo said that the most important challenge to Latin American broadcasters were not other broadcasters, but Google, Facebook, Twitter and piracy. Audiences for the Brazilian advertising market had grown from 10 million in 2000 to 33 billion in 2014. Traditional TV had 72% of the advertisement market. Piracy was a problem since Brazilian signals would be picked up and used by broadcasters in other countries.

She also said that online piracy and set-top boxes were major causes for concerns. She explained the functioning of piracy using the example of Globo in Japan. Pirated content on Globo could not be removed since it did not originate in Japan. Hence the protection was inadequate.

Fingerprint technology would be useful against piracy since it automatically removes instead of comparing videos with one another. She concluded by stating that television also needed an updated legal framework and dependant businesses and investments to continue.

Avnindra Mohan from Zee Telefilms stated that by end of 2016, all of India would be on digital TV. The TV industry was set to increase its revenue from 7.8 billion USD to 12.1 billion USD in the future. However, piracy through DTH box cloning, IPTV, cable TV, inter-country smuggling and over the internet was a major concern. With regards to web-initiated transmissions, he argued that as long as the signal was hacked by someone, broadcasters should have the right to prevent that piracy or illegal transmission from happening.

Day 2: June 30, 2015

Day 2 began with the Chair calling for statements from Member States and regional groups on general principles and key objectives of the proposed Broadcast Treaty.

Regional Group Statements on General Principles

Japan, on behalf of Group B, reiterated that after the session it hoped to move forward with the discussion in line with the 2007 General Assembly mandate and to convene the diplomatic conference at the earliest opportunity.

Speaking on behalf of the Asia Pacific Group, Pakistan stated that it supported the development of an international treaty based on the mandate of the 22 ^nd SCCR which was reiterated in 2012. It sought an agreement based on traditional broadcasting and cable casting; a balanced text that prioritized the interests of all the stakeholders. Pakistan said that the original mandate without new layers of protection would achieve this balance.

Nigeria, representing the African Group, stated that it wanted a pragmatic and effective outcome in conformity with the 2007 mandate, and looked forward to moving towards a Diplomatic Conference soon. Noting the efforts made at the 29^th SCCR, it welcomed the discussion on broadcasting protection. Nigeria concluded by reaffirming its commitment for constructive development in order to protect broadcasting rights within the directives of the 2007 General Assembly mandate.

Romania supported a Treaty that would provide adequate protection in line with modern technological developments. It sought a broad consensus on the signal-based approach. It also stated that it hoped to recommend the convening of a Diplomatic Conference to the General Assembly.

The EU considered the Broadcast Treaty to be a high priority. It wanted a treaty that would be meaningful in view of the technological realities and the needs of broadcasting organizations in the 21^st century. It argued that both - traditional broadcasting and broadcasting over the internet- - required international protection against piracy.

Iran supported the statements made by Pakistan and the Asia Pacific group. It wanted the Treaty to follow the signal-based approach decided in the 2007 General Assembly. Iran only wanted protection for traditional broadcasters. It argued that expanding protection to transmissions over the internet raised concerns of rising transaction costs and reducing access to broadcast in developing countries. It sought an assessment of the impact of the Treaty on the public domain, access to knowledge, freedom of expression, users, performers and authors.

South Korea believed that after the introduction of the International Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organization ("Rome Convention"), the protection of broadcasting organizations had not been updated to reflect advances in technology. Therefore, it wanted the Treaty to respond to changes in technology.

National Statements on General Principles

Japan wanted the SCCR to end with a recommendation for convening a Diplomatic Conference to adopt the Treaty. It hoped to discuss objectives of protection and rights to be granted. It wanted to move to textual work in the near future and have more elaborate discussions to expand the scope of common understanding.

The US wanted to continue discussions to obtain a general consensus on a meaningful and targeted text. In its opinion, a right that protected broadcasters against signal piracy on any platform without an extra layer of protection could attract such a consensus.

Russia wanted to adopt a new document on the protection of broadcasting organizations. It wished to confine the Treaty to traditional broadcasting, but also lay a basis for content for future protection. It suggested that new forms of broadcasting should be identified and new directions for future protection should be introduced. Russia conveyed its support to all collective decisions to be taken while discussing the text of the future Treaty, as well as a speedy adoption of a common approach.

Belarus, on behalf of the Central Asia and Eastern Europe group, hoped that the new Treaty would reflect specificities of different regions and possibilities of adaptation to changes in broadcasting.

Indonesia supported the statements delivered by Pakistan. It wanted the Treaty to be based on the 2007 General Assembly mandate and use a signal-based approach with broadcasting and cablecasting defined traditionally. It opposed the introduction of any new layers of protection and wanted to strike a balance between rights and responsibilities of broadcasting organizations.

India supported a Treaty with the 2007 General Assembly mandate and also sought the prevention of unauthorized live transmission over computer networks. It opposed expanding the mandate to include elements of webcasting, simulcasting and retransmission over computer networks or other platforms, as these were not a part of broadcasting as defined in a traditional sense. India wanted the Treaty to provide exceptions to private use, use by experts in connection with reporting of current events, use solely for the purpose of education and research and the fixation of a broadcast by means of its own facilities.

Objectives of Treaty, Scope of Protection and Object of Protections

The EU argued that there was a need to ensure that the Treaty was up to date and in line with technological advancements. It wanted protection to extend to broadcasters who used new technologies and urged for the inclusion of a broad retransmission right that would involve simultaneous retransmission and deferred retransmissions. It believed that the objective of the Treaty was to stop piracy whether it was in the form of simultaneous transmissions or organized by websites. It also expressed eagerness to go to text-based work as opposed to working on clarifications.

Speaking next, the US supported a Treaty that would respond to advancements in digital technology and address piracy concerns by eliminating loopholes that pirates could exploit. It said that piracy was a significant concern but not necessarily the suitable object for the Treaty in question. It was not a major part of broadcasters' protection, which could be resolved by enforcing only signal protection.

Romania, speaking next on behalf of the CBES group, stated that it believed in a Treaty that would protect broadcasters against piracy regardless of the platform. It wanted to protect cablecasting and simulcasting in addition to traditional broadcasting. It re-iterated the stand taken by US in saying that a broad retransmission right would be the way forward.

Japan believed that there was a need for separating traditional broadcasting from internet originated initial transmission. Since newer broadcasting organizations dealt with internet broadcasting, it wanted Member States to discuss methods of dealing with such a transmission.

Argentina supported a Treaty that would include broadcasters and cablecasters but would exclude internet originated transmissions except in the context of near simultaneous transmissions.

The EU noted that India, Iran, CEBS, South Africa, Argentina and Kenya seemed to agree that live signals transmitted over any platforms would be the object of protection of the Broadcast Treaty. It stated that it would support a Treaty that protected cablecasting in addition to traditional broadcasting.

Italy endorsed the stance of the EU. It explained that the broadcasting rights to fixation, reproduction of fixations and retransmissions of such fixations and protection of signals sent over the internet could find a background in Article 14 of the TRIPS. It further argued that even the idea of exclusive rights to broadcasters could find precedence in Article 14 of TRIPS and in the Rome Convention.

China argued that the Treaty should account for technological developments. While it fully supported a Treaty that only covered traditional broadcasting including cablecasting, it wanted to include simulcasting, on demand casting and near simulcasting within the Treaty.

India, in response to the EU and Italy, sought to emphasize the difference between a right to authorize and a right to prohibit broadcasting. It stated that the Broadcast Treaty should not provide for a positive right to authorize. It argued that internet companies often broadcast events based on a contract with the content creators, and such a right should not conflict with rights that may be given to broadcasters by virtue of the Treaty. India emphasized the need to stick to the signal-based approach as it balanced the interests of broadcasters and content creators. It pointed out that in cases where broadcasters doubled up as content creators, copyright law would be enough to prevent piracy.

Brazil, along with the US and South Africa, wanted to take into account the concerns of content owners in other platforms.

The US stated that the common ground would be the protection of live signals. If the signal is transmitted by any means, it should be protected. Since many broadcasters used the internet to transmit signals, it would be important to ensure that the signals thus transmitted were protected from piracy as well. It wanted a technologically neutral definition of broadcasting and argued that this would still be limited to a signal-based approach because there were no rights over the content per se.

India clarified its stance and stated that while it did believe that unauthorized retransmissions over the internet should be prohibited by the Treaty, providing broadcasters with a sole right to transmission over the internet would be beyond the signal-based approach. Internet transmissions could rarely be said to be signal theft in the traditional sense.

Iran, responding to the EU, stated that it supported a Treaty that covered traditional broadcasting, cablecasting and even live retransmissions on the internet. It expressed concerns with the Treaty granting exclusive rights to broadcasters, and stated that it would support a Treaty against signal theft as long as the signals belonged to traditional broadcasters.

Chile argued that only broadcasts open to the public should be protected by the Treaty and broadcasts requiring decryption without a cable should be excluded.

The EU restated that it supported a Treaty with technologically neutral terminology. It expressed concerns with the Treaty benefitting all kinds of broadcasters since technological developments had enabled everyone to become a broadcaster. Italy supported this caveat and stated that a workable definition of a "broadcast organization" would be an organization that transmits a broadcast signal. A "broadcast signal" would be a signal that includes only broadcasts or cablecasts; and broadcasting does not include the transmission over computer networks. It believed that such a definition would differentiate between broadcasts, cablecasts and webcasts.

Japan stated that broadcasting organizations would have to be defined as broadcasters in the traditional sense since the idea of a broadcasting organizations had not changed despite technological advancement. It wanted to start with the definition of broadcasting as it was laid out in the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty ("WPPT") and the Beijing Treaty on Audio-Visual Performances, 2012 ("Beijing Treaty").

Nigeria stated that broadcasting should be clearly defined before broadcasting organizations since the two were inevitably linked.

Russia believed that the discussion was becoming overly complicated. It argued that a simple method of understanding broadcasting would suffice to define broadcasting and broadcasting organizations. The means used by broadcasters were of little concern to Russia.

The US stated that along with being forward-looking, the definitions also needed to be consistent with treaties passed by the WIPO in the past, including the WPPT and Beijing Treaty. Broadcasting organizations should be defined as entities that would assemble and schedule programmes carried by the signal keeping in mind the distinction between a signal and a program.

As per the EU, the definitions in Document SCCR 27/2 needed to be discussed as they covered important elements of broadcasting such as broadcasting by wireless means including satellite for public reception. The EU also stated that while the definition of broadcasting organizations should not include transmissions over computer networks, transmissions over computer networks could be included as a part of the object of protection.

At the end of the evening, Ann Lear, of the WIPO, intervened to stress that definitions must be adopted keeping keep in mind that many broadcasters today viewed the internet as the main platform for distribution of their broadcast in the near future and were using streaming and downloading over the internet.

Day 3: July 1, 2015

Day 3 of the negotiations began with the Chair noting the general consensus emerging in the matter of protecting live signals over any platform, and, allowing broadcasters to prohibit unauthorized access regardless of the platform from which the signal was transmitted. The Chair opened the floor for debate on whether there was a need for defining 'broadcasting organizations' or whether defining 'broadcasting' as an activity would suffice, and on whether the definitions must reflect those existing in other international treaties.

Defining 'broadcasting organizations'

The EU spoke first, stating that the definition laid out in Alternative B to Article 5 in Document SCCR 27/2 was similar to what it wanted. It believed that defining broadcasting and cablecasting was crucial to defining the beneficiaries of the Treaty. But this did not mean that it was unimportant to outline who the beneficiaries of the Treaty were.

Australia argued that the Rome Convention operated well without having defined broadcasting organizations and the same would hold true for the Broadcast Treaty as well. It further argued that the definition of broadcasting should be based on the definitions that already existed in the Beijing Treaty and the WPPT.

Serbia stated that the definition of a broadcasting organization had to conform by the definition of broadcasting. Additionally, it felt the need to define the responsibility of broadcasting organizations for collecting information and editorial functions.

Russia argued that defining broadcasting organizations would be a misstep since different countries would have different definitions of broadcasters in their national legislations. Russia relied on the fact that the Rome Convention was operating well without having defined broadcasting organizations.

Brazil stated that while it wanted clarity on who would be the beneficiaries of the Treaty it was still debating whether broadcasting organizations had to be defined in the Treaty. It supported a technologically neutral definition of broadcasting as it would encompass different countries with different regulatory regimes.

Kenya stressed that it needed clarity on what broadcasting entailed as their national laws dealt with broadcasting in a particular manner. It required a clear definition to move things forward.

South Africa, agreeing with Kenya, spoke of its domestic legislation which defined broadcasting in several ways, and included both wired and wireless technology. It suggested accommodating different definitions of countries like Brazil and China which regulated broadcasting differently. It added that following a text-based definition would be difficult as discussions involving fundamental questions of broadcasting were constantly being raised.

Canada felt the need to examine national treatment with respect to defining or not defining broadcasting organizations. It said that a basic definition of the activity with a chance to accommodate differences in national legislations would be the best way to move forward.

The US proposed that text-based work would be more constructive in gaining clarity on these questions.

The EU commented that the definition of 'signal' could be based on the Beijing Treaty that makes a reference to public reception of sounds or images or images and sounds or representation thereof. Alternative A for Article 5 in Document SCCR 27/2 most closely reflected the definitions that already exist in other existing treaties as well. It stated that it would be sufficient to define broadcasting, cablecasting, broadcasting organizations and signal.

Romania endorsed the statement made by the EU. It stressed on the importance of defining the beneficiaries of the Treaty.

The EU intervened again to state that it was necessary to define broadcasting organizations, but that it could start with defining broadcasting based on existing treaties.

Romania intervened on behalf of the CEBS group to state that it was important to move to a text-based discussion to continue making progress. It emphasized on the need for updating the international legal framework to accord adequate protection to broadcasting organizations.

Russia supported the same proposal and stated that it was important to consolidate a text to eventually recommend convening a Diplomatic Conference.

Serbia aligned itself with the Romanian position. It further stated that it was important to identify the beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries under the Treaty.

Iran intervened to urge the commencement of text-based negotiations on the draft Treaty as there was no consensus on important concepts such as objectives, scope or objects of protection of the Treaty. It supported the proposal made by Romania on behalf of CEBS. Iran also stated that deciding on convening the Diplomatic Conference in the next biennium before resolving divergent views and arriving at a consensus would be premature.

The US argued that text-based work would be the way forward. Though consensus was beginning to appear, a number of countries had not committed to anything. Hence the draft should leave options so that there is still room for negotiations. It further said that if an acceptable text was found over the next two meetings, then a Diplomatic Conference in the next biennium could have a successful outcome.

The EU stated that while there was progress on understanding different positions, a consensus was yet to emerge. Further discussions were needed on important issues such as the term of protection and technological protection measures. It aligned itself with the proposal of the CEBS group and hoped that the work would lead to a Diplomatic Conference in the next biennium.

India, South Africa, Japan, Nigeria, Senegal and Kenya also supported the CEBS proposal to move to text-based work.

Chair's Conclusions

At the end of the session on broadcasting, the Chair noted that there had been an exchange of views on the objectives of the Treaty, the scope of protection and the object of protection. While no consensus had been reached, there was greater clarity on different positions. The Chair stated that text-based work seemed to be the way forward and agreed to prepare the draft document. Further, with the exception of one delegation, there was a consensus on the protection being granted to broadcasting organizations to prohibit unauthorized use of broadcast signals in the course of a transmission over any technological platform. The Chair lastly said that the proposed timeframe for this would be to work towards the biennium when the proposed Diplomatic Conference could take place.

II. Report on Negotiations on International Instrument for Exceptions and Limitations for Libraries and Archives

Day 1: June 29, 2015

Opening Statements by Regional Coordinators

Japan spoke on behalf of Group B and stated that the presentation by Prof. Kenneth Crews (hereafter, Crews) had provided for a way forward by showing that Member States needed an informative session on this topic. This informative session should be in an accessible and user friendly environment where exchange of national experiences could take place. It believed that the SCCR should give further consideration to the objectives and principles proposed by the US in this regard.

Nigeria, on behalf of the Africa Group, wanted to establish legal instruments on this issue and on limitations on educational and research institutions for persons with disabilities. It wanted equal time to be given to all the instruments being discussed.

Representing the GRULAC, Argentina stated that the issue of limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives was of particular importance to it. Argentina hoped that it would be dealt with in a balanced way. It attached importance to the work that had been done until then and to the report prepared by Crews. It supported an open and frank discussion on the issue and was interested in the proposal made by Brazil, Ecuador, Uruguay, the African Group and India. Mexico endorsed this statement as well.

On behalf of the Asia Pacific Group, Pakistan expressed disappointment since all the issues had not received equal commitment from all Member States, particularly the issue of exceptions and limitations for libraries and archives. It stated that while there were different priorities due to different economic realities in the various Member States, inclusiveness as an ideal meant that these priorities would be accommodated.

Pakistan believed that the issue of limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives was of critical importance for individual and collective development of societies. Libraries and archives play an important role in the right to education, which remains a challenge in many developing countries due to lack of access to relevant educational and research material. While sharing national experiences and best practices was informative and useful, it was important to understand that the lack of development with regard to exceptions and limitations resulted in no decision at the 2014 General Assembly. Therefore it wanted to move to text-based work on the same.

The EU stated that the discussion could not be furthered without clarity on direction and objectives. It sought a surer understanding of what the outcome of the discussion could be to avoid wasting time and resources. It noted that the 2014 General Assembly had not provided the SCCR with a new mandate on libraries and archives. Even on exceptions and limitations for educational and research institutions and persons with disabilities, the acceptable way forward would be to encourage best practices in the broad and flexible boundaries of the current international copyright framework and not within the realm of further legally binding instruments.

Day 3: July 1, 2015

Regional Statements on General Principles

Work on exceptions and limitations for libraries and archives resumed in the afternoon session of the third day of the meeting.

Brazil, on behalf of GRULAC, believed that Crews' report documented the important role played by libraries and archives and emphasized the need for library lending services. It supported an open and frank discussion without prejudging its outcome. It was interested in the proposal made by itself, Ecuador, Uruguay, the African Group and India on the same. It also underscored the importance of ratification with respect to any Treaty relating to limitations and exceptions.

On behalf of the Asia Pacific Group, Pakistan stated that limitations and exceptions were essential requisites for all norm setting exercises. People in all countries would benefit from exceptions and limitations for libraries and archives since it would allow for materials to be accessible by all of humankind instead of being restricted to individual countries. Pakistan believed that any agreement on this would require harmonization of domestic laws and policies. It considered sharing national experiences of Member States to be beneficial in this regard. In a report to the 28^th session of the Human Rights Council, the Special Rapporteur for Cultural Rights also supported the harmonization of exceptions and limitations in copyright for libraries in education.

Representing the African Group, Nigeria underscored the fundamental role of libraries and archives in facilitating access to knowledge for human and societal development. The principle of exceptions and limitations meeting specific objectives is an essential part of international instruments. As evidence, Nigeria pointed out legal precedents that contained specific limitations protecting educational institutions and facilitating access to learning. It sought a text-based discussion on the text prepared by the African Group, Brazil, Ecuador, India and Uruguay and the Chair's informal document streamlining various proposals.

Romania stated on behalf of the CEBS group that it welcomed the updated version of the study on copyright exceptions prepared by Crews. Romania recognized the important role that exceptions and limitations would play in facilitating library services and serving the social objectives of copyright law. It stated that the three-step test provided for by existing treaties offered a framework that was wide enough for states to establish their own exceptions and limitations but conceded that it may need more guidance on best practices. It considered an approach based on exchange of best practices to be superior to a normative approach.

Japan, on behalf of Group B, relied on Crews' study to show that many countries had already introduced exceptions and limitations for libraries and archives in their domestic legal systems. It wanted further work at the SCCR to be based on the recommendations of the Chair at the previous SCCR and the presentation by Kenneth Crews. It sought for a substantive discussion at an objective and principle level as proposed by the US.

China intervened and pointed out that there already existed a Chinese legislation regarding exceptions and limitations for libraries and museums and orphan works.

The EU stated that the study conducted by Kenneth Crews was illustrative of the fact that exceptions and limitations in domestic legal systems and other instruments were adequate. It considered this to be the basis for understanding effective ways to implement exceptions and limitations in different legal systems. It believed that an approach based on exchange of best practices and mutual learning would stimulate substantive discussions. It further stated that in the absence of a mandate by the 2014 General Assembly, there was a need for further clarity on the expected outcome of these discussions.

Brazil spoke next in its national capacity and aligned itself with the statements produced by GRULAC, the Asian Group and the African Group. It considered the discussion on exceptions and limitations to copyright law to be a subject of utmost importance. It pointed out that for libraries, the activities that could be linked to copyright exceptions were preservation of copies, making orphan works, public library lending and so on.

Mexico aligned itself with GRULAC. It reiterated that its government attached importance to exceptions and limitations for libraries and archives that were aimed at facilitating copying, preservation, archiving and the dissemination of works, and, encouraging the spread of knowledge for the common good.

India intervened and pointed out that access to knowledge was lacking in many jurisdictions despite increasing trends of digitization of information. In this context, libraries and archives act as balancing forces for increased access and it was important to strengthen this balance between ownership and access. Citing Crews' study, India argued that the diverse approaches in national laws, including that of absence of limitations and exceptions in many jurisdictions, necessitated work on an international instrument for limitations and exceptions. It stated that the work of the African Group, Brazil, Ecuador and Uruguay to get more countries aligned to a document on the eleven issues for an equitable balance relating to limitations and exceptions needed to be built upon for consensus among members. The best way forward would be to draft a legal instrument, as exchange of practices did not bring the necessary urgency to the subject.

Iran aligned itself with statements made by the Asia Pacific Group and the African Group. It stated that the rights to science, library and culture were basic human rights. It believed that limitations and exceptions played a key role in creating a balance of interests in the international copyright system and empowered creativity by increasing educational opportunities and promoting access to cultural works and inclusion. It further argued that since the existing international copyright system did not address technological developments, it needed rectification. It cited the UNHRC Special Rapporteur's recommendation to the WIPO to set a core list of minimum required exceptions and limitations. Iran strongly supported work towards a legally binding international instrument for limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives, and research and educational institutions. It sought to start text-based negotiations in this regard and suggested that the proposal by the African Group, India, Brazil and Ecuador would be a good base for preparing a consolidated text.

Indonesia agreed with the statement made by the Asia Pacific Group and sought to move on to text based negotiations. It highlighted the importance of developing a legal framework to enable libraries and archives to reproduce content without the authorization of copyright holders for the purpose of education, research and inter-library loans.

The Russian Federation pointed out that it had already partially solved the problem in its domestic legislation. It sought to strike a balance between the interests of the author and that of the society.

Ecuador endorsed the statement made by GRULAC. It had a Bill in its domestic legislature to address this issue. It wanted to proceed to text-based negotiations.

South Africa aligned itself with GRULAC, the African Group and the Asia Pacific Group and emphasized the critical role of libraries archives and educational institutions in the dissemination and preservation of their cultural heritage. It also called for progress on text based work and to send a clear message to the General Assembly and the international community that the issue was important.

The US believed in the development of non-binding principles and objectives relating to national copyright exceptions and limitations for libraries, archives, and educational institutions. It noted that statements of such principles and objectives introduced by them in earlier sessions of the SCCR had been received positively. The US further stated that it supported work through symposia or seminars to examine different approaches to national implementation of these principles. It also went on to state that libraries and archives, being central to knowledge systems, provided valuable insights to people. She referred to a document formulated by the United States which discussed the importance of enabling libraries to function properly, along with the goals the US attempted to achieve. The approach would be for the Member States to tailor the exceptions to suit their needs within the constraints of international obligations to make libraries and archives available to the world.

Pakistan agreed with the statements made by the Asia Pacific Group, the African Group and GRULAC. It was concerned with the lack of uniformity and occasional absence of exceptions and limitations for libraries, archives and educational and research institutions in some countries, which restricted a large number of people from accessing information. Pakistan argued that reformation and harmonization of the current system was essential, and that mere incorporation into domestic laws was insufficient. There was a need to engage in text-based negotiations and work towards an appropriate international legal instrument.

Cameroon also aligned itself with the position of the African Group, GRULAC and the Asia Pacific Group. It emphasized the crucial role played by libraries and the importance of providing adequate exceptions and limitations for them. Cameroon said that it was also reviewing its own national legislation on the issue.

Armenia pointed out that it was drafting a new domestic law on the issue of limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives. It also emphasized the importance of minimum international standards for countries to adopt. Armenia wanted countries to implement these limitations in their national legislations and supported a legally binding instrument for limitations and exceptions.

Sudan supported the proposal put forward by the African Group, the Asian Group, Brazil Ecuador, Uruguay and India. Citing Crews' study, it stated that with advent of the digital age, all the memory and knowledge in the world could be easily converted into accessible formats and made available on databases for researchers and educational institutions. Therefore it was necessary for the SCCR to enable students and researchers to have access to this knowledge. The EU Directives passed in 2001 and 2012, and the work undertaken by the US and UNESCO were positive steps in this regard. It wanted to work towards an appropriate international instrument such as the Marrakesh Treaty.

Aligning with the African Group, Nigeria argued that since information sharing transcended national boundaries in the digital age, national solutions would be ineffective. There was a need to balance the interests of the creators and the larger public interest. It welcomed the report by Crews and the document prepared by the Chair to stimulate discussion along with the text-based proposal of the African Group, Brazil, Ecuador, India and Uruguay.

Japan supported Group B's statements and said that libraries and archives played a pivotal role in collecting and preserving materials and providing them to the public. It cited Crews' study to argue that international differences in conditions for application of limitations and exceptions would cause problems with the increasing digitizing of materials. Principles evolved from these discussions should serve as guidelines for establishing the legal framework for libraries and archives in each Member State. Japan considered the objectives and principles document released by the US to be a good basis for discussion.

Malawi wanted discussions to be guided by Crews' report.

Uruguay supported the statements made by GRULAC, the African Group and the Asia Pacific Group. It wanted to sponsor Document SCCR 29/4 submitted by Brazil, Ecuador, India and the African Group. It believed that libraries and archives were important for culture, leisure activities and welfare of the needy sections of society. Since archivists and librarians had approached the SCCR in every session to ask for an international solution, Uruguay urged the SCCR to continue with the discussion without prejudging the result.

Malaysia considered Crews' study to be useful for deliberation. It supported limitations and exceptions that contributed to the attainment of education for all. It wanted to appoint a facilitator or a friend of the Chair to further discussion and create concrete solutions.

Algeria valued the study submitted by Crews and recognized that copyright exceptions and limitations for libraries and archives would enable the spread of cultural and scientific awareness. Algeria aligned itself with the statement made by the African group.

Congo believed that libraries and archival services had inherent rights to share knowledge and education. This would enrich cultural diversity and break the digital divide between the Global North and South. It argued that Crews' study demonstrated that domestic solutions would not solve this problem and an international instrument was necessary.

Zambia supported the statement made by the African Group. It remarked that libraries and archives played an essential role in disseminating information and provided a pool of historical knowledge which served as a base for our future. It believed that any solution should balance the interests of rights holders and that of the public.

Nepal aligned itself with the Asia Pacific Group. It stated that libraries and archives played an important role in education as they were often the only sources of materials for students and academics in countries like Nepal. An international legal instrument on exceptions and limitations would balance different interests. Nepal supported appointing a facilitator or a friend of the Chair to develop a working text on limitations and exceptions.

Australia supported the proposal given by the United States as a sound basis for developing principles and objectives of the suggested clusters. It wanted simple and immediate solutions within the existing legal framework to close the gap between ideals and the reality.

The US, agreeing with Australia, showed interest in developing principles and objectives in terms of how different countries arrived at the principles and objectives. It also agreed to filling gaps between these and find consensus on the approach.

Day 4: July 2, 2015

Approach Forward

The Chair asked the Secretariat to provide an overview of the situation on this topic. The Secretariat stated that there were two studies on the issue - the first compiled by Kenneth Crews which had updated previous studies conducted in 2008 and 2014 and another study on limitations and exceptions for museums, SCCR/30/2.

There was also a working document adopted in 2014, SCCR/26/2, that compiled the reference to eleven topics and identified them as priority topics on this issue. Two proposals had also been adopted - one which refers to objectives and principles presented by USA (SCCR/26/8) and another by the African Group, Brazil, Ecuador, India and Uruguay (SCCR/29/4). The SCCR pointed out that a chart/non-paper had been submitted by the Chair in December 2014 and that delegations were to consider this non-paper in this session.

The Chair clarified that the purpose of preparing the chart/non-paper was not to push the discussion in a particular way or to side with an issue. It was to help guide discussion in an organized fashion while remaining respectful of all views. The Chair opened the floor for comments on the same.

Speaking first, Australia was willing to work on the Chair's proposal. It believed that this should be done in a three-step process. Firstly, principles and objects as proposed by the US had to be clarified; secondly, reasons had to be identified for why those principles and objectives were not already in effect; and finally, solutions for implementing the principles and objectives had to be discussed. It believed that simple and immediate solutions should be preferred to complex solutions which would take longer to come into effect.

Brazil stated that it was ready to contribute to discussions on the non-paper drafted by the Chair as a framework for the discussion. It argued that following the framework proposed by the Chair would not exclude discussion on principles and objectives. It suggested that the discussion on principles and objectives be subsumed within the framework proposed by the Chair.

Japan questioned whether the list of issues compiled or the way discussions were structured would have had an impact on the direction taken by the SCCR.

The Chair answered that the list was not fixed and that the flexible structure of the framework allowed for discussion on other related issues also. The Chair also asked if there was consensus on moving forward on the structure outlined by him or if there were suggestions on improvements.

The US agreed with the Australian delegate on the importance of developing principles and objectives. The Chair pointed out that this discussion could be included as part of the approach within the chart/non-paper prepared by him.

The EU questioned the difference between the chart and Document SCCR 26/3. It also asked how the discussion on each issue was envisaged and whether it would be limited to a principled discussion.

The Chair responded to the first question by stating that while Document SCCR 26/3 was the source, it would be better to use the chart as a tool than to refer to a document even though it had been approved by the SCCR. To the second question, the Chair stated that while he could not predict the way in which the discussion would unfold, he foresaw a discussion which would first test whether the topic had consensus with regard to its inclusion in the topic and then try to set a principle that would be agreed upon. If solutions existed, an exchange of views based on the Australian approach of contrasting the principle with the findings in the Crews' study would take place, followed by methods of resolving the issue through exchange of best practices or an international instrument.

Day 4: July 2, 2015

Day 4 commenced from the previous day's discussion on the approach forward on libraries and archives.

Brazil spoke on behalf of GRULAC and supported the approach recommended by the Chair in the non-paper submitted to the SCCR. It believed that this allowed for flexibilities. It invited comments for improvements.

This was repeated by Pakistan on behalf of the Asia Pacific Group and Nigeria on behalf of the African Group, Iran, Malaysia, Senegal, Mexico, Tanzania, Guatemala and Zimbabwe.

On behalf of the Asia Pacific group, Pakistan appreciated the proposal on the non-paper by the Chair.

Japan, speaking for Group B, required further clarifications on the approach proposed by the non-paper and reiterated its support to a discussion based on principles and objectives as proposed by the US. The Chair expressed his willingness to offer clarifications on questions from any of the delegations.

Nigeria supported the proposal on behalf of the Africa Group.

Iran supported Pakistan and the interventions made by Brazil and Nigeria. It saw these discussions as beneficial for developing a legally binding instrument. Since discussion on substantive issues was being delayed because of procedural matters, Iran asked Member States who believed that their positions would be hindered by the non-paper to express their concerns and suggest changes in the non-paper.

Uruguay speaking on behalf of their group stated that it supported the Chair's proposal and regretted that the discussion on substantive issues was being delayed due to procedural issues which, it believed, were settled in the 27^th SCCR.

The EU welcomed the proposal but raised concerns about clarity on the expected outcome of the approach suggested by the Chair.

South Africa supported the non-paper as a basis to proceed on the discussion.

Brazil, speaking for GRULAC, believed that it had a mandate on an international legal instrument in whatever form and asked whether all Member States agreed with the approach suggested by the Chair.

The EU stated that it did not find a mandate as described by Brazil in the general assembly 2014 records. It believed that the issue of the mandate would be controversial and would lead to unproductive and repetitive discussions. It asked the Chair to clarify the situation with respect to the mandate.

The Chair stated that before changing the topic to the mandate, he wanted to get more views on the proposal.

Venezuela supported the structure laid out by the Chair. Venezuela expressed dissatisfaction at the fact that even though it was supportive towards the Broadcast Treaty negotiations, which was not a priority for them, the same courtesy was not extended to them when it came to issues that were important to developing countries such as limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives. It was unhappy at substantive discussions on the latter being delayed due to procedural quarrels. It argued that if this was an indication of the way forward, it would first want to discuss exceptions and limitations at the next SCCR so that developing countries did not have to waste their time. Venezuela pointed out that even developed countries needed solutions on the issue of limitations and exceptions. It agreed with Brazil's interpretation with regard to the mandate.

Nigeria supported the statements made by the African Group, the Asia Pacific Group and GRULAC. It stated that procedural issues should not cloud discussions over substantive issues and that the approach put forward by the Chair allowed for sufficient flexibility.

Switzerland supported the Chair's proposal.

Australia believed that discussing procedures and concerns from Member States was important to ensure clarity on the way forward.

Canada supported the statements made by Switzerland and Australia.

The US supported the Chair's proposal. While it wanted a discussion on principles and objectives, it believed that the approach suggested by the Chair would help Member States. The US did not presuppose an outcome.

The Chair welcomed this statement and assured that the principles and objectives document submitted by the US would also be used as a tool to provide clarity on issues.

Ecuador supported the chart prepared by the Chair and agreed to using that chart as a starting point to guide discussions which would include principles and objectives as proposed by the US

Tanzania, on behalf of the African Group, supported the tool prepared as a means to reach a common understanding from the point of view of the different statuses of the countries.

Japan, in its national capacity, supported the statements made by Switzerland, Canada, Australia and the US.

Guatemala also showed great interest in the working of this tool for the purpose of the discussion.

Singapore realigned itself with the Asia Pacific Group's position and supported the Chair's proposal which it felt would be helpful in guiding the substantive discussions.

Zimbabwe appreciated the proposal made by Nigeria and showed its support for a constructive engagement without prejudice.

The Chair suggested that statements by NGOs should be taken only at the stage of discussing substantive issues. The Chair also welcomed questions seeking clarifications on the intention behind the preparation of the chart. The Chair agreed to write an introduction to the chart stating that the intention was not to prejudge any outcome. He encouraged Member States to discuss the substantive issue of preservation if all concerns were adequately addressed by an introductory text.

China expressed support for the Chair's proposal.

The EU sought clarifications on whether the Chair would write an introductory text and whether he would want discussions to proceed simultaneously. After receiving affirmations on both questions, the EU asked for bilateral discussions with the Chair.

After the coffee break the Chair announced that he had written an introductory text to the chart which would be circulated and sought to start discussion on the substantive issue of preservation and invited comments on the same from experts.

Preservation

Non-Governmental Organizations

Speaking first, the International Federation of Libraries and Archives (IFLA) stated that preservation was one of the most critical, frequently exercised and widely approved activities of libraries and archives and that preservation standards varied according to the medium - whether paper, film or digital. It pointed out that preservation was required only to preserve and not to create additional copies. Libraries and archives needed to collaborate across borders to preserve cultural heritage which may exist in libraries of different countries. Hence it was important to take international action.

The International Federation of Reproduction Rights Organisations (IFRRO) stated that preservation included reproduction, digitization and other forms of electronic reproduction, for the sole purpose of preserving and archiving information. It noted that many Member States did not include exceptions for this in their domestic laws. IFRRO wanted such exceptions to conform to the Berne three-step test and not be used for commercial purposes. It argued that while works that were commercially available did not need preservation, works that were no longer commercially available required an exception so as to be preserved appropriately. It believed that libraries had an important role to play in preserving and providing access to knowledge and cultural heritage and appropriate licensing agreements needed to ensure that they can perform this role adequately.

The International Council on Archives (ICA) said that without archives, countries such as South Africa would lose their past and cultural roots. The Council argued that while preservation could be thought of as a purely national issue with the only possible solution being to encourage countries to introduce preservation standards in domestic legislations, this would ignore important international dimensions involved in the question. Materials such as diplomatic reports and reports of ambassadors sent to other countries were essential to the history of a country. Such cases required stable, harmonious legislations. Also, since preservation of modern materials involved the use of technology that was not available in all countries, preservation standards would ensure that electronic materials could be frequently migrated and copied could be stored anywhere in the world.

The Federation of International Journalists (FIJ) strongly supported its work being archived as long as parallel publication was avoided. FIJ stated that exceptions should be accompanied by fair remuneration to authors and performers since the world would be deprived of cultural works if authors in poorer countries could not make a living. Authors were in an equally vulnerable state to libraries in less wealthy countries due to contracts with publishing houses. Given the imbalance in power, the WIPO needed to address this with an international instrument.

The International Authors Forum (IAF) agreed with the technical comments made by IFFRO and FIJ and supported preservation and digitization. It pointed out that while authors around the world were vulnerable due to having low incomes, it still wanted their works to be preserved.

According to (SDM), while the publishing industry depended on copyright protection to innovate, some limitations and exceptions needed to be carefully crafted. It wanted these limitations and exceptions to comply with the Berne three-step test, taking into account the increased risk of misappropriation and misuse in the digital environment. It wanted to ensure that uses under this exception were limited to preservation and replacement and did not allow the creation of additional copies.

Civil Society Coalition (CSC) called for harmonized, broad and compulsory exceptions to the right of reproduction to allow libraries to fulfill their traditional functions and to provide access to knowledge and culture on non-commercial terms. It pointed out that the world wide web of the 1990s was not preserved and would be lost without immediate preservation thereby creating a memory hole for the 21^st century.

Knowledge Ecology International (KEI) supported preservation and wanted copyright and trade negotiators to sort out context-specific access related issues. It believed that preservation should be a minimum standard and that domestic laws must be harmonized in this regard. It also pointed out that preservation included exceptions to Technological Protection Measures, exceptions to related rights, etc. Citing Wikileaks as an example, KEI stated since knowledge about one country could reside in another, there was a need for an international treaty that harmonized minimum standards on preservation.

Union internationale des éditeurs (UIE) stated that though International Publishers Association (IPA) considered topics related to libraries and archives as unrelated to the agenda, their preservation was important nonetheless. It articulated the publishers' wish to have their publications as part of the nation's heritage. It envisioned for the libraries authorized to preserve these to be technically, financially and legally enabled to do so. UIE emphasized on the need for differentiating between copyrighted, unpublished and commercially available works and achieving a consensus between stakeholders. It mentioned the following reasons for collaboration between right holders and libraries - firstly, publish may publish works in different formats, or hold information in different databases; secondly, updated data can be preserved only with collaboration; and thirdly, agreement on the mode of providing digital files to preserve libraries was also essential.

The IPA wanted a substantive debate on preservation. It wanted distinctions drawn between unpublished works, commercially available works and works in the public domain as there were different interests and different levels of consensus amongst stakeholders for these categories. The IPA also pointed out that digital preservation of digital work required co-ordination between libraries and right-holders in understanding which copies had to be preserved, the format it had to be preserved in, and how the digital files should be provided to libraries.

The (SCR) stated that there was a need for a preservation exception in copyright law since fires and other natural disasters had often led to knowledge and cultural materials being lost. SCR considered digitization to be a reliable answer. It believed that preservation could not be done simply through licensing when exceptions for archivists were unavailable. It believed that an international treaty would also prove useful where collaborative cross-border digital preservation initiatives were taking shape.

The Transatlantic Consumer Dialogue (TACD) considered preservation of a common past as a public good. It stated that current international copyrights law made it nearly impossible for librarians and archivists to engage in cross-border operations because uncertainty and possible litigation costs prevented them from engaging in preservation. It went on to state that even consumers in developed countries wanted these exceptions and limitations so that libraries could engage in cross-border preservation initiatives.

The Society of American Archivists (SAA) cited Crews' study to state that national measures and exchange of national best practices were both inadequate and instead an international instrument on limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives was necessary. It said that archivists could not preserve knowledge and serve global users without consistent and predictable laws. It also stated that 45% of WIPO's Member States provided for no exceptions on preservation and those who did were so varied in their approaches that librarians and archivists needed an international instrument to do their job. Further, according to SAA, three steps were involved in preservation - copying, updating the copies, and making the copies available when the original copy becomes damaged, obsolete, or is lost. As preservationists, it said, it needed the right to reproduce copies, migrate them either digitally or otherwise, and make them available.

The International Society for Development of Intellectual Property (the Society) pointed out that protection of IP strengthened creativity and innovation and contributed to building of a strong knowledge economy provided that it was balanced with public interest. To be successful, it said, any solution sought by the SCCR should balance different interests. It was of the opinion that this could be done either through limitations and exceptions or exchange of best practices. The Society pointed out that practical solutions were easily achievable and more likely to produce results than long term international measures.

The Canadian Library Association (CLA) explained that preservation included reproduction in digital and physical forms for the purpose of preserving and archiving a copyrighted work. It did not believe this could be adequately done with simple licensing contracts. It also pointed out that format shifting was important to ensure works remained preserved where the original mediums became obsolete or too fragile. It ended with emphasizing the importance of cross-border initiatives toward preservation.

The German Library Association stated that digital long-term preservation necessitated technical instruments. It opined that storing archives on CDs was not enough as the CDs might become unusable after a decade. It argued that multiple copies in newer formats were required to adequately preserve works. It further stated that publishers often refused to license works for this purpose and this necessitated an international instrument that harmonized laws across countries.

The European Bureau of Library Information and Documentation Associations (EBLIDA) considered libraries' role in preserving a nation's history to be a public good. It pointed out that licenses expired according to terms of subscription. It also said that libraries could not obtain back-up files for preservation and could only access them from the producer's website which provided no guarantee of preservation. Further, it stated that even in the EU, several Member States had not put in place clear comprehensive policies to ensure preservation; and, that an international solution which provided for a minimum standard for preservation regardless of the format of publication was necessary.

Member States

Brazil spoke first and underlined the importance of preservation. It proposed using technology-neutral and format-neutral terms in an exception for preservations.

Nigeria, on behalf of the African Group, pointed out that there was an overwhelming consensus amongst NGOs on the need to have an international instrument for preservation. It felt that contracts and licensing agreements could not do the job. Crews' study was credible evidence to show the need for an international instrument.

The US pointed out that the objective of their document on principles and objectives was to enable libraries and archives to do their job. Limitations and exceptions would enable libraries and archives to preserve copyrighted works in a variety of media and formats, including migration of content from obsolete formats. Though the US appreciated Crews' study, it wished to understand why different Member States had decided differently on this issue, what works required preservation, and how preservation was affected by TPMs.

Algeria stated that exceptions in its domestic laws allowed libraries to preserve one copy of a copyrighted work. It believed that an international instrument was required to harmonize these exceptions throughout the world.

UK said that its copyright law was amended in June 2014, to enable libraries and archives to make copies of copyrighted work in any format to preserve cultural heritage. It considered the current international framework and the three-step test adequate to provide for this exception.

Chile stated that its domestic law authorized libraries and archives to reproduce works that were no longer commercially available. A maximum of twelve copies could be made for non-profit uses.

Mexico also mentioned that exceptions and limitations for libraries and archives were present in its national laws. The exceptions allowed creation of copies for preservation, especially when the original had been taken out of the catalogue, had disappeared or was in a fragile state.

Ecuador said that some of the issues it wanted to consider and discuss were the subject, the number of reproductions, the format of reproductions and the circumstances in which these reproductions could be made.

India stated its Public Internet Access Programme and Information for All depended on preservation. It considered preservation important for economic development and believed it to be the foundation for intergenerational equity. Therefore, the exceptions should be wide and public interest should be the overriding factor.

Belgium stated that as in their domestic legislation, a limit on the number of copies allowed should be put in place if the purpose is preservation. Also, all exceptions should conform to the Berne three-step test. Belgium's national law did not consider works that were exhausted or out of commerce.

The Chair stated that he had prepared the introductory paragraph to the chart which mentioned that it was merely a tool to guide discussion and not a negotiating paper or a basis for the drafting exercise. The introduction encouraged evidence-based discussion without prejudging outcomes. He opened the floor for clarifications and discussions on the same.

EU thanked the Chair and stated that it wanted an agreement on what the expected outcome was before engaging in discussion. It expressed reluctance on engaging in any normative work. It stressed that there was no consensus on an international instrument. It preferred an exchange of best practices. The EU said that while a discussion on objectives and principles as proposed by the US was important, a more important exercise would be to exchange best practices and understand the rationale behind these best practices. It called for a reworking of the study by Kenneth Crews which made data more easily accessible and regrouped discussions of national studies by topic. It suggested that the WIPO Lex search database and search engine could provide for national studies even on library exceptions.

The Secretariat stated that work on the last issue was in progress and suggested that it be discussed in detail in the next session. The Secretariat also stated that it intended to organize regional seminars to provide technical assistance in this area for those who did not have exceptions yet or wanted to upgrade their laws.

Pakistan argued that the discussion was meant to include the possibility of all outcomes and not confined to any conditionality in light of the statement by EU. The Chair confirmed the same.

Nigeria, on behalf of the African Group, stated that while it was not prejudging an outcome from the discussions, it hoped that the exchange of best practices would seen as means to enhance the discussion and not as en end in itself.

Representing the Asia Pacific Group, Pakistan stated that it also did not want to prejudge outcomes but wanted to ensure that all the factual experiences were used and analyzed in a result-oriented manner. South Africa and Nigeria aligned themselves with Pakistan's position.

EU clarified that its acceptance of the chart as a tool did not mean that any outcome was acceptable or possible.

Iran aligned itself with Pakistan and South Africa.

The session on libraries and archives ended with no agreement on an international instrument.

Day 1: July 3, 2015

Agenda item 8 - Limitations and Exceptions for teaching, research, educational institutions and persons with other disabilities

Nigeria spoke first and said that the Committee should advance work on exceptions and limitations for educational and research institutions and persons with other disabilities. It reiterated that it wanted to discuss all three issues in the future sessions of SCCR.

The Central European and Baltic states group expressed interest in sharing experiences and practices regarding copyright limitations and exceptions for educational and research institutions and for persons with other disabilities.

On behalf of the GRULAC countries, Brazil welcomed the discussion on limitations and exceptions for educational and research institutions and for persons with other disabilities. It stated that there was no study on persons with other disabilities
and their relationship with limitations and exceptions and their right to culture.

The EU welcomed discussions on how copyright could support educational and research institutions and people with other disabilities in the analogue world. It stated that these exceptions could be adopted since the existing international copyright framework had adequate legal space and flexibility. It suggested that the Committee work on adopting exceptions and limitations such that national and international frameworks concur.

China, discussing its legal provisions regarding topics on the agenda, welcomed equal education and fair regulations.

Georgia, speaking on the importance of balancing the interests of copyright holders and the society, suggested that a strong and sustainable copyright system could be established through limitation and exceptions.

The US spoke about the need for exceptions and limitations for educational purposes to be consistent with international obligations. It considered collaborations with copyright industries to be essential to its education system. Firstly, it emphasized encouraging members to adopt exceptions and limitations which allowed using copyrighted works for educational purposes while ensuring a balance between rights of authors and public interest. Secondly, it encouraged the promotion of access to educational content through innovative licensing models. Thirdly, it wanted to adopt limitations and exceptions through technological learning. Finally, it included general ideals like monetary grants for non-profit education, ensuring access of copyrighted works. Owing to technological advancements and changes in the educational environment, the US welcomed the plans of WIPO to update the study on other disabilities for discussions in the Committee.

Mexico believed that education and scientific research could be encouraged by facilitating access to protected works. It also discussed executive strategies to allow the promotion of enterprises and the development of education to encourage technological innovation.

Trinidad and Tobago supported Brazil's views. It opined that the issues of limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives, and educational and research institutes are in tandem with each other.

Supporting this view, Russia stated that these issues did not have to be divided, and a single common approach could be used to resolve this conflict. It opined that it was a way of respecting the interests of authors and copyright holders, and also providing access for promoting development of science, culture and providing opportunities to citizens.

Algeria stated that the Berne Convention had established the stages for the exceptions and limitations for research and education. It argued that the exceptions and limitations should not only fulfill the needs of developing countries but other stakeholders as well. Algeria supported exceptions for research and teaching institutes.

South Africa supported a study on the challenges faced by education and research institutions and people with other disabilities, especially in the digital environment.

Sudan supported the statements of the African Group, Asia Pacific Group and GRULAC. It spoke on the need to make balanced efforts on all the issues on the Agenda to reach a consensus. In its opinion, the Marrakesh Treaty indicated that the study on exceptions and limitations and people with disabilities was required. It supported updating the study using previous studies of the International Bureau. In conclusion, it stated that libraries and archives should benefit from limitations and exceptions and should be accessible to all.

Pakistan supported the statements issued by the Asia Pacific Group, the African Group and GRULAC. It wanted time to be allocated for all three issues in future SCCR sessions. It also supported the study proposal of the African Group.

Ecuador also supported the statement of GRULAC and wished to dedicate more time to these issues in the session. It believed that all these elements, on better understanding, could help the proceedings of the committee.

Nigeria supported the intervention made by the Africa Group and the statements of Pakistan and Brazil. It considered exceptions and limitations for educational and teaching institutions, and persons with other disabilities to be important for advancement of knowledge. It highlighted the need for adjusting the international copyright system to facilitate access and usage of digital content by all.

Guatemala aligned itself with Brazil's statement. It attached importance to limitations and exceptions since it considered access to be a human right. It wanted a legal instrument covering limitations and exceptions in the digital area which considering the three-step test.

The Secretariat recalled that at SCCR 26, it had been asked to identify whether resources could be found to update the existing studies on exceptions and limitations for educational and research institutions. There were five regional studies conducted about five years ago on this topic. It reported to the Committee that it would identify the resources and start work the same year. It also sought funds in the work plan to work on it in the next bi-annum, assuming it was approved by the Member States. The Secretariat clarified that it had also been asked to look if there were resources to conduct a scoping study on the intersection of persons with other disabilities and the copyright system to understand the areas which needed to be addressed. There was an event on hearing impairment and captioning and how that intersected with this topic. There had also been a discussion on conducting additional studies and whether there would be resources for the same.

Sudan, speaking on persons with disabilities, pointed out that the same organizations which had previously tackled the subject should conduct the study since these organizations had more experience on limitations and exceptions. Sudan suggested holding seminars for direct interaction with them.

Nigeria, on behalf of the African Group, sought clarifications on whether this pertained strictly to the topics that the Secretariat had outlined - marking and scoping for persons with impaired hearing. It also wanted to know whether the captioning was for exceptions and limitations for educational and research institutions.

South Africa supported the intervention made by Nigeria.

Brazil sought further information from the Secretariat on whether it would be more efficient to have a compilation and a consolidation of the studies in one global study on the situation of exceptions and limitations under agenda item 8 than having a series of regional studies.

Japan, with regard to artists' resale rights, said that the related provision existed in the Berne Convention. However, the flexibility provided by the Berne Convention meant that the protection of resale right was left to the declaration of national laws. Japan wanted the Committee to stick with the agenda and did not support the proposal of including artists' resale rights as a new agenda item of the committee.

The US fully supported enriching the agenda, and encouraged all delegates to engage in discussions to develop it.

Chair's Summary

The Chair's draft summary was given to the regional coordinators for their inputs.. Members were free to present and reflect upon the document. But since it was the Chair's summary, he refused to enter into approval procedure for this. He suggested a set of recommendations for the Committee to discuss. The Chair advised the committee to discuss their recommendations and not the summary.

Iran raised an issue on the legal status of the summary. It pointed out that the summary had not been discussed, negotiated and approved by the Committee which went against WIPO practice.

The EU reserved the right to make comments on points of substance. These related to paragraphs that mentioned what the Committee decided, or those that mentioned individual positions taken by groups of states. It agreed with everything that was said by Japan on behalf of Group B. It also favoured the general point raised by Iran in relation to the paper carrying a disclaimer on the fact that it did not commit to the Committee in any way.

Romania, on behalf of the CEBS, expressed support for the remarks made by the Group B coordinator.

Nigeria commented on the Chair's summary as a tool for providing balance on all the concerns raised by the different regional groups. It added that even the African Group's concerns had not been reflected in the summary. However, it reiterated its confidence in the summary for the purpose of moving forward.

The Chair stated that there were fifty pages which did not appear in summary shape but did on the record shape. However a record containing different views and specific positions had been made. The Chair's view was reflected here and because it was not approved or subjected to approval by the Committee, it did not take decision on that. The Chair sought to avoid starting an exercise on common drafting of each paragraph. It invited Members to consider the approach adopted by Nigeria and some delegates from the CEBS countries without taking that as a decision of the Committee. The Chair urged members to move to the next stage of recommendations. It invited oppositions from those against this view.

The Chair distributed a separate paper to all the delegates, and a discussion was commenced to arrive at a common view for the three items on the agenda. The Chair highlighted that regarding the third topic, which was related to exceptions and limitations for educational and research institutions and persons with other disabilities, there was a mandate to deliver the Committee's recommendation to the 2015 General Assembly.

Nigeria, on behalf of the African Group, asked the Chair to have a disclaimer in the summary and set the desired precedent. It was concerned that it could lead to the Committee being extended.

Pakistan said that the Asia-Pacific Group supported text-based negotiation on agreed topics and discussions on those requiring clarification. Pakistan considered it premature to talk about the exact timing of a Diplomatic Conference which could be decided in due course after evaluating progress.

Nigeria recommended that the 2015 WIPO General Assembly direct the Committee to expedite its work towards an international legal instrument in whatever form on the topic of limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives. For agenda item 8, it recommended repetition of the same language.

Brazil, on behalf of the GRULAC group, supported the statement made by Nigeria. It supported working towards an international legal instrument in whatever form as an objective for the future work on proposed recommendation on limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives.

Pakistan, on behalf of a majority of the Asia-Pacific Group, showed support to the proposal made by Nigeria.

Iran supported the statement made by Pakistan on behalf of Asia. It pointed out that the text-based negotiations on the Treaty had not been conducted. There was also no common understanding on key issues and Articles. Iran recommended that the Committee continue its work on text-based negotiations, finding solutions for key issues and achieving consensus on key provisions in the draft Treaty. Depending on the progress of the text-based negotiations, the Committee could decide on the date for convening a Diplomatic Conference. It supported the statement made by Nigeria and Brazil, and seconded by Pakistan regarding items 7 and 8.

India supported the views expressed by Nigeria, Brazil, Pakistan and Iran on both agenda items dealing with limitations and exceptions. It suggested that the mandate of the General Assembly should reflect in the language, which was presently not the case. It sought to know the basis on which it had been decided that the Diplomatic Conference would be held in 2017 since there was no consensus of opinions yet. It suggested that the reference be left open, depending upon the two future SCCR meetings.

The Chair clarified that a recommendation without consensus could not be accepted. On observing that no Delegate requested the floor, he welcomed concluding remarks and called for closing the session.

The EU expressed disappointment on the failure to formulate a roadmap on the Treaty in 2017 and reaching a conclusion on the exception items.

Nigeria, in line with the comment made by South Africa, recommended that more effort could be made towards finalizing a language that achieves consensus.

The Chair, showing interest in the suggestion of Nigeria, expressed the desire to see whether the other delegates were keen on receiving suggestions and welcomed different views regarding this.

South Africa requested the floor and supported the statement made by Nigeria. It felt that the Committee had something on the paper and if the regional coordinators met, a consensus could be achieved.

The Chair proceeded to listening to closing remarks. The meeting closed with closing remarks by delegates.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/report-of-the-30th-session-of-the-wipo-sccr-by-the-centre-for-internet-society

Report of Aaron Swartz Memorial Hacknight

zainab — 2013-03-02T13:32:25Z

On 19th and 20th January, HasGeek organized a hacknight to commemorate the life and works of Aaron Swartz. Zainab Bawa from HasGeek shares with us the developments.

Why host an Aaron Swartz memorial hacknight? In the aftermath of Aaron’s death, some people began expressing doubts, uncertanties and misinformed opinions about his activist causes. They questioned whether Aaron committed a ’crime’ by downloading articles from JSTOR and whether the means he used for liberating data were wrong in the first place. It was important to dispel these doubts and provide people with a better understanding about issues such as IT laws, copyright rules and access to information, and how these are implemented in different parts of the world.

Aaron had initiated several coding projects during his lifetime. Anand Chitipothu, who collaborated with Aaron at the Internet Archive and maintains his web.py framework, suggested that the hacknight could also be an opportunity where people get familiar with Aaron’s coding projects and work on some of them.

The hacknight: 87 people registered for the hacknight. Approximately 40 people turned up. Some participants proposed projects to liberate different kinds of public data such as electoral data, weather data, information about train timetables and crawling data from government and NIC websites. Developers worked on these projects to make the data searchable and usable.

Discussions during the hacknight: The hacknight started at 3 PM with a discussion about the life of Aaron Swartz and the political and legal implications of his coding projects and activism.

This discussion was led by Anand and Kiran Jonnalagadda of HasGeek.

Kiran gave an elaborate background about Aaron’s life starting with how he established RSS 1.0 as a standard and the collaboration between Aaron and Lawrence Lessig on using the RDF format for Creative Commons licensing, leading to Aaron’s work with Reddit and its acquisition by Condé Nast. Shortly after Reddit’s acquisition, Aaron left Reddit and began a career in activism. In this period, he started freeing data funded by public money which constitutionally belonged in the public domain. He published data from the catalogue of the Library of Congress and the US case law archives on the Internet Archive. Later, Aaron downloaded articles from JSTOR to release academic papers whose research was funded with public money. Before he could sift through the downloads, Aaron was caught by the police. He returned the hard disk containing the downloads. JSTOR and MIT did not pursue cases against him, but the United States government charged Aaron for breaking into the MIT campus and faking identity by changing the MAC address of his computer.

At the end of Kiran’s presentation, participants asked several questions about activism, what constitutes offensive speech, framework of IT laws in India, and the process of law-making.

At 5 PM, Sunil Abraham of the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) joined the hacknight. He made a presentation about copyright laws, the Indian IT Act and Aaron’s work.

Sunil explained how Aaron believed in the importance of access to information by releasing data from copyright and thereby enabling freedom of expression. According to Sunil, Aaron Swartz is a very troublesome hero because his data liberation projects do not fall into one neat category. Moreover, the means he used for his activism are questioned by different activist groups. This makes it difficult to pinpoint exactly what one must credit Aaron for and what category of activism his work falls under.

After Sunil’s presentation, there was a half hour discussion about the scope of copyright laws in India, copyright exemptions and what constitutes copyright infringement. Participants agreed that the trouble lies with the broad interpretations of copyright and IT laws. This enables the state and private parties to target and harass a person, often on frivolous grounds.

Discussion about hacknight projects: At 6 PM, participants with project ideas and those who wanted to join projects gathered in the garden. Over tea and snacks, groups / pairs were formed. Participants reported two difficulties here:

There weren’t enough projects to choose from i.e., fewer problems to solve
Not everyone who proposed projects could break the problem down into tasks for individual team members to work on.

This affected participants’ motivation to stay through the night.

Web.py workshop: After the tea break, Anand conducted a workshop on web.py.

Some participants came to the hacknight mainly to attend this workshop. The code used in this workshop is available on github.com/anandology/webpy-workshop.

Anand also worked on the database module of web.py to decouple it and make it into a separate python module. This project requires more work before it is completed. The code is available at: http://github.com/anandology/sqlpy

Projects at the hacknight: A complete list of projects that participants worked on during the hacknight are available on the hacknight website. We talked with some of the teams and individual participants to understand their projects, the process they followed for solving the problems, and outcomes at the end of the hacknight.

Liberating electoral data: Arun Raghavan, an open source enthusiast, and four other participants (Arun K, Praveen, Mikul and Sumant) worked on scraping electorial data from http://ceokarnataka.kar.nic.in/. They planned to build a frontend which will make it easy for users to search their names and polling booth information. Currently, the electoral roll is published as a PDF document for each polling station along with a search form (which is unreliable and fails often) for individuals to find their names on the roll and the location of their polling station.

It was difficult to parse the data because the PDFs were not designed for machine readability. Hence, the team had to spend time understanding how to extract the text. The other problem was that the person’s name was written above the father’s name, but if the person’s name was very long, it overlapped the father’s name. This made it difficult to determine where the person’s name ended and where the father’s name began. The team managed to come up with a heuristic to distinguish between the person’s name and father’s name based on slight differences in the way the text was printed on each sheet.

Arun Raghavan and other team members used Python to parse data from the PDFs. They also tried extracting data by using the search form and saving results whenever it returned them (since it failed often). The search form required a JavaScript submit, so Praveen Kumar and Arun K learned to use casper.js to emulate a browser and extract data. Praveen also used casper.js to liberate his friend Aram Bhusal’s blog from Sulekha.com. Aram made a presentation about this at the January edition of the Bangalore JS meet.

At the end of the hacknight, the group almost managed to get a dump of an entire electoral roll. The project repositories:

Other data liberation projects:

Indexing Government websites by category of information: Elvis D’souza worked on crawling government websites and indexing them by category, for e.g., education, import-export trade, science and technology, etc. According to him, government websites contain lots of information including documents and spreadsheets. At the hacknight, Elvis completed the indexing process and ran some statistics about information contained in these websites. He eventually wants to build a portal where people can access this index and the documents.
Railway timetable data: Anand scraped data from the IRCTC website. Supreeth Srinivasmurthy worked with this data to plot a map. Bibhas Debnath also worked on the timetable data to build an API. A demo of this API is yet to be released.
Parsing weather data: Asok Padda converted weather data from HTML format to Excel sheets. Hourly weather data for all weather stations in India during 2012 is parsed and uploaded to Internet Archive: http://archive.org/details/www.imdaws.com-2012
Other projects: Kashyap Kondamundi started building an app which will help people to calculate the current values of their mutual funds. He built 70% of this app at the hacknight.

HasGeek has requested participants to post updates about their projects and share links to their code.

Overall achievements from the hacknight: Participants reported the following outcomes from the hacknight:

Learning about new libraries and their applications
Awareness about IT laws and copyright frameworks in India
Opportunity to meet and network with other coders who have an interest in data-related projects or working on new project ideas.

Participants appreciated Anand’s presence as a mentor during the hacknight. He interacted with the teams and helped them when they were stuck with their projects, either with his expertise in Python or by suggesting alternative ways of approaching the problem.

HasGeek thanks CIS for sponsoring the venue and providing logistical support during the hacknight.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/hasgeek-blog-zainab-bawa-feb-6-2013-report-of-aaron-swartz-memorial-hacknight

Report from India: Relicensing books under CC

subha — 2014-05-05T09:13:15Z

My name is Subhashish Panigrahi. I am an educator currently working in the community and communication front at The Centre for Internet and Society’s Access To Knowledge program (CIS-A2K), an India-based catalyst program to grow Indic language communities for Wikipedia and its sister projects. Prior to my work at CIS, I worked for the Wikimedia Foundation’s India Program, a predecessor to the current CIS-A2K project.

Read the original published on Creative Commons Blog on April 18, 2014 here.

While building ties with higher education and research organizations, I also try to get educational and encyclopedic resources licensed under Creative Commons licenses so that communities can use them to enrich Wikimedia projects. Currently, there is a low level of content available across all the Indic languages and the need for Unicode-based content is extremely crucial.

	While negotiating with authors for relicensing their books in Creative Commons license, I started identifying certain motivation areas for any author for such free content donation. Some of the authors, publishers, and copyright holders have started learning about open access to scholarly publications. However, the readers who are likely to buy a hard copy of a book are likely to buy it even when a free, virtual version is available – that’s the idea authors who are skeptical about CC licenses need to understand.

While negotiating with authors for relicensing their books in Creative Commons license, I started identifying certain motivation areas for any author for such free content donation. Some of the authors, publishers, and copyright holders have started learning about open access to scholarly publications. However, the readers who are likely to buy a hard copy of a book are likely to buy it even when a free, virtual version is available – that’s the idea authors who are skeptical about CC licenses need to understand.

Open source book publishing in India has gained much interest and focus, primarily because of the lack of foresight of the possibilities that are tied to the release of books. It was Pratham Books that first came up with the brilliant idea of “One book book in every child’s hand.” The subsequent release of multilingual books under free licenses was the beginning of a new era in Indian publication.

Book publishers should also think of the target readers of print and web media. Releasing content in free licenses doesn’t affect the mainstream print publications. When it comes to books, there is always a scope for reprinting and making money. After negotiations with two authors and getting 13 books about children’s literature, travelogues, popular science, and linguistic and historical research, I am sure the publishing community has not been educated in the right way about providing free access to content.

It generally takes a long time and effort to negotiate with the copyright holders to get the books out with a CC-BY-SA tag. But it is a permanent and a significant value addition for the open knowledge movement. I believe with more online readers and reviewers getting complete access to books, authors gain more respect in the society and popularity which in turn helps them to sell more of the reprints. Two prime fears are keeping many publishers away from releasing their books online for free: the fear of going out of business and the fear of losing ownership of content. But at the same time, some of the publishers are becoming aware of the mass media outreach and winning hearts of many readers by releasing content for free without copyright restrictions.

Case studies:

Release of a four-volume encyclopedia in Konkani

In 2013, Goa University released Konkani Vishwakosh, a Konkani-language encyclopedia in CC-BY-SA 3.0 license that they had published. This is the largest encyclopedia compiled in the language. The book is being digitized on Konkani WikiSource and content from it is being used to enrich the Konkani version of Wikipedia. The project additionally brought about 20 active contributors for digitization.

Release of 11 Odia language books

11 books from Odia author and academic Dr. Jagannath Mohanty were re-released under the CC BY-SA 3.0 license by the “Manik-Biswanath Smrutinyasa,” a trust founded by Dr. Mohanty for literary discussions and upbringing new writers. His wife and trust’s current chairman Allhadmohini Mohanty formally gave written permission to release and digitize these books. The Odia Wikimedia community is planning to involve undergraduate students of an indigenous educational institution, Kalinga Institute of Social Sciences, to digitize these books. The trust is also reaching out to publishers who published more than 150 of the author’s books to give permission for re-releasing them under a CC license.

Relicensing “Classical Odia” under a free license

The book is heavy and expensive for any normal reader. Enormous copies were sold after Odia was declared as the sixth Indian classical language; however, this did not stop the authors Dr. Debiprasanna Pattanayak and Subrat Prusty from changing the license term from All Rights Reserved to CC-BY-SA 3.0. 600-plus pages full of historical documents and manuscripts along with many undiscovered areas of Odia language’s literary heritage of more than 2500 years are now going to go on WikiSource and enrich Wikipedia articles apart from being great resource for language researchers.

Relicensing books and conversion of ISCII to Unicode font

Two Odia language books by linguist Subrat Prusty, “Jati, Jagruti O Pragati” and “Bhasa O Jatiyata,” have been relicensed. These are few of those thousand books in those the text are typed with fonts with ISCII standard and not Unicode. ISCII standard fonts have glyphs with Indic characters that are actually replacements of the Latin characters by Indic characters. So, a computer with one particular font not installed will display absurd characters. The publication and printing industries still use these fonts as the desktop publishing software package they use for typeset do not have Unicode engine to render the fonts properly. The conversion from these ISCII fonts to Unicode is a way that is going to be used for digitizaing these books to convert the entire book with searchable Unicode content.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/creative-commons-subhashish-panigrahi-april-18-2014-report-from-india-relicensing-books-under-creative-commons

Report - State of Consumer Digital Security in India

pranav — 2021-07-05T10:56:49Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/report-state-of-consumer-digital-security-in-india

Reply to RTI Applications filed with respect to Foreign Contractors and Vendors of IT and Telecommunication Enterprises

Lovisha Aggarwal — 2015-02-25T14:13:52Z

An RTI application was filed by the Sh. Matthew Thomas on August 06, 2014 enquiring about the details of the foreign contractors and vendors of certain Information Technology and Telecommunication enterprises. Mr. Mathews in his application asked some specific questions.

Information sought in the RTI Application

The specific questions asked are as follows:

1. Names, addresses in India and abroad of all their contractors and vendors who are foreign firms, even if they have registered offices in India.

2. Permission to inspect files pertaining to subject matter.

3. Details of the orders placed in each of the past 3 or more years on each of their contractors and details of the orders placed in each of the past 3 or more years on each of their contractors where the amount is for Rs. 50 crore or more.

Enterprises to which the RTI Application was addressed

The application was sent to the following enterprises:

1. Department of Electronics & Information Technology, Ministry of Communications and Information Technology, Government of India

2. Department of Telecommunications, Ministry of Communications and Information Technology, Government of India

3. Information Technology Branch, Department of Food, Supplies & Consumer Affairs, Government of NCT of Delhi

4. Centre for Development of Telematics (C-DOT) - an Indian Government owned telecommunications technology development centre which designs and develops digital exchanges and intelligent computer software applications.

5. Centre for Development of Advanced Computing (C-DAC) - a research and development organization under the Department of Electronics and Information Technology, Government of India.

6. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (BSNL) - an Indian state-owned telecommunications company. It is India's oldest and largest communication service provider.

Reply to the RTI Application

The reply to the information sought in the RTI application by these enterprises is as follows:

1. Department of Electronics & Information Technology, Ministry of Communications and Information Technology, Government of India

The RTI application was addressed to the Deputy Director of the department who forwarded the application to the Joint Director directing him to provide the requisite information directly to the applicant or transfer the application to the concerned Central Public Information Officers (CPIOs) if the subject matter did not pertain to his division. In response, the Joint Director of the Department of Electronics & Information Technology said that the information on the subject matter was NIL as far as Engineering/BM section, Fire, Security and Protocol Sections of Department of Electronics and Information Technology is concerned.

2. Department of Telecommunications, Ministry of Communications and Information Technology, Government of India

The RTI application was forwarded by the Deputy Secretary & Nodal Officer (RTI) of the Department of Telecommunications to the following divisions for providing the requisite information directly to the applicant or transferring the application to the concerned Central Public Information Officers (CPIOs) if the subject matter did not pertain to their division and their replies are as under:-

a. Investment Promotion Cell: The Director (IP Cell) & CPIO said that no information was available as the subject matter of the application did not pertain to IP Cell.

b. Access Services-I Division: Director (AS-I) & CPIO asked to treat the information as NIL.

c. Licensing Finance - II Branch: Director (IF-II) & CPIO asked to treat the information as NIL as the matter did not pertain to that branch.

d. Licensing Finance - III Branch: Director (IF-III) & CPIO asked to treat the information as NIL as the matter did not pertain to that branch.

e. Deputy Wireless Adviser: CPIO & Deputy Wireless Adviser to the Govt of India of WPC Wing, SACFA Sectt. said that the information sought was not available with that PlO.

3. Information Technology Branch, Department of Food, Supplies & Consumer Affairs, Government of NCT of Delhi

The Public Information Officer (HQ) of the Information Technology Branch of Department of Food, Supplies & Consumer Affairs forwarded the RTI application to Assistant Commissioner (Policy), Food and Supplies Department and Public Information Officer (HQ), Food and Supplies Department to provide the Para wise information directly to the applicant in accordance with section 5(4) of RTI Act as the record related to the information sought was said to be available with their office. Section 5(4) of RTI Act reads, "The Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, may seek the assistance of any other officer as he or she considers it necessary for the proper discharge of his or her duties." However, a reply hasn't been received from the Assistant Commissioner (Policy), Food and Supplies Department and Public Information Officer (HQ), Food and Supplies Department yet.

4. The Centre for Development of Telematics

Referring the information sought in the RTI application as vague, the Centre for Development of Telematics asked the applicant to clearly define the information requirements and the period for which it required. The Centre claimed that the information sought at present would lead to handing over of a large amount of data which would require application of significant resources of public authority, since the number of the vendors and contractors could be more than seven hundred in numbers of different categories, namely, component vendors, equipment suppliers, administrative service contractors, etc. The reply was in consistency with section 7(9) of the Right to Information Act which reads, "An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question."

5. Centre for Development of Advanced Computing

The Centre for Development of Advanced Computing disregarded the information sought by the applicant and observed that theinformation sought was vague in nature, not specific and open ended, therefore, could not be termed as Information under the RTI Act without providing any further explanation in this regard.

6. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (BSNL), Government of India Enterprise

The RTI application was referred to the MM cell of BSNL by the AdditionaI General Manager (MIS) & CPIO of BSNL (RTI Cell) who replied that no information with respect to the names, addresses in India and abroad of all their contractors and vendors who are foreign firms, even if they have registered offices in India was available. As far as the third question regarding details of the orders placed in each of the past 3 or more years on each of their contractors and details of the orders placed in each of the past 3 or more years on each of their contractors where the amount was for Rs. 50 crore or more was concerned, the AGM of MM cell said that the information could be provided for specific contractor.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/reply-to-rti-applications-with-respect-to-foreign-contractors-and-vendors-of-it-and-telecommunication-enterprises

Removing Barriers to Connectivity: Connecting the Unconnected

praskrishna — 2013-11-09T03:14:43Z

The workshop was organised by Internet Society and ETNO on October 23, 2013. Pranesh Prakash was a panelist.

Click to read the details on IGF website here

In the spirit of Paragraph 50 of the Tunis Agenda, our panel aims to highlight best practices that will help in “turning the digital divide into digital opportunity”, and will look at what can be done to promote broadband penetration and access to infrastructure. By forging better Internet governance environments through dialogue and interaction, stakeholders can work together to build better local infrastructure and more efficient deployment of infrastructure. Internet technical community experts, policy-makers, and development experts know well the challenges that exist in promoting deployment of Internet infrastructure. From public-works challenges to human capacity development, each country may have their own unique challenges. Provisions and policies must be put in place to ensure that broadband connections are developed, maintained and improved to sustain the rise in Internet traffic and particularly to accommodate the fast growth of video traffic. Against this backdrop, this workshop proposes to assemble a group of experts and practitioners to discuss observations from the field (practical examples and information) about how to help encourage connectivity and to “lift” barriers to connectivity. We also will identify barriers for investment faced by the private sector and tries to define ways to improve the policy landscape and identify a sustainable economic model to foster private investment. We plan to do this by identifying connectivity challenges and by identifying best practices for working with all stakeholders to manage those challenges. The developing country perspective will be reflected, and the workshop will specifically address what is needed in practical terms to connect the unconnected – eg low-cost devices, open systems and public / private partnerships. Workshop participants will engage the audience to encourage a dialogue that seeks feed-back from participants. An output of the workshop would be a collaborative “living” list of best practices and observations identified during the workshop that can serve as a baseline to be added to given national and local dynamics.

Panelists

Raj Singh, Internet Society, Male, Technical Community, SINGAPORE, Asia-Pacific Group
Martin Levy, Hurricane Electric, Male, Private Sector, UNITED STATES, Western Europe and Others Group - WEOG
Christoph Steck, Telefonica, S.A., Male, Private Sector, SPAIN, Western Europe and Others Group - WEOG
Jennifer Haroon, Google, Female, Private Sector, UNITED STATES, Western Europe and Others Group - WEOG
Simon Milner, Facebook, Male, Private Sector, UNITED KINGDOM, Western Europe and Others Group - WEOG
Pranesh Prakash, Centre for Internet & Society India, Male, Civil Society, INDIA, Asia-Pacific Group

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/igf-2013-removing-barriers-to-connectivity

Remembering Aaron Swartz, Taking Up the Fight

nishant — 2013-01-28T04:51:58Z

I encountered the Aaron Swartz memorial the other day that helps ‘liberate’ a randomly selected article from JSTOR, as an act of civil disobedience, to commemorate both the legacy that Swartz leaves behind, but also the high-profile witch-hunt case which was a crucial factor in him taking his own life.

Nishant Shah's blog post was published by DML Central on January 24, 2013.

Much has been said about Swartz and much more will have to be said about him, and about his work, to make sure that the good that men do does not get interred with their bones. And there are people more articulate, closer to him in personal and professional capacities who will do a better job at making sure we have an archive of memories to fill up the ‘Aaron sized-hole’ that his untimely death has introduced into our lives.

So instead of attempting to write a eulogy I am ill-equipped for, I want to mark the tragic loss of Aaron Swartz by talking about causes and everyday politics. And I might have to do it through a mode of collective self-flagellation because it is a point that needs to be driven home. I am sure that almost everybody would agree that the ideals that Swartz held were unimpeachable, even though they might not always agree with his tactics. There would be a general consensus that in our rapidly growing information societies free knowledge leads to better, stronger, and more equitable societies. In fact, there is a whole generation of younger users who are so used to having unlimited and unrestricted access to digital information that they often get frustrated and infuriated when they encounter media cartels and Intellectual Property Regimes that insist on locking up knowledge -- especially publicly funded academic resources -- behind paywalls.

We have all grumbled, at different points, about the essay we wanted to teach in class, the book we needed for a research paper, the movie we wanted to remix, or the song we wanted to sample, locked up behind (often) unaffordable access systems. We recognise that in the building of this gated knowledge landscape, we are creating uneven, corrupt and corrupting hierarchies of information control and access. And yet, when it comes to actually responding to these questions of closed intellectual property, restricted information access and media monopolies exerted by information cartels, we generally have a comfortable sense of distance. These are other peoples’ problems. These are battles somebody else will fight.

Even within academia, where we have been the most active in questioning and contesting the notions of power and knowledge, there is also the highest complicity in creating these monstrous behemoths that we feed regularly with research that is more often than not, publicly funded. In our quest for tenures, careers and popularity, we have voluntarily given up our rights to private and closed access journals that in return give us the symbolic capital to gain power in the system. In the 1980s, when the Subaltern school was writing against colonial legacies and cultural imperialism, Homi Bhabha had described this condition of granted agency and borrowed power as mimicry. In his own hyphenated way, he had suggested that the new subaltern, who is often seen as engaged in critically responding to the colonial masters and their legacies, only exists in a structure of mimicry -- where he emptily gestures towards the problems of colonial inheritance, without any power to actually overthrow or challenge it. Within South Asian feminisms, Kumkum Sangari has described this status of granted agency within patriarchy -- a condition that gives us a sense of power and a space of negotiation, as long as we uphold the very structure that oppresses us in the name of our empowerment.

It is time to realise that within academia, and the social sciences and arts based academia in particular, we have now perfected the art of mimicry. Where we pull our pens instead of our swords and talk (often indecipherably) about conditions of power and geographies of inequality and the need to do something about it. We attend conferences where proceedings go into closed access journals, and publish books with publishing houses that charge us and our students exorbitant sums of money to access the knowledge in those books. We publish not to be heard but to be cited, not to create open publics but closed communities of interlocked interests. And we feel smug about being politically committed, separating the conditions of our knowledge production from the content of our knowledge, as if the two have nothing to do with each other.

In other sectors that I dabble with but am not such a rank (and hence equally complicit) insider, I see similar distances. This alienation of our intellectual work from its political content is just one of the separations we make. The other separation is between our discursive communities and everyday practice. So embedded is our description, explanation and analysis of the world, in languages inaccessible to any but the privileged few who are trained to understand it. The advice we give our students -- follow the grandmother rule: write clearly so that your grandmother will be able to understand it -- is a standard we rarely practice in our academic writing.

These are symptoms I see in other sectors that are also committed to political questioning and change, working towards building better worlds and societies. Specialised lawyers fight their battles in closed court-rooms and write in obscure law journals which are not accessible or intelligible to the common public. Activists often get bogged down into appropriating the same language to be taken seriously. Advocates of causes fear over-simplification of the complex issues, keeping the everyday person outside of these battles around information and knowledge. We have built gated politics where the threshold of investment and engagement is so high, that the only response to that is detachment.

This brings me back to talking about Swartz and his dream of liberating information from the clutches of exploitative information houses. Swartz’s crime was not that he broke the law -- I wonder if the public prosecutor has never pirated material online; statistics would suggest otherwise -- but that he didn’t find allies in spaces which profess political commitment but then mimic it in their content rather than in practice. It is not surprising that even when JSTOR, the affected party, refused to push for criminal or civil charges, the University where the ‘crime’ occurred and the federal authorities decided to pursue him as a felon. Many people have wondered about why a well-loved and popular cult figure like Swartz would feel so lonely as to take this drastic step to end his life, and we now have to take responsibility that this separation of what he believed as the central tenet to life is something that his natural allies have separated out from their work.

Swartz is a folk-hero and he shall live as an icon for the groups working around internet freedom and information openness. But maybe it is time to stop waiting for another martyr to the cause. Maybe it is time to recognise that these battles around knowledge and information are not specialised fights to be played out in sombre tones by zealots on opposite sides. These are human wars, and they affect not only our everyday sense of who we are and the societies we live in, but also who we want to become and the worlds we want to create for future generations to inherit. Swartz embodies a whole generation of digital natives who fail to understand why the ethically wrong and morally reprehensible practice of protected intellectual property, that goes against the very grain of building information societies, continues to find silent supporters rather than vocal protestors. The grief and sense of loss we have with Swartz's passing is not easy to remedy. But Swartz will also be a moniker that every digital native will have to wear, as they traverse a treacherous terrain, persecuted by IP watchdogs and punished for what seems to be a natural order of things in their information worlds.

There is a lot of growing commentary with people expressing anger, shock, and sadness for the 26 year old man who died fighting a battle that we did not even become an audience to. And that commentary is necessary because we need to cope with the fact that we live in a world where somebody who believed in the most beautiful idea of a world that has free knowledge was persecuted to an early death. But at some point, we also need to stop talking and realise that we don’t have to come to arms for a moment only once-every-heroic-death. That the last disservice we will do to this everyday battle against intellectual property regime is to wait for the next icon to be trapped in this Greek tragedy structure of being punished for doing what he felt was right. It is time to start thinking of these questions of knowledge and information in our everyday life, negotiate with them beyond the narratives of convenience, and hope that there will be no more need to produce martyrs for a cause that is not just about books and music, but about being human.

Banner image credit: Maria Jesus V http://www.flickr.com/photos/favina/8377387022/

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/dml-central-jan-24-2013-nishant-shah-remembering-aaron-swartz-taking-up-the-fight

Rejuvenating India’s Rivers the Wiki Way

subodh — 2019-04-01T13:18:33Z

Tarun Bharat Sangh (TBS), an organisation working on rejuvenation of rivers in India, has began documentation of rivers on Wiki, especially to draw attention to and mitigate the crisis of toxic deposits facing more than 40 rivers in India. The work was started by Jal Biradari, TBS’s Maharashtra based group, in Sangli district with the help of the Access to Knowledge (CIS-A2K) team of CIS. Here is the report from the first pilot workshop conducted by CIS-A2K during 22-25 December 2018 at Tarun Bharat Sangh Ashram, in Alwar, Rajasthan.

Events details on Wikimedia meta page

The Workshop

As per a Government of India report 42 rivers in India are polluted with toxic heavy metal deposits in them. To mitigate this crisis Tarun Bharat Sangh (TBS), an organization working on rejuvenation of rivers in India began documentation of rivers on Wiki. The work was started by TBS’s Maharashtra based group Jal Biradari in Sangli district with the help of the Access to Knowledge team of CIS (CIS-A2K).

Realizing the potential of the project TBS decided to integrate this as training module in their capacity building workshops conducted at Bhikampura in Rajasthan. The first pilot workshop was conducted by CIS-A2K during 22-25 December 2018 at Tarun Bharat Sangh Ashram, Bhikampura, Alwar in Rajasthan for 34 participants from eight states of India. Dr. Rajendra Singh, Maulik Sisodiya and Subodh Kulkarni, CIS-A2K were the facilitators. The objectives behind organizing the workshop was to build an open knowledge resource on water related issues in all Indian languages, document the river basins of India, train volunteers working in the sector to work in Wikimedia projects, open street mapping exercises and photo walks along the river and post free content on Commons and Wikisource projects.

The documentation structure for river basin was decided through participatory process. The participants were divided into 6 groups for working on 6 river basins of Arvari district. The resource material available with TBS in the form of maps, reports, training booklets was used to prepare the schematic maps of each river basin. The water bodies such as ponds, manmade structures like dams were also listed.


Activists during the workshop conducted by TBS in Alwar, Rajasthan in December 2018

After this pre-work, the training on Wikipedia editing started. The participants worked in sandboxes first on their articles. The manual of style, giving offline and online references and categorisation were discussed and practiced on sandboxes. The Commons session started with elaborate discussion on copyrights, licenses and encyclopedic content. The images were uploaded on Commons and used in the articles. The articles in the sandboxes were presented by each working group. Taking into consideration various suggestions, appropriate modifications were done. The finished new articles and the additional content into existing articles were then moved in the main namespace of respective language Wikipedia. TBS has decided to re-license 30 books and training material on river in CC-BY-SA. Participants who attended the workshop have started contributing in various languages.

Participants' Feedback

“Rivers are essential for existence of life in land. Keeping its sanctity and health is very important. The Wikimedia workshop gave an insight on river pollution issues and the importance of reviving them. As Wikipedia is an open platform it can create a larger impact by reaching out to the society.” - Mrityunjay1010

“The wiki-workshop on "Rivers on Wiki" has been my maiden experience in the context of generalizing the knowledge for common good. The workshop gave me a lens to see the usage of Wikipedia in regional languages as a medium for environmental consciousness building as well as conservation. Wikipedia as a means for social audit was also another enriching experience in that workshop.” - Simantabharati

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/subodh-kulkarni-rejuvenating-indias-rivers-the-wiki-way

Regulatory Perspectives on Net Neutrality

pranesh — 2015-07-18T02:46:30Z

In this paper Pranesh Prakash gives an overview on why India needs to put in place net neutrality regulations, and the form that those regulations must take to avoid being over-regulation.

With assistance by Vidushi Marda (Programme Officer, Centre for Internet and Society) and Tarun Krishnakumar (Research Volunteer, Centre for Internet and Society). I would like to specially thank Vishal Misra, Steve Song, Rudolf van der Berg, Helani Galpaya, A.B. Beliappa, Amba Kak, and Sunil Abraham for extended discussions, helpful suggestions and criticisms. However, this paper is not representative of their views, which are varied.

Today, we no longer live in a world of "roti, kapda, makaan", but in the world of "roti, kapda, makaan aur broadband". ^{^[1]} This is recognized by the National Telecom Policy IV.1.2, which states the need to "recognise telecom, including broadband connectivity as a basic necessity like education and health and work towards 'Right to Broadband'."^{^[2]} According to the IAMAI, as of October 2014, India had 278 million internet users. ^{^[3]} Of these, the majority access Internet through their mobile phones, and the WEF estimates only 3 in 100 have broadband on their mobiles.^{^[4]} Thus, the bulk of our population is without broadband. Telecom regulation and net neutrality has a very important role in enabling this vision of Internet as a basic human need that we should aim to fulfil.

1. Why should we regulate the telecom sector?

All ICT regulation should be aimed at achieving five goals: achieving universal, affordable access; ^{^[5]} ensuring and sustaining effective competition in an efficient market and avoiding market failures; protecting against consumer harms; ensuring maximum utility of the network by ensuring interconnection; and addressing state needs (taxation, security, etc.). Generally, all these goals go hand in hand, however some tensions may arise. For instance, universal access may not be provided by the market because the costs of doing so in certain rural or remote areas may outweigh the immediate monetary benefits private corporations could receive in terms of profits from those customers. In such cases, to further the goal of universal access, schemes such as universal service obligation funds are put in place, while ensuring that such schemes either do not impact competition or very minimally impact it.

It is clear that to maximise societal benefit, effective regulation of the ICT sector is a requirement, which otherwise, due to the ability of dominant players to abuse network effect to their advantage, is inherently prone towards monopolies. For instance, in the absence of regulation, a dominant player would charge far less for intra-network calls than inter-network calls, making customers shift to the dominant network. This kind of harm to competition should be regulated by the ICT regulator. However, it is equally true that over-regulation is as undesirable as under-regulation, since over-regulation harms innovation - whether in the form of innovative technologies or innovative business models. The huge spurt of growth globally of the telecom sector since the 1980s has resulted not merely from advancements in technology, but in large part from the de-monopolisation and deregulation of the telecom sector.^{^[6]} Similarly, the Internet has largely flourished under very limited technology-specific regulation. For instance, while interconnection between different telecom networks is heavily regulated in the domestic telecom sector, interconnection between the different autonomous systems (ASes) that make up the Internet is completely unregulated, thereby allowing for non-transparent pricing and opaque transactions. Given this context, we must ensure we do not over-regulate, lest we kill innovation.

2. Why should we regulate Net Neutrality? And whom should we regulate?

We wouldn't need to regulate Net Neutrality if ISPs were not "gatekeepers" for last-mile access. "Gatekeeping" occurs when a single company establishes itself as an exclusive route to reach a large number of people and businesses or, in network terms, nodes. It is not possible for Internet services to reach the customers of the telecom network without passing through the telecom network. The situation is very different in the middle-mile and for backhaul. Even though anti-competitive terms may exist in the middle-mile, especially given the opacity of terms in "transit agreements", a packet is usually able to travel through multiple routes if one route is too expensive (even if that is not the shortest network path, and is thus inefficient in a way). However, this multiplicity of routes is not possible in the last mile.

This leaves last mile telecom operators (ISPs) in a position to unfairly discriminate between different Internet services or destinations or applications, while harming consumer choice. This is why we believe that promoting the five goals mentioned above would require regulation of last-mile telecom operators to prevent unjust discrimination against end-users and content providers.

Thus, net neutrality is the principle that we should regulate gatekeepers to ensure they do not use their power to unjustly discriminate between similarly situated persons, content or traffic.

3. How should we regulate Net Neutrality?

3.1. What concerns does Net Neutrality raise? What harms does it entail?

Discriminatory practices at the level of access to the Internet raises the following set of concerns:

1. Freedom of speech and expression, freedom of association, freedom of assembly, and privacy.

2. Harm to effective competition

a. This includes competition amongst ISPs as well as competition amongst content providers.

b. Under-regulation here may cause harm to innovation at the content provider level, including through erecting barriers to entry.

c. Over-regulation here may cause harm to innovation in terms of ISP business models.

3. Harm to consumers

a. Under-regulation here may harm consumer choice and the right to freedom of speech, expression, and communication.

b. Over-regulation on this ground may cause harm to innovation at the level of networking technologies and be detrimental to consumers in the long run.

4. Harm to "openness" and interconnectedness of the Internet, including diversity (of access, of content, etc.)

a. Exceptions for specialized services should be limited to preserve the open and interconnectedness of the Internet and of the World Wide Web.

It might help to think about Net Neutrality as primarily being about two overlapping sets of regulatory issues: preferential treatment of particular Internet-based services (in essence: content- or source-/destination-based discrimination, i.e., discrimination on basis of 'whose traffic it is'), or discriminatory treatment of applications or protocols (which would include examples like throttling of BitTorrent traffic, high overage fees upon breaching Internet data caps on mobile phones, etc., i.e., discrimination on the basis of 'what kind of traffic it is').

Situations where the negative or positive discrimination happens on the basis of particular content or address should be regulated through the use of competition principles, while negative or positive discrimination at the level of specific class of content, protocols, associated ports, and other such sender-/receiver-agnostic features, should be regulated through regulation of network management techniques . The former deals with instances where the question of "in whose favour is there discrimination" may be asked, while the latter deals with the question "in favour of what is there discrimination".

In order to do this, a regulator like TRAI can use both hard regulation - price ceilings, data cap floors, transparency mandates, preventing specific anti-competitive practices, etc. - as well as soft regulation - incentives and disincentives.

3.1.1 Net Neutrality and human rights

Any discussion on the need for net neutrality impugns the human rights of a number of different stakeholders. Users, subscribers, telecom operators and ISPs all possess distinct and overlapping rights that are to be weighed against each other before the scope, nature and form of regulatory intervention are finalised. The freedom of speech, right to privacy and right to carry on trade raise some of the most pertinent questions in this regard.

For example, to properly consider issues surrounding the practice of paid content-specific zero-rating from a human rights point of view, one must seek to balance the rights of content providers to widely disseminate their 'speech' to the largest audiences against the rights of consumers to have access to a diverse variety of different, conflicting and contrasting ideas.

This commitment to a veritable marketplace or free-market of ideas has formed the touchstone of freedom of speech law in jurisdictions across the world as well as finding mention in pronouncements of the Indian Supreme Court. Particular reference is to be made to the dissent of Mathew, J. inBennett Coleman v. Union of India^{^[7]} and of the majority Sakal Papers v. Union of India^{^[8]} which rejected the approach.

Further, the practice of deep-packet inspection, which is sometimes used in the process of network management, raises privacy concerns as it seeks to go beyond what is "public" information in the header of an IP packet, necessary for routing, to analysing non-public information. ^{^[9]}

3.2 What conditions and factors may change these concerns and the regulatory model we should adopt?

While the principles relating to Net Neutrality remain the same in all countries (i.e., trying to prevent gatekeepers from unjustly exploiting their position), the severity of the problem varies depending on competition in the market, on the technologies, and on many other factors. One way to measure fair or stable allocation of the surplus created by a network - or a network-of-networks like the Internet - is by treating it as a convex cooperation game and thereupon calculating that game's Shapley value:^{^[10]} in the case of the Internet, this would be a game involving content ISPs, transit ISPs, and eyeball (i.e., last-mile) ISPs. The Shapley value changes depending on the number of competitors there are in the market: thus, the fair/stable allocation when there's vibrant competition in the market is different from the fair/stable allocation in a market without such competition. That goes to show that a desirable approach when an ISP tries to unjustly enrich itself by charging other network-participants may well be to increase competition, rather than directly regulating the last-mile ISP. Further, it shows that in a market with vibrant last-mile competition, the capacity of the last-mile ISP to unjustly are far diminished.

In countries which are remote and have little international bandwidth, the need to conserve that bandwidth is high. ISPs can regulate that by either increasing prices of Internet connections for all, or by imposing usage restrictions (such as throttling) on either heavy users or bandwidth-hogging protocols. If the amount of international bandwidth is higher, the need and desire on part of ISPs to indulge in such usage restrictions decreases. Thus, the need to regulate is far higher in the latter case, than in the former case.

The above paragraphs show that both the need for regulation and also the form that the regulation should take depend on a variety of conditions that aren't immediately apparent.

Thus, the framework that the regulator sets out to tackle issues relating to Net Neutrality are most important, whereas the specific rules may need to change depending on changes in conditions. These conditions include:

● last-mile market

○ switching costs between equivalent service providers

○ availability of an open-access last-mile

○ availability of a "public option" neutral ISP

○ increase or decrease in the competition, both in wired and mobile ISPs.

● interconnection market

○ availability of well-functioning peering exchanges

○ availability of low-cost transit

● technology and available bandwidth

○ spectrum efficiency

○ total amount of international bandwidth and local network bandwidth

● conflicting interests of ISPs

○ do the ISPs have other business interests other than providing Internet connectivity? (telephony, entertainment, etc.)

3.3 How should we deal with anti-competitive practices?

Anti-competitive practices in the telecom sector can take many forms: Abuse of dominance, exclusion of access to specific services, customer lock-in, predatory pricing, tying of services, cross-subsidization, etc., are a few of them. In some cases the anti-competitive practice targets other telecom providers, while in others it targets content providers. In the both cases, it is important to ensure that ensure that telecom subscribers have a competitive choice between effectively substitutable telecom providers and an ability to seamlessly switch between providers.

3.3.1 Lowering Switching Costs

TRAI has tackled many of these issues head on, especially in the mobile telephony space, while competitive market pressures have helped too:

● Contractual or transactional lock-in. The easiest way to prevent shifting from one network to another is by contractually mandating a lock-in period, or by requiring special equipment (interoperability) to connect to one's network. In India, this is not practised in the telecom sector, with the exception of competing technologies like CDMA and GSM. Non-contractual lock-ins, for instance by offering discounts for purchasing longer-term packages, are not inherently anti-competitive unless that results in predatory pricing or constitutes an abuse of market dominance. In India, switching from one mobile provider to another, though initiated 15 years into the telecom revolution, is in most cases now almost as easy as buying a new SIM card.^{^[11]} TRAI may consider proactive regulation against contractual lock-in.

● Number of competitors. Even if switching from one network to another is easy, it is not useful unless there are other equivalent options to switch to. In the telecom market, coverage is a very important factor in judging equivalence. Given that last mile connectivity is extremely expensive to provide, the coverage of different networks are very different, and this is even more true when one considers wired connectivity, which is difficult to lay in densely-populated urban and semi-urban areas and unprofitable in sparsely-populated areas. The best way to increase the number of competitors is to make it easier for competitors to exist. Some ways of doing this would be through enabling spectrum-sharing, lowering right-of-way rents, allowing post-auction spectrum trading, and promoting open-access last-mile fibre carriers and to thereby encourage competition on the basis of price and service and not exclusive access to infrastructure.

● Interconnection and mandatory carriage. The biggest advantage a dominant telecom player has is exclusive access to its customer base. Since in the telecom market, no telco wants to not connect to customers of another telco, they do not outright ban other networks. However, dominant players can charge high prices from other networks, thereby discriminating against smaller networks. In the early 2000s, Airtel-to-Airtel calls were much cheaper than Airtel-to-Spice calls. However, things have significantly changed since then. TRAI has, since the 2000s, heavily regulated interconnection and imposed price controls on interconnection ("termination") charges.^{^[12]} Thus, now, generally, inter-network calls are priced similarly to intra-network calls. And if you want cheaper Airtel-to-Airtel calls, you can buy a special (unbundled) pack that enables an Airtel customer to take advantage of the fact that her friends are also on the same network, and benefits Airtel since they do not in such cases have to pay termination charges. Recently, TRAI has even made the interconnection rates zero in three cases: landline-to-landline, landline-to-cellular, and cellular-to-landline, in a bid to decrease landline call rates, and incentivise them, allowing a very low per call interconnection charges of 14 paise for cellular-to-cellular connections. ^{^[13]}

○ With regard to Net Neutrality, we must have a rule that no termination charges or carriage charges may be levied by any ISP upon any Internet service. No Internet service may be discriminated against with regard to carriage conditions or speeds or any other quality of service metric. In essence all negative discrimination should be prohibited. This means that Airtel cannot forcibly charge WhatsApp or any other OTT (which essentially form a different "layer") money for the "privilege" of being able to reach Airtel customers, nor may Airtel slow down WhatsApp traffic and thus try to force WhatsApp to pay. There is a duty on telecom providers to carry any legitimate traffic ("common carriage"), not a privilege. It is important to note that consumer-facing TSPs get paid by other interconnecting Internet networks in the form of transit charges (or the TSP's costs are defrayed through peering). There shouldn't be any separate charge on the basis of content (different layer from the carriage) rather than network (same layer as the carriage). This principle is especially important for startups, and which are often at the receiving end of such discriminatory practices.

● Number Portability. One other factor that prevents users from shifting between one network and another is the fact that they have to change an important aspect of their identity: their phone number (this doesn't apply to Internet over DSL, cable, etc.). At least in the mobile space, TRAI has for several years tried to mandate seamless mobile number portability. The same is being tried by the European Commission in the EU. ^{^[14]} While intra-circle mobile number portability exists in India - and TRAI is pushing for inter-circle mobile number portability as well^{^[15]} - this is nowhere as seamless as it should be.

● Multi-SIM phones. The Indian market is filled with phones that can accommodate multiple SIM cards, enabling customers to shift seamlessly between multiple networks. This is true not just in India, but most developing countries with extremely price-sensitive customers. Theoretically, switching costs would approach zero if in a market with full coverage by n telecom players every subscriber had a phone with n SIM slots with low-cost SIM cards being available.

The situation in the telecom sector with respect to the above provides a stark contrast to the situation in the USA, and to the situation in the DTH market. In the USA, phones get sold at discounts with multi-month or multi-year contracts, and contractual lock-ins are a large problem. Keeping each of the above factors in mind, the Indian mobile telecom space is far more competitive than the US mobile telecom space.

Further, in the Indian DTH market, given that there is transactional lock-in (set-top boxes aren't interoperable in practice, though are mandated to be so by law^{^[16]}), there are fewer choices in the market; further, the equivalent of multi-SIM phones don't exist with respect to set-top boxes. Further, while there are must-carry rules with respect to carriage, they can be of three types: 1) must mandatorily provide access to particular channels^{^[17]} (positive obligation, usually for government channels); 2) prevented from not providing particular channels (negative obligation, to prevent anti-competitive behaviour and political censorship); and 3) must mandatorily offer access to at least a set number of channels (positive obligation for ensuring market diversity). ^{^[18]} Currently, only (1) is in force, since despite attempts by TRAI to ensure (3) as well.^{^[19]}

If the shifting costs are low and transparency in terms of network practice is reported in a standard manner and well-publicised, then that significantly weakens the "gatekeeper effect", which as we saw earlier, is the reason why we wish to introduce Net Neutrality regulation. This consequently means, as explained above in section 3.2, that despite the same Net Neutrality principles applying in all markets and countries, the precise form that the Net Neutrality regulations take in a telecom market with low switching costs would be different from the form that such regulations would take in a market with high switching costs.

3.3.2 Anti-competitive Practices

Some potential anti-competitive practices, which are closely linked, are cross-subsidization, tying (anti-competitive bundling) of multiple services, and vertical price squeeze. All three of these are especial concerns now, with the increased diversification of traditional telecom companies, and with the entry into telecom (like with DTH) of companies that create content. Hence, if Airtel cross-subsidizes the Hike chat application that it recently acquired, ^{^[20]} or if Reliance Infocomm requires customers to buy a subscription to an offering from Reliance Big Entertainment, or if Reliance Infocomm meters traffic from another Reliance Big Entertainment differently from that from Saavn, all those would be violative of the principle of non-discrimination by gatekeepers. This same analysis can be applied to all unpaid deals and non-commercial deals, including schemes such as Internet.org and Wikipedia Zero, which will be covered later in the section on zero-rating.

While we have general rules such as sections 3 and 4 of the Competition Act, we do not currently have specific rules prohibiting these or other anti-competitive practices, and we need Net Neutrality regulation that clearly prohibit such anti-competitive practices so that the telecom regulator can take action for non-compliance . We cannot leave these specific policy prescriptions unstated, even if they are provided for in section 3 of the Competition Act. These concerns are especial concerns in the telecom sector, and the telecom regulator or arbitrator should have the power to directly deal with these, instead of each case going to the Competition Commission of India. This should not affect the jurisdiction of the CCI to investigate and adjudicate such matters, but should ensure that TRAI both has suo motu powers, and that the mechanism to complain is made simple (unlike the current scenario, where some individual complainants may fall in the cracks between TRAI and TDSAT).

3.3.3 Zero-rating

Since a large part of the net neutrality debate in India involves zero-rating practices, we deal with that in some length. Zero-rating is the practice of not counting (aka "zero-rating") certain traffic towards a subscriber's regular Internet usage. The zero-rated traffic could be zero-priced or fixed-price; capped or uncapped; subscriber-paid, Internet service-paid, paid for by both, or unpaid; content- or source/destination-based, or agnostic to content or source/destination; automatically provided by the ISP or chosen by the customer . The motivations for zero-rating may also be varied, as we shall see below. Further, depending on the circumstances, zero-rating could be competitive or anti-competitive. All forms of zero-rating result in some form of discrimination, but not all zero-rating is harmful, nor does all zero-rating need to be prohibited.

While, as explained in the section on interconnection and carriage above, negative discrimination at the network level should be prohibited, that leaves open the question of positive discrimination. It follows from section 3.1 that the right frame of analysis of this question is harm to competition, since the main harm zero-rating is, as we shall see below, about discriminating between different content providers, and not discrimination at the level of protocols, etc.

Whether one should allow for any form of positive discrimination at the network level or not depends on whether positive discrimination of (X) has an automatic and unfair negative impact on all (~X). That, in turn, depends on whether (~X) is being subject to unfair competition. As Wikipedia notes, "unfair competition means that the gains of some participants are conditional on the losses of others, when the gains are made in ways which are illegitimate or unjust." Thus, positive discrimination that has a negative impact on effective competition shall not be permitted, since in such cases it is equivalent to negative discrimination ("zero-sum game") . Positive discrimination that does not have a negative impact on effective competition may be permitted, especially since it results in increased access and increases consumer benefit, as long as the harm to openness and diversity is minimized .

While considering this, one should keep in mind the fact that startups were, 10-15 years ago, at a huge disadvantage with regard to wholesale data purchase. The marketplaces for data centres and for content delivery networks (which speed up delivery of content by being located closer, in network terms, to multiple last-mile ISPs) were nowhere near as mature as they are today, and the prices were high. There was a much higher barrier to startup entry than there is today, due to the prices and due to larger companies being able to rely on economies of scale to get cheaper rates. Was that unfair? No. There is no evidence of anti-competitive practices, nor of startups complaining about such practices. Therefore, that was fair competition, despite specific input costs that were arguably needed (though not essential) for startups to compete being priced far beyond their capacity to pay.

Today the marketplace is very different, with a variety of offerings. CDNs such as Cloudflare, which were once the preserve of rich companies, even have free offerings, thus substantially lowering barriers for startups that want faster access to customers across the globe.

Is a CDN an essential cost for a startup? No. But in an environment where speed matters and customers use or don't use a service depending on speed; and where the startup's larger competitors are all using CDNs, a startup more or less has to. Thankfully, given the cheap access to CDNs these days, that cost is not too high for a startup to bear. If the CDN market was not competitive enough, would a hypothetical global regulator have been justified in outright banning the use of CDNs to 'level' the playing field? No, because the hypothetical global regulator instead had the option to (and would have been justified in) regulating the market to ensure greater competition.

A regulator should not prohibit an act that does not negatively impact access, competition, consumer benefit, nor openness (including diversity), since that would be over-regulation and would harm innovation.

3.3.3.1 Motivations for Zero-Rating

3.3.3.1.1 Corporate Social Responsibility / Incentivizing Customers to Move Up Value Chain

There exist multiple instances where there is no commercial transaction between the OTT involved and the telecom carrier, in which zero-priced zero-rating of specific Internet content happens. We know that there is no commercial transaction either through written policy (Wikipedia Zero) or through public statements (Internet.org, a bouquet of sites). In such cases, the telecom provider would either be providing such services out of a sense of public interest, given the social value of those services, or would be providing such services out of self-interest, to showcase the value of particular Internet set the same time.

The apprehended risk is that of such a scheme creating a "walled garden", where users would be exposed only to those services which are free since the search and discovery costs of non-free Internet (i.e., any site outside the "walled garden") would be rather high. This risk, while real, is rather slim given the fact that the economic incentives for those customers who have the ability to pay for "Internet packs" but currently do not find a compelling reason to do so, or out of both a sense of public interest and self-interest of the telecom providers works against this.

In such non-commercial zero-priced zero-rating, a telecom provider would only make money if and only if subscribers start paying for sites outside of the walled garden. If subscribers are happy in the walled garden, the telecom provider starts losing money, and hence has a strong motivation to stop that scheme. If on the other hand, enough subscribers start becoming paying customers to offset the cost of providing the zero-priced zero-rated service(s) and make it profitable, that shows that despite the availability of zero-priced options a number of customers will opt for paid access to the open Internet and the open Web, and the overall harms of such zero-priced zero-rating would be minimal. Hence, the telecom providers have an incentive to keep the costs of Internet data packs low, thus encouraging customers who otherwise wouldn't pay for the Internet to become paying customers.

There is the potential of consumer harm when users seek to access a site outside of the walled garden, and find to their dismay that they have been charged for the Internet at a hefty rate, and their prepaid balance has greatly decreased. This is an issue that TRAI is currently appraised of, and a suitable solution would need to be found to protect consumers against such harm.

All in all, given that the commercial interests of the telecom providers align with the healthy practice of non-discrimination, this form of limited positive discrimination is not harmful in the long run, particularly because it is not indefinitely sustainable for a large number of sites. Hence, it may not be useful to ban this form of zero-priced zero-rating of services as long as they aren't exclusive, or otherwise anti-competitive (a vertical price-squeeze, for instance), and the harm to consumers is prohibited and the harm to openness/diversity is minimized.

3.3.3.1.2 Passing on ISP Savings / Incentivizing Customers to Lower ISP's Cost

Suppose, for instance, an OTT uses a CDN located, in network distance terms, near an eyeball ISP. In this case, the ISP has to probably pay less than it would have to had the same data been located in a data centre located further away, given that it would have fewer interconnection-related charges.

Hence the monetary costs of providing access to different Web destinations are not equal for the ISP. This cost can be varied either by the OTT (by it locating the data closer to the ISP - through a CDN, by co-locating where the ISP is also present, or by connecting to an Internet Exchange Point which the ISP is also connected to - or by it directly "peering" with the ISP) or by the ISP (by engaging in "transparent proxying" in which case the ISP creates caches at the ISP level of specific content (usually by caching non-encrypted data the ISP's customers request) and serves the cached content when a user requests a site, rather than serving the actual site). None of the practices so far mentioned are discriminatory from the customer's perspective with regard either to price or to prioritization, though all of them enable faster speeds to specific content. Hence none of the above-mentioned practices are considered even by the most ardent Net Neutrality advocates to be violations of that principle. ^{^[21]} However, if an ISP zero-rates the content to either pass on its savings to the customer^{^[22]} or to incentivize the customer to access services that cost the ISP less in terms of interconnection costs, that creates a form of price discrimination for the customer, despite it benefiting the consumer.

The essential economic problem is that the cost to the ISP is variable, but the cost to the customer is fixed. Importantly, this problem is exacerbated in India where web hosting prices are high, transit prices are high, peering levels are low, and Internet Exchange Points (IXPs) are not functioning well. ^{^[23]} These conditions create network inefficiencies in terms of hosting of content further away from Indian networks in terms of network distance, and thus harms consumers as well as local ISPs. In order to set this right, zero-rating of this sort may be permitted as it acts as an incentive towards fixing the market fundamentals. However, once the market fundamentals are fixed, such zero-rating may be prohibited.

This example shows that the desirability or otherwise of discriminatory practices depends fully on the conditions present in the market, including in terms of interconnection costs.

3.3.3.1.3 Unbundling Internet into Services ("Special Packs")

Since at least early 2014, mobile operators have been marketing special zero-rating "packs". These packs, if purchased by the customer, allow capped or in some instances uncapped, zero-rating of a service such as WhatsApp or Facebook, meaning traffic to/from that service will not be counted against their regular Internet usage.

For a rational customer, purchasing such a pack only makes sense in one of two circumstances:

● The person has Internet connectivity on her Internet-capable phone, but has not purchased an "Internet data pack" since she doesn't find the Internet valuable. Instead, she has heard about "WhatsApp", has friends who are on it, and wishes to use that to reduce her SMS costs (and thereby eat into the carriage provider's ability to charge separately for SMSes). She chooses to buy a WhatsApp pack for around ₹25 a month instead of paying ₹95 for an all-inclusive Internet data pack.

● The person has Internet connectivity on her Internet-capable phone, and has purchased an "Internet data pack". However, that data pack is capped and she has to decide between using WhatsApp and surfing web sites. She is on multiple WhatsApp groups and her WhatsApp traffic eats up 65% of her data cap. She thus has to choose between the two, since she doesn't want to buy two Internet data packs (each costing around ₹95 for a month). She chooses to buy a WhatsApp pack for ₹25 a month, paying a cumulative total of ₹120 instead of ₹190 which she would have had to had she bought two Internet data packs. In this situation, "unbundling" is happening, and this benefits the consumer. Such unbundling harms the openness and integrity of the Internet.

If users did not find value in the "special" data packs, and there is no market demand for such products, they will cease to be offered. Thus, assuming a telco's decision to offer such packs is purely customer-demand driven - and not due to deals it has struck with service providers - if Orkut is popular, telcos would be interested in offering Orkut packs and if Facebook is popular, they would be interested in offering a Facebook pack. Thus, clearly, there is nothing anti-competitive about such customer-paid zero-rating packs, whereas they clearly enhance consumer benefit. Would this increase the popularity of Orkut or Facebook? Potentially yes. But to prohibit this would be like prohibiting a supermarket from selectively (and non-collusively) offering discounts on popular products. Would that make already popular products even more popular? Potentially, yes. But that would not be seen as a harm to competition but would be seen as fair competition. This contravenes the "openness" of the Internet (i.e., the integral interconnected diversity that an open network like the Internet embodies) as an independent regulatory goal. The Internet, being a single gateway to a mind-boggling variety of services, allows for a diverse "long tail", which would lose out if the Internet was seen solely as a gateway to popular apps, sites, and content. However, given that this is a choice exercised freely by the consumer, such packs should not be prohibited, as that would be a case of over-regulation.

The one exception to the above analysis of competition, needless to say, is if that these special packs aren't purely customer-demand driven and are the product of special deals between an OTT and the telco. In that case, we need to ensure it isn't anti-competitive by following the prescriptions of the next section.

3.3.3.1.4 Earning Additional Revenues from Content Providers

With offerings like Airtel Zero, we have a situation where OTT companies are offering to pay for wholesale data access used by their customers, and make accessing their specific site or app free for the customer. From the customer's perspective, this is similar to a toll-free number or a pre-paid envelope or free-to-air TV channel being offered on a particular network.

However, from the network perspective, these are very different. Even if a customer-company pays Airtel for the toll-free number, that number is accessible and toll-free across all networks since the call terminates on Airtel networks and Airtel pays the connecting network back the termination charge from the fee they are paid by the customer-company. This cannot happen in case of the Internet, since the "call" terminates outside of the reach of the ISP being paid for zero-rating by the OTT company; hence unless specific measures are taken, zero-rating has to be network-specific.

The comparison to free-to-air channels is also instructive, since in 2010 TRAI made recommendations that consumers should have the choice of accessing free-to-air channels à-la-carte, without being tied up to a bouquet.^{^[24]} This would, in essence, allow a subscriber to purchase a set-top box, and without paying a regular subscription fee watch free-to-air channels. ^{^[25]} However, similar to toll-free numbers, these free-to-air channels are free-to-air on all MSO's set-top boxes, unlike the proposed Airtel Zero scheme under which access to a site like Flipkart would be free for customers on Airtel's network alone.

Hence, these comparisons, while useful in helping think through the regulatory and competition issues, should not be used as instructive exact analogies, since they aren't fully comparable situations.

3.3.3.1.5 Market Options for OTT-Paid Zero-Rating

As noted above, a competitive marketplace already exists for wholesale data purchase at the level of "content ISPs" (including CDNs), which sell wholesale data to content providers (OTTs). This market is at present completely unregulated. The deals that exist are treated as commercial secrets. It is almost certain that large OTTs get better rates than small startups due to economies of scale.

However, at the eyeball ISP level, it is a single-sided market with ISPs competing to gain customers in the form of end-users. With a scheme like "Airtel Zero", this would get converted into a double-sided market, with a gatekeeper without whom neither side can reach the other being in the middle creating a two-sided toll. This situation is ripe for market abuse: this situation allows the gatekeeper to hinder access to those OTTs that don't pay the requisite toll or to provide preferential access to those who pay, apart from providing an ISP the opportunity to "double-dip".

One way to fix this is to prevent ISPs from establishing a double-sided market. The other way would be to create a highly-regulated market where the gatekeeping powers of the ISP are diminished, and the ISP's ability to leverage its exclusive access over its customers are curtailed. A comparison may be drawn here to the rules that are often set by standard-setting bodies where patents are involved: given that these patents are essential inputs, access to them must be allowed through fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory licences. Access to the Internet and common carriers like telecom networks, being even more important (since alternatives exist to particular standards, but not to the Internet itself), must be placed at an even higher pedestal and thus even stricter regulation to ensure fair competition.

A marketplace of this sort would impose some regulatory burdens on TRAI and place burdens on innovations by the ISPs, but a regulated marketplace harms ISP innovation less than not allowing a market at all.

At a minimum, such a marketplace must ensure non-exclusivity, non-discrimination, and transparency. Thus, at a minimum, a telecom provider cannot discriminate between any OTTs who want similar access to zero-rating. Further, a telecom provider cannot prevent any OTT from zero-rating with any other telecom provider. To ensure that telecom providers are actually following this stipulation, transparency is needed, as a minimum.

Transparency can take one of two forms: transparency to the regulator alone and transparency to the public. Transparency to the regulator alone would enable OTTs and ISPs to keep the terms of their commercial transactions secret from their competitors, but enable the regulator, upon request, to ensure that this doesn't lead to anti-competitive practices. This model would increase the burden on the regulator, but would be more palatable to OTTs and ISPs, and more comparable to the wholesale data market where the terms of such agreements are strictly-guarded commercial secrets. On the other hand, requiring transparency to the public would reduce the burden on the regulator, despite coming at a cost of secrecy of commercial terms, and is far more preferable.

Beyond transparency, a regulation could take the form of insisting on standard rates and terms for all OTT players, with differential usage tiers if need be, to ensure that access is truly non-discriminatory. This is how the market is structured on the retail side.

Since there are transaction costs in individually approaching each telecom provider for such zero-rating, the market would greatly benefit from a single marketplace where OTTs can come and enter into agreements with multiple telecom providers.

Even in this model, telecom networks will be charging based not only on the fact of the number of customers they have, but on the basis of them having exclusive routing to those customers. Further, even under the standard-rates based single-market model, a particular zero-rated site may be accessible for free from one network, but not across all networks: unlike the situation with a toll-free number in which no such distinction exists.

To resolve this, the regulator may propose that if an OTT wishes to engage in paid zero-rating, it will need to do so across all networks, since if it doesn't there is risk of providing an unfair advantage to one network over another and increasing the gatekeeper effect rather than decreasing it.

However, all forms of competitive Internet service-paid zero-priced zero-rating, even when they don't harm competition, innovation amongst content providers, or consumers, will necessarily harm openness and diversity of the Internet. For instance, while richer companies with a strong presence in India may pay to zero-rate traffic for their Indian customers, decentralized technologies such as XMPP and WebRTC, having no central company behind them, would not, leading to customers preferring proprietary networks and solutions to such open technologies, which in turn, thanks to the network effect, leads to a vicious cycle. These harms to openness and diversity have to be weighed against the benefit in terms of increase in access when deciding whether to allow for competitive OTT-paid zero-priced zero-rating, as such competition doesn't exist in a truly level playing field . Further, it must be kept in mind that there are forms of zero-priced zero-rating that decrease the harm to openness / diversity, or completely remove that harm altogether: that there are other options available must be acknowledged by the regulator when considering the benefit to access from competitive OTT-paid zero-priced zero-rating.

3.3.3.1.6 Other options for zero-rating

There are other models of zero-priced zero-rating that either minimize the harm is that of ensuring free Internet access for every person. This can take the form of:^{^[26]}

● A mandatorily "leaky" 'walled garden':

○ The first-degree of all hyperlinks from the zero-rated OTT service are also free.

○ The zero-rated OTT service provider has to mandatorily provide free access to the whole of the World Wide Web to all its customers during specified hours.

○ The zero-rated OTT service provider has to mandatorily provide free access to the whole of the World Wide Web to all its customers based on amount on usage of the OTT service.^{^[27]}

● Zero-rating of all Web traffic

○ In exchange for viewing of advertisements

○ In exchange for using a particular Web browser

○ At low speeds on 3G, or on 2G.

3.3.3.2. What kinds of zero-rating are good

The majority of the forms of zero-rating covered in this section are content or source/destination-based zero-rating. Only some of the options covered in the "other options for zero-rating" section cover content-agnostic zero-rating models. Content-agnostic zero-rating models are not harmful, while content-based zero-rating models always harm, though to varying degrees, the openness of the Internet / diversity of OTTs, and to varying degrees increase access to Internet-based services. Accordingly, here is an hierarchy of desirability of zero-priced zero-rating, from most desirable to most harmful:

1. Content- & source/destination-agnostic zero-priced zero-rating.^{^[28]}

2. Content- & source/destination-based non-zero-priced zero-rating, without any commercial deals, chosen freely & paid for by users. ^{^[29]}

3. Content- & source/destination-based zero-priced zero-rating, without any commercial deals, with full transparency. ^{^[30]}

4. Content- & source/destination-based zero-priced zero-rating, on the basis of commercial deal with partial zero-priced access to all content, with non-discriminatory access to the same deal by all with full transparency.^{^[31]}

5. Content- & source/destination-based zero-priced zero-rating, on the basis of a non-commercial deal, without any benefits monetary or otherwise, flowing directly or indirectly from the provider of the zero-rated content to the ISP, with full transparency. ^{^[32]}

6. Content- & source-destination-based zero-priced zero-rating, across all telecom networks, with standard pricing, non-discriminatory access, and full transparency.

7. Content- & source-destination-based zero-priced zero-rating, with standard pricing, non-discriminatory access, and full transparency.

8. Content- & source-destination-based zero-priced zero-rating, with non-discriminatory access, and full transparency.

9. Content- & source-destination-based zero-priced zero-rating, with non-discriminatory access, and transparency to the regulator.

10. Content- & source-destination-based zero-priced zero-rating, without any regulatory framework in place.

3.3.4 Cartels and Oligopoly

While cartels and oligopolies may have an impact on Net Neutrality, they are not problems that any set of anti-discrimination rules imposed on gatekeepers can fix. Further, cartels and oligopolies don't directly enhance the ability of gatekeepers to unjustly discriminate if there are firm rules against negative discrimination and price ceilings and floors on data caps are present for data plans. Given this, TRAI should recommend that this issue be investigated and the Competition Commission of India should take this issue up.

3.4 Reasonable Network Management Principles

Reasonable network management has to be allowed to enable the ISPs to manage performance and costs on their network. However, ISPs may not indulge in acts that are harmful to consumers in the name of reasonable network management. Below are a set of guidelines for when discrimination against classes of traffic in the name of network management are justified.

● Discrimination between classes of traffic for the sake of network management should only be permissible if:

○ there is an intelligible differentia between the classes which are to be treated differently, and

○ there is a rational nexus between the differential treatment and the aim of such differentiation, and

○ the aim sought to be furthered is legitimate, and is related to the security, stability, or efficient functioning of the network, or is a technical limitation outside the control of the ISP^{^[33]}, and

○ the network management practice is the least harmful manner in which to achieve the aim.

● Provision of specialized services (i.e., "fast lanes") is permitted if and only if it is shown that

○ The service is available to the user only upon request, and not without their active choice, and

○ The service cannot be reasonably provided with "best efforts" delivery guarantee that is available over the Internet, and hence requires discriminatory treatment, or

○ The discriminatory treatment does not unduly harm the provision of the rest of the Internet to other customers.

These principles are only applicable at the level of ISPs, and not on access gateways for institutions that may in some cases be run by ISPs (such as a university network, free municipal WiFi, at a work place, etc.), which are not to be regulated as common carriers.

These principles may be applied on a case-by-case basis by a regulator, either suo motu or upon complaint by customers.

^{^[1]} Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, (19 May 2011), http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/17session/A.HRC.17.27_en.pdf.

^{^[2]} Available at http://www.trai.gov.in/WriteReadData/userfiles/file/NTP%202012.pdf.

^{^[3]} IAMAI, India to Cross 300 million internet users by Dec 14, (19 November, 2014), http://www.iamai.in/PRelease_detail.aspx?nid=3498&NMonth=11&NYear=2014.

^{^[4]} World Economic Forum, The Global Information Technology Report 2015, http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Global_IT_Report_2015.pdf.

^{^[5]} http://www.ictregulationtoolkit.org/4.1#s4.1.1

^{^[6]} See R.U.S. Prasad, The Impact of Policy and Regulatory Decisions on Telecom Growth in India (July 2008), http://web.stanford.edu/group/siepr/cgi-bin/siepr/?q=system/files/shared/pubs/papers/pdf/SCID361.pdf.

^{^[7]} 1973 AIR 106

^{^[8]} 1962 AIR 305

^{^[9]} "When ISPs go beyond their traditional use of IP headers to route packets, privacy risks begin to emerge." Alissa Cooper, How deep must DPI be to incur privacy risk? http://www.alissacooper.com/2010/01/25/how-deep-must-dpi-be-to-incur-privacy-risk/

^{^[10]} Richard T.B. Ma & Vishal Misra, The Public Option: A Non-Regulatory Alternative to Network Neutrality, http://dna-pubs.cs.columbia.edu/citation/paperfile/200/netneutrality.pdf

^{^[11]} Mobile number portability was launched in India on January 20, 2011 in the Haryana circle. See http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/pm-launches-nationwide-mobile-number-portability/1/127176.html . Accessed on April 24, 2015.

^{^[12]} For a comprehensive list of all TRAI interconnection regulations & subsequent amendments, see http://www.trai.gov.in/Content/Regulation/0_1_REGULATIONS.aspx.

^{^[13]} See Telecommunication Interconnection Usage Charges (Eleventh Amendment) Regulations, 2015 (1 of 2015), available at http://www.trai.gov.in/Content/Regulation/0_1_REGULATIONS.aspx.

^{^[14]} Article 30 of the Universal Service Directive, Directive 2002/22/EC.

^{^[15]} See Telecommunication Mobile Number Portability (Sixth Amendment) Regulations, 2015 (3 of 2015), available at http://www.trai.gov.in/Content/Regulation/0_1_REGULATIONS.aspx.

^{^[16]} The Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable) Services (Seventh) (The Direct to Home Services) Tariff Order, 2015 (2 of 2015).

^{^[17]} Section 8, Cable Television Networks Act, 1995.

^{^[18]} TRAI writes new rules for Cable TV, Channels, Consumers, REAL TIME NEWS, (August 11, 2014), http://rtn.asia/rtn/233/1220_trai-writes-new-rules-cable-tv-channels-consumers.

^{^[19]} An initial requirement for all multi system operators to have a minimum capacity of 500 channels was revoked by the TDSAT in 2012. For more details, see http://www.televisionpost.com/cable/msos-not-required-to-have-500-channel-headends-tdsat/.

^{^[20]} Aparna Ghosh, Bharti SoftBank Invests $14 million in Hike, LIVE MINT, (April 2, 2014), http://www.livemint.com/Companies/nI38YwQL2eBgE6j93lRChM/Bharti-SoftBank-invests-14-million-in-mobile-messaging-app.html.

^{^[21]} Mike Masnick, Can We Kill This Ridiculous Shill-Spread Myth That CDNs Violate Net Neutrality? They Don't, https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140812/04314528184/can-we-kill-this-ridiculous-shill-spread-myth-that-cdns-violate-net-neutrality-they-dont.shtml.

^{^[22]} Mathew Carley, What is Hayai's stance on "Net Neutrality"?, https://www.hayai.in/faq/hayais-stance-net-neutrality?c=mgc20150419

^{^[23]} Helani Galpaya & Shazna Zuhyle, South Asian Broadband Service Quality: Diagnosing the Bottlenecks, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1979928

^{^[24]} DTH players told to offer pay channels on la carte basis, HINDU BUSINESS LINE (July 22, 2010), http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/todays-paper/dth-players-told-to-offer-pay-channels-on-la-carte-basis/article999298.ece.

^{^[25]} The Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable) Services (Fourth) (Addressable Systems) Tariff Order, 2010.

^{^[26]} These suggestions were provided by Helani Galpaya and Sunil Abraham, based in some cases on existing practices.

^{^[27]} This is what is being followed by the Jana Loyalty Program: http://www.betaboston.com/news/2015/05/06/with-a-new-loyalty-program-mobile-app-marketplace-jana-pushes-deeper-into-the-developing-world/

^{^[28]} Example: free Internet access at low speeds, with data caps.

^{^[29]} Example: special "packs" for specific services like WhatsApp.

^{^[30]} Example: zero-rating of all locally-peered settlement-free traffic.

^{^[31]} Example: "leaky" walled gardens, such as the Jana Loyalty Program that provide limited access to all of the Web alongside access to the zero-rated content.

^{^[32]} Example: Wikipedia Zero.

^{^[33]} A CGNAT would be an instance of such a technology that poses network limitations.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/regulatory-perspectives-on-net-neutrality

Regulating the Internet

gurshabad — 2018-12-20T00:29:06Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/files/regulating-the-internet