Centre for Internet and Society

Developing Open Knowledge Digital Resources in Indian Languages

teju — 2015-04-22T18:09:08Z

The Centre for Internet & Society's Access to Knowledge team (CIS-A2K), in collaboration with the Centre for Indian Languages (CILHE) at TISS Mumbai, conducted a two-day workshop at English and Foreign Languages University (EFLU) at Hyderabad on January 28-29, 2015. Titled ‘Developing Open Knowledge Digital Resources in Indian Languages’, the workshop was the third in this series during 2014-15.

The first workshop, focusing on Bangla, was held at Jadavpur University, Kolkata, in August 2014, and the second, focusing on Marathi, at Savitribai Phule Pune University, Pune, in September 2014. The EFLU workshop participants were drawn from Telugu and Malayalam backgrounds.

The objectives of the workshop was to familiarize student volunteers and their faculty with (a) tools of collaborative knowledge production on the internet, and (b) methods for generating new online content in Indian languages. The workshop had 19 student participants, from EFLU and TISS Hyderabad, along with 4 faculty members from these two institutions.

After opening remarks by Prof. K.Satyanarayana and Dr. Uma Bhrugubanda of the Department of Cultural Studies, the local hosts at EFLU, Prof. Tejaswini Niranjana of CILHE-TISS and Advisor to CIS-A2K spoke about the importance of creating new digital resources in local languages for both teaching and research in higher education. She stressed that students should not remain passive consumers of knowledge but instead participate in creating new knowledge resources. Vishnu Vardhan of CIS-A2K then elaborated on the theme of ‘Building Open Knowledge Resources in Indian Languages via Mass Collaboration on the Internet’. After this, the participants were introduced to some basic principles of editing on Wikipedia, and worked on establishing their presence as Wikipedia editors by creating their Profile pages, etc.

In order to familiarise students with the key Telugu and Malayalam terminology in their areas of study (cultural studies, linguistics, education), an exercise was conducted in which each participant tried to describe a few of the concepts without using the term itself. A successful description would draw attention to the intellectual work done by the concept, and establish its usefulness in the relevant language context. Animated discussion took place around concepts like public sphere, labour/work, human rights, feminism, caste, culture, etc. In a second exercise, the denotative meaning and connotative meaning of selected key terms were discussed, with a view to understanding how they could be used in Indian language writings. Following this exercise, participants also attempted to map the cluster of concepts associated with their chosen concept so they could comprehend the larger cognitive context of each term. They were then introduced to how hyper-linking and giving suitable references are a significant part of Wikipedia editing strategy. Participants ended the day by shortlisting topics for entries they wanted to create on Wikipedia.

Day Two began with an exercise that aimed to explore translation challenges on Wikipedia. Since one way of increasing Indian-language content was to translate or transcreate existing Wikipedia articles, students needed to be aware of the problems this task could pose, and the possible solutions that could be adopted. Workshop participants were asked to choose English Wikipedia entries on one person, one book, and one concept each, and report on the difficulties they encountered while attempting to translate the English content, at the level of terminology, conceptual framework or subject matter. The ensuing discussion was useful not only in consolidating strategies for translation but also in drawing attention to the problems of creating Indian-language content in areas of knowledge which have become familiar to us through the modern university curriculum.

In the last phase of the workshop, participants focused on creating their entries in Telugu and Malayalam. A few succeeded in creating three entries each, while the others managed to do at least two. The faculty of EFLU and TISS Hyderabad who were present at the workshop have agreed to meet with their students once a month to do production sprints for new content, thus ensuring that those who were merely digital users have indeed become digital authors.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/developing-open-knowledge-digital-resources-in-indian-languages

Cultural knowledge needs to be more open

praskrishna — 2015-03-12T16:41:05Z

Subhashish Panigrahi is an educator and open source activist based in Bangalore, India. He is currently working at the Centre for Internet and Society's Access To Knowledge program where he builds partnership with universities, language researchers, and GLAM organizations.

The blog post by Jen Wike Huger was published on the website of OpenSource.com. It can be read here.

Their goal is to bring more scholarly and encyclopedic content under free licenses. During his work at the Wikimedia Foundation's India Program, Subha was involved in designing community sustaining and new contributor cultivation models.

For his effort to share and spread open source far and wide, this year he was awarded a 2015 Opensource.com People's Choice Award.

His most recent articles include: Digitize any book in the public domain, on his work to with Indian poetry important to the culture. Books and more are relicensed to Creative Commons, about news from the Wikimedia Foundation. Mozilla brings Indian communities together, about the Indic FirefoxOS L10n Sprint 2014. And, Open access platform to save the Odia Indian language, on his work to preserve his native culture.

The Basics

Name: Subhashish Panigrahi ("Subha")
Opensource.com username: psubhashish
Location: India (Bengaluru and Odisha)
Occupation/Employer/Position: Programme Officer, Centre for Internet and Society
Favorite open source tool or application: Audacity
Favorite Opensource.com channel: Education

Open up to us

I was away from home for my studies and was longing to read and write more in my native language of Odia. That led me to co-found eOdissa.com, a portal to tell stories to the rest of the world about my language, history, and cultural heritage. I was a sporadic editor on Wikipedia; anonymously since 2006. Then, in 2011, I was introduced to editing for Odia Wikipedia by my mentor Shiju Alex and friend Asutosh Kar.

That was my entry point to the free software movement. And it was a trap I could never get out of!

I thankfully began a full-time job with the Wikimedia Foundation in 2012 for its India Program. The program is now housed with their Indian movement partner, Centre for Internet and Society, under the Access To Knowledge program. I work in the Bengaluru office but mostly travel to work with the communities. I work on building capacity for the Indian language Wikimedia communities, building institutional partnerships for long term outreach engagement, negotiating with publishers and copyright holders to bring more content relicensed under Creative Commons licenses, and taking part in policy level discourses around open access and enforcing free software for governance.

What open tools and data help you get things done?

For my day job, I solely rely on Wikimedia Stats to collate data related to Wikimedia projects. I use some Python programming, jQery.ime, and JavaScript for other data-related work. But, I am a people's man and my interaction is mostly with humans rather than tools.

What do you wish were more open?

GLAM (galleries, libraries, archives and museums) and many other cultural institutions have historically been the keepers of cultural knowledge. But I see possessiveness in not opening up their archival for public consumption. I wish more policy level negotiations and open collaborations were happening to open up cultural data.

What are the biggest challenges to openness that you encounter, either at work or in your life?

Community and its growth. Working in a developing nation with historical, cultural, economic, and political hindrances pulls volunteerism down. It's is a huge challenge for me. Tapping into many existing networks and communities, and leveraging ongoing activities for the betterment for the free and open source movement, is something I am struggling for.

Why choose the open source way?

I would like to quote a good friend and activist Michelle Thorne who says, "Human civilization has everything free and open from the beginning, but slowly the problems of restriction start beginning." Furthermore filmmaker Nina Paley says, "Knowledge is not created by us, rather shared by us."

If we are here to share knowledge, why to restrict its free flow?

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/news/opensource-feburary-18-2015-jen-wike-huger-cultural-knowledge-needs-to-be-more-open

Academia and Civil Society submit critical comments to DIPP on draft National IPR Policy

sinha — 2015-03-08T11:27:05Z

As our readers may be aware, the DIPP had initiated public consultation on the drafting of India’s first National IPR policy in November 2014.

These were published as two separate blog posts on Spicy IP (Part I and Part II).

The second round of consultation on the National IPR Draft Policy (draft policy) ended on January 31, 2015. Last week, we brought to you a guest post by Raghul Sudheesh who presented criticisms submitted by Prof. NS Gopalakrishnan, Director and Dr. TG Agitha, Associate Professor at Inter University Centre for Intellectual Property Rights Studies (IUCIPRS at CUSAT).

This two part post highlights two more submissions: first, made by Prof. Srividhya Ragavan (University of Oklahoma), Prof. Brook Baker (Northeastern University), Prof. Sean Flynn(American University) (click here); and second, by Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore (CIS). In November 2014, the professors also made submissions to the Office of United States Trade Representative (USTR) objecting to US’ threats of unilateral trade sanctions, and argued in support of India’s current IPR regime.

The following sections discuss the submission made by Prof. Srividhya Ragavan, Prof. Brook Baker and Prof. Sean Flynn. The authors have shared with us a draft version of the submission as well (authored by Prof. Raghavan and Prof Baker) and you may access it here. The two submissions are substantially similar, and therefore, I have discussed the points made in the final submission only.

Broad observations and caveats

According to the authors, the policy begins with a noble objective to maintain a balance between rights and obligations (protections, limitations and exceptions) as a means to serve constitutionally recognized ends of developing scientific and creative capacities of Indian society. However, the objective soon loses steam when one comes across clauses disturbing the balance in favour of rights holders (highlighted in subsequent sections).

The document also erroneously treats IP as an end in itself, rather than a means to higher social goals and functions; and fails to mention that there exist non-IP centric policies, which are equally, possibly better suited to meet such goals. The document depicts IP as a magic tool to disperse greater creativity and innovation. In view of such dubious characterisation of IP, the authors are quick to add that the policy would be more aptly titled “Views on the Future of Creativity and Innovation in India”! To fix this muddled projection of IP, the authors at the very outset recommend that the policy imbibe the following norms, broadly:

Firstly, intellectual property systems are means to the greater ends of society, not ends in themselves.
Secondly, the ends that IP is meant to serve include to promote both production of and access to fruits of science and creativity.
Thirdly, in order to achieve the production and access promoting ends of there is a need for context-specific tailoring of protections and exceptions and limitations to achieve a proper balance of rights and obligations.

Further, the policy recommends India becoming more active in negotiations at the international level, and in this regard the authors suggest India to actively resist and reject any TRIPS plus provisions. They express concern about the policy’s intent on commercializing IP, and warn about not going overboard with the commercialization, lest it interferes or diminishes access to medicines, and state that this is where the policy should have mentioned flexibilities in Indian IP law. While addressing specific clauses, the authors warn that steps to introduce a trade secret legislation should be mulled over more, and the proposed law should reconcile with protection of traditional knowledge. Reviewing legislations and their implementation is a welcome step, but law makers need to be extremely cautious before adding more protections to the IP mix. The authors also raise their doubts about the competence and expertise of the think-tank constituted to draft the policy.

What the policy should have done instead (as per the submission)

Articulated the limited role of IP in fostering innovation, creativity and societal goals more accurately – the policy goes as far as to deem copyright and patents as ‘intellectual creations’ on page one! The policy should also have highlighted literature which indicated that IP promises are grossly overemphasized particularly with respect to low- and lower-middle income countries.
Not glorified IP as a magic tool at the altar of other instruments (effective instruments include capacity building, technology transfer, and investment strategies) to increase economic growth. For instance, the IP Hall of Fame section proposes to celebrate only ‘IP innovators &creators’ and ignores other innovators/creators.
Stressed on the importance of limitations and exceptions – the policy calls for case studies of “successful use of IPRs” but not of limitations and exceptions to intellectual property rights, nor of open access tools like Creative Commons licensing or of any other knowledge governance policies. By neglecting the role of limitations and exceptions and focusing on IPRs only, the policy also takes two steps backwards by ignoring amendments to patent and design laws – changes which facilitated the introduction of flexibilities into India’s IPR law. The policy should have also defended India’s compulsory licensing decisions and produced evidence to support the same.
Held back on its enthusiasm to increase the infrastructure for IP specialist courts. In a country where the poor is struggling with access to justice, it is unjustified to put such matters on the backburner and focus on IP adjudication.

In the end, the authors draw up a list of core IP debates that the policy should address, inter alia: clarification of patent eligibility threshold on controversial subject matters; reexamination of the policy on exhaustion of IP rights; calibration and defining the impact of competition law on the exercise of IP exclusive rights; deciding whether India will continue to improve the compulsory and government use licensing regime to broaden permissible grounds for such licenses; articulating India’s position on counter IP overreach of other countries on IP and trade such as USTR’s unilateral Special 301 Watch List and US International Trade Commission investigations; increasing collaboration with developing countries to take a coordinated stand on common IP and trade issues; clarifying and broadening standards for fair use and affordable access to copyright protected works and translation of the same, especially with respect to educational and scientific resources, etc.

Public consultation on the first draft of the National IPR Policy concluded this month. The DIPP received many submissions on the draft policy and also held stakeholder meetings. We’ve discussed two other submissions on SpicyIP (here and here), and this post discusses the submission made by Centre for Internet and Society, India. For our readers’ information, Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) is a non-profit research organisation that works in the areas of issues of intellectual property law reform, openness, privacy, freedom of speech and expression and Internet governance, accessibility for persons with disabilities, and engages in academic research on digital humanities and digital natives.

Like the other two submissions, CIS’ submission also reiterates that a National IPR Policy is not something to be rushed into without adequate evidence and consultation. The submission highlights certain principles that should be followed in the the formulation of a National IPR Policy, and also provides comments and recommendations for the draft policy. To begin with, the submission claims that the vision and mission are at odds with the methods suggested by the draft Policy. While the vision encourages growth for the ‘benefit of all’ and embraces the philosophy that knowledge owned (should be) ‘transformed into knowledge shared’ and, the mission expresses a commitment to establish a balanced, dynamic and vibrant intellectual property system in India, both sections leave much to be desired. The policy should also have envisioned (and set a mission) towards:

The creation of a balanced IP framework and committing to do so by including adequate limitations and exceptions; duly acknowledged that IP is not necessarily the best and the only solution to promoting creativity, innovation and access; and prevent unreasonable and disproportionate remedies to IPR law violations; and
Recognized that upholding freedom of expression and due process of law are essential pillars of any IP regime.

One of the (many) assumptions made by the policy is that increased IP will lead to a corresponding growth in innovation. The submission flags this and cites evidence to prove that there exists no established nexus between intellectual property and innovation, and there are reports which suggest that an increase in patents is not directly proportional to an increase in innovation and productivity. Many academic papers have concluded that the connection between patents and innovation/productivity is at best, unambiguous, and there are no positive correlations in the developing countries.

The submission also warns against introduction of a utility model protection system and mentions a couple of drawbacks- explosion in litigation of poor quality patents and legal uncertainty – which impact small business the maximum in terms of costs; risk of the system being used by foreign companies more than local firms. Utility model rights can be, and have been, used by companies to cordon off entire areas of research. Reports also suggest that in China, the abundance of utility models has led to lowering of quality of innovation. Creation of a second-tier patent protection system would lead to a deluge of low quality patents, and the impact of such a system remains debatable, especially in a developing country like India.

The policy also makes an unequivocal commitment to increase IP output at national research labs and universities. The submission cautions against use of excessive IP to cordon off timely access to valuable research produced at public funded institutions and points out that the commitment is at odds with its vision of ‘knowledge sharing’. Any IP resulting from of publicly funded research should automatically belong to the funder. Further, a focus on maximising IP will lead to research being conducted only in areas of commercial value. The objective of the section goes against the recent steps by the government to make research openly accessible in Department of Science and Technology and the Department of Biotechnology as well as other institutions. On a similar note, the submission recommends that the government develop and support the evolution of open standards. The Policy must not encourage use of IP to limit access to standards, because these are the foundational rules any technology must adhere to enter the market or ensure quality. To make the government’s ‘Digital India’ and ‘Make in India’ initiatives a success, it is imperative that standards are openly accessible – not just for the technology sector, but also India’s manufacturing sector. It would also help to establish reasonable and non-discriminatory patent pools, so that even small scale entities can commercialise their inventions based on standards with relative ease. For instance, CIS has earlier proposed that the establishment of a a government-aided patent pool of standard essential technologies in mobile phones will facilitate cross-licensing. This may potentially help avoid a patent thicket and patent licensing war in India, the kind that has erupted internationally.

On the issue of negotiating international treaties and agreement, the submission recommends that the policy state that such negotiations shall be conducted in consultation with various stakeholders, and in a transparent manner. Regional FTAs should not override nor dilute TRIPS’ flexibilities.

Lastly, it strongly pushes the policy to not just ‘study the role of limitations and exceptions’ as future policy development, but also commit to include, adopt and periodically renew of limitations and exceptions in India’s intellectual property laws.

In conclusion, the submission seeks the creation of a policy which encourages greater use of exceptions and limitations to the otherwise exclusionary use of intellectual property, encourages the expansion of the public domain, secures proportionality in enforcement of IP rights, promotes alternatives to IP – including open access to scholarly literature, open educational resources, free/open source software, open standards, open data, and aims to create a regime of intellectual property that aims to serve the public interest and not just the narrow interest of private right holders.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/academia-and-civil-society-submit-critical-comments-to-dipp-on-draft-national-ipr-policy

[OpenGLAM] Nominate an OpenGLAM project today for the 2015 Muse Awards

praskrishna — 2015-05-27T14:08:55Z

It's that time of the year again to nominate projects for the Muse Awards! This is like the Oscar of GLAM awards in the USA and welcomes international submissions.

Our esteemed jury comprises of:

Glen Barnes, Founder/CEO of MyTours and co-founder of Open New Zealand
Dominic McDevitt-Parks, Digital Content Specialist, National Archives and Records Administration
Subhashish Panigrahi, Programme Officer, Centre for Internet and Society
Jane Park, Project Manager, Creative Commons
Lieke Ploeger, Community Manager, Open Knowledge Foundation
Merete Sanderhoff, Curator, National Gallery of Denmark

Submissions are due Feb 23.

Please submit your OpenGLAM projects!!! This is a volunteer driven process, and we throw a big award ceremony with lots of champagne at the annual AAM conference.

More details here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/news/open-glam-nominate-open-glam-project-today-for-2015-muse-awards

Preliminary Submission on "Internet Governance Issues" to the Associated Chambers of Commerce & Industry of India

geetha — 2015-02-12T14:52:04Z

On January 30, 2015, Associated Chambers of Commerce & Industry of India (ASSOCHAM) held a consultation on Internet governance. A committee was set up to draft a report on Internet governance, with a focus on issues relevant to India. The Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) is represented on the committee, and has provided its preliminary comments to ASSOCHAM.

ASSOCHAM convened a meeting of its members and other stakeholders, at which CIS was represented. At this meeting, inputs were sought on Internet governance issues relevant for India, on which the industry body proposed to make comments to the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India. Such a discussion, proposing to consolidate the views of ASSOCHAM members in consultation with other stakeholders, is a commendable move. This submission presents preliminary comments from the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) in light of ASSOCHAM's consultation on Internet governance.

I. About CIS

1. CIS is a non-profit research organization that works, inter alia, on issues relating to privacy, freedom of expression, intermediary liability and internet governance, access to knowledge, open data and open standards, intellectual property law, accessibility for persons with disabilities, and engages in academic research on the budding Indian disciplines of digital natives and digital humanities.

2. CIS engages in international and domestic forums for Internet governance. We are a Sector-D member of the International Telecommunications Union (ITU),[1] and participated in the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT), 2012 (Dubai) [2] and the Plenipotentiary Conference, 2014 (Busan).[3] We have also participated in the WSIS+10 Multistakeholder Preparatory Platform (MPP)[4] and the WSIS+10 High Level Event, organized by the ITU.[5]

3. CIS is also a member of the Non-Commercial Users Constituency (NCUC) at ICANN. Pranesh Prakash, our Policy Director, held a position on the NCUC Executive Committee from December 2013 to November 2014.[6]

4. CIS has been engaging at the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) since 2008, and has organized and participated in over 60 panels to date.[7] We have also organized panels at the Asia-Pacific Regional IGF (APrIGF). [8] Our Executive Director Sunil Abraham is a member of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) for the India-IGF, and has attended in its meetings.[9] We are also in the process of developing international principles for intermediary liability, in collaboration with international civil society organisations like EFF and Article19. [10]

II. Structure of Submission

5. In this submission, we identify issues in Internet governance where engagement from and within India is necessary. In particular, brief descriptions of issues such as freedom of expression and privacy online, cyber-security, critical Internet resources and ICANN, multistakeholderism and net neutrality are provided.

III. Internet Governance Issues

6. The history of the Internet is unique, in that it is not exclusively government-regulated. Though governments regulate the Internet in many ways (for instance, by ordering website blocking or filtering, licensing of ISPs, encryption controls, investment caps, etc.), the running of the Internet is largely in the hands of private businesses, technical organisations and end-users.

7. International processes like the World Summit on Information Society (WSIS), and forums such as ICANN, the ITU, the IGF and the UN are involved in governing in the Internet in many ways. Regional organisations like the OECD, APEC and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) are also involved (for instance, in cyber-security matters).

8. The issues surrounding Internet governance are many, and range from telecom infrastructure and technical coordination to human rights and access to information.

Rights Online

9. The status of 'human rights online' has come under discussion, with the NETmundial Outcome Document affirming that offline rights must also be protected online. These issues are important in the context of, among others, the large scale violations of privacy in light of the Snowden Revelations,[11] and increased instances of website blocking and takedowns in different parts of the world.[12]

10. Internationally, issues of freedom of speech, privacy and access or the digital divide (though it is debatable that the latter is a human right) are discussed at the UN Human Rights Council, such as the resolution on human rights and the Internet, and the UN Human Rights Commissioner's report on the right to privacy in the digital age , which discusses the need for checks and balances on digital mass surveillance. During the Universal Periodic Review of India in 2012, India noted a recommendation from Sweden to " ensure that measures limiting freedom of expression on the internet is based on clearly defined criteria in accordance with international human rights standard ".

11. Freedom of speech and privacy are also relevant for discussion at the ITU.[13] For instance, at the Plenipotentiary meeting in 2014 (Busan), India proposed a resolution that sought, among other things, complete traceability of all Internet communications. [14] This has implications for privacy that are not yet addressed by our domestic laws. A Privacy Bill and such other protections are only in the pipeline in India.[15]

12. At ICANN as well, the root zone management function may affect freedom of expression. If, for instance, a top level domain (TLD) such as .com is erased from the root zone file, hundreds of thousands of websites and their content can be wiped from the World Wide Web. A TLD can be erased by Verisign if a request to that effect is raised or accepted by ICANN, and signed off on by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) of the US government. Similarly,the WHOIS database, which contains information about the holders of domain names and IP addresses, has implications for privacy and anonymity.

13. In India, the judiciary is currently adjudicating the constitutionality of several provisions of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (as amended in 2008), including S. 66A, S. 69A and S. 79. A series of writ petitions filed, among others, by the Internet Service Providers Association of India (ISPAI) and Mouthshut.com, relate to the constitutionality of the nature of content controls on the Internet, as well as intermediary liability. [16]

14. A judgment on the constitutionality of Ss. 66A, 69A and 79 are crucial for end-users and citizens, as well as companies in the Internet ecosystem. For instance, an uncertain intermediary liability regime with penalties for intermediaries - S. 79, IT Act and Intermediaries Guidelines Rules, 2011 - disincentivises ISPs, online news websites and other content providers like Blogger, Youtube, etc. from allowing free speech to flourish online. [17] The ongoing cases of Kamlesh Vaswani v. UOI and Sabu George v. UOI also have consequences for ISPs and search engines, as well as for fundamental rights.[18] International and domestic engagement is desirable, including in consultations with the Law Commission of India (for instance, the consultation on media laws).

Critical Internet Resources

15. Critical Internet Resources form the backbone of the Internet, and include management of IP addresses, the domain name system (DNS) and the root zone. [19] ICANN, a global non-profit entity incorporated in California, manages the IANA functions (Internet Assigned Numbers Authority) for the global Internet. These functions include allocating the global pool of IP addresses (IPv4 and IPv6) to Regional Internet Registries (RIRs), administering the domain name system and maintaining a protocol registry.

16. At present, the IANA functions are performed under a contract with the NTIA. On March 14, 2014, the NTIA announced its intention to transition oversight of the IANA functions to an as-yet-undetermined "global multi-stakeholder body". The deadline for this transition is September 30, 2015, though the NTIA has expressed its willingness to renew the IANA contract and extend the deadline. ICANN was charged with convening the transition process, and set up the IANA Coordination Group (ICG), a team of 30 individuals who will consolidate community input to create a transition proposal. At the moment, thenames (CWG-Names),numbers (CRISP) and protocols (IETF) communities are debating existing draft proposals. A number of new entities with which ICANN will have contractual arrangements have been proposed. At ICANN's meetings in Singapore (February 7-12, 2015) and Buenos Aires (June 2015), these proposals will be discussed.

17. At the same time, a parallel track to examine ICANN's own transparency and accountability has been introduced. The CCWG-Accountability is considering ICANN's accountability in two Workstreams: first, in light of the IANA transition and second, a revision of ICANN's policies and by-laws to strengthen accountability. ICANN's accountability and transparency are crucial to its continued role in Internet governance.

18. Several issues arise here: Should ICANN continue to remain in the US? Should the IANA Functions Department be moved into a separate entity from ICANN? Ought ICANN's by-laws be amended to create oversight over the Board of Directors, which is now seen to have consolidated power? Ought ICANN be more transparent in its financial and operational matters, proactively and reactively?

19. It is, for instance, beneficial to the stability of the Internet and to India if the IANA department is separate from ICANN - this will ensure aseparation of powers. Second, stronger transparency and accountability mechanisms are necessary for ICANN; it is a growing corporate entity performing a globally Internet function. As such, granular information about ICANN's revenues and expenses should be made public. See, for ex.,CIS' request for ICANN's expenses for travel and meetings, and ICANN's response to the same.

20. The most ideal forum to engage in this is ICANN, and within India, working groups on Internet governance at the Ministry level. As such, ASSOCHAM may seek open, transparent and inclusive consultations with the relevant departments of the Government (the Ministry of External Affairs, DeitY, Department of Telecommunications). At ICANN, industry bodies can find representation in the Business Constituency or the Commercial Stakeholders Group. Additionally, comments and proposals can be made to the ICG and the CCWG-Accountability by anyone.

Cyber-security

21. Cyber-security is often used as an umbrella-term, covering issues ranging from network security (DNSSEC and the ICANN domain), cyber-crime, and cyber-incidents such as the Distributed Denial of Service attacks on Estonian public institutions and the Stuxnet virus that attacked Iran's nuclear programme. Within the ITU, spam and child safety online are also assessed as security issues (See Study Group 17 under ITU-T).

22. At the international level, the UN Group of Governmental Experts has published three reports to date, arguing also that in cyber-security incidents, international humanitarian law will apply. International humanitarian law applies during armed attacks on states, when special rules apply to the treatment of civilians, civilian and military buildings, hospitals, wounded soldiers, etc.

23. The ITU also launched a Global Cybersecurity Agenda in 2007, aiming at international cooperation. Such cooperative methods are also being employed at the OSCE, APEC and the SCO, which have developed drafts of Confidence Building Measures. The Global Conferences on Cyberspace (London 2011, Budapest 2012, Seoul 2013, The Hague 2015) resulted in, inter alia, the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime. India has not ratified the Convention, and remains tight-lipped about its security concerns.

24. Surveillance and monitoring of online communications is a crucial issue in this regard. In India, the surveillance power finds its source in S. 5, Telegraph Act, 1888, and the Rule 419A of the Telegraph Rules, 1951. Further, S. 69 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and the Interception Rules, 2009 enable the government and authorized officers to intercept and monitor Internet traffic on certain grounds. Information regarding the implementation of these Rules is scant.

25. In any event, the applicability of targeted surveillance should be subject to judicial review , and a balance should be struck between fundamental rights such as freedom of speech and privacy and the needs of security. An accountability model such as that present in the UK for the Interception of Communications Commissioner may provide valuable insight.

26. In India, the government does not make public information regarding its policies in cyber-security and cybercrime. This would be welcome, as well as consultations with relevant stakeholders.

Models of Internet Governance

27. Multi-stakeholderism has emerged as one of the catchphrases in Internet governance. With the display of a multi-stakeholder model at NETmundial (April 2014), controversies and opinions regarding the meaning, substance and benefits of multi-stakeholderism have deepened.

28. The debates surrounding stakeholder-roles in Internet governance began with ¶49 of the Geneva Declaration of Principles and ¶35 of the Tunis Agenda, which delineated clear roles and responsibilities. It created a 'contributory' multi-stakeholder model, where states held sovereign authority over public policy issues, while business and civil society were contributed to 'important roles' at the 'technical and economic fields' and the 'community level', respectively.

29. As the WGEC meeting (April 30-May 2, 2014) demonstrated, there is as yet no consensus on stakeholder-roles. Certain governments remain strongly opposed to equal roles of other stakeholders, emphasizing their lack of accountability and responsibility. Civil society is similarly splintered, with a majority opposing the Tunis Agenda delineation of stakeholder-roles, while others remain dubious of permitting the private sector an equal footing in public policy-making.

30. The positions in India are similarly divided. While there is appears to be high-level acceptance of "multi-stakeholder models" across industry, academia and civil society, there exists no clarity as to what this means. In simple terms, does a multi-stakeholder model mean that the government should consult industry, civil society, academia and the technical community? Or should decision-making power be split among stakeholders? In fact, the debate is more specific.

31. In India, the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) for the India-IGF was established in February 2014, and some meetings were held. Unfortunately, neither the minutes of the meetings nor action points (if any) are publicly available.

32. The Indian government's position is more complex. At the 68^th UN General Assembly session in 2011, India argued for a (multilateral) 50-member UN Committee on Internet-related Policies (CIRP). However, the Ministry for Communications and Information Technology (MCIT) has, over the years, presented differing views at the IGF and ITU through its two departments: DeitY and DoT. Further, at the meetings of the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation (WGEC), India has presented more nuanced views, suggesting that certain issues remain within the governmental domain (such as cyber-security and child online protection). At the 9^th IGF (Istanbul, September 2014), Mr. R.S. Sharma of the DeitY echoed such a view of delineated roles for stakeholders.

33. A clear message from the Indian government, on whether it favours multistakeholderism or governmental policy authority for specific issues, would be invaluable in shaping opinion and domestic processes. In any event, a transparent consultative procedure to take into account the views of all stakeholders is desirable.

Emerging Issues

Net Neutrality

34. In simple terms, net neutrality concerns differential treatment of packets of data by carriers such as ISPs, etc. over networks. The issue has gained international attention following the U.S. FCC's regulatory stance, and the U.S. Court of Appeal's 2014 decision in Verizon v. FCC. Though this decision turned on the interpretation of 'broadband providers' under the Communications Act, 1934, net neutrality has since been debated in the US, both by the FCC and other stakeholders. There is no international consensus in sight; the NETmundial Outcome Document recognized net neutrality as an emerging issue (page 11, no. IV).

35. In India, a TRAI consultation on Over-The-Top Services on August 5, 2014 brought concerns of telecom and cellular operators to light. OTTs were seen as hijacking a portion of telcos' revenues, and as lacking consumer protection and privacy safeguards. While these concerns are legitimate, net neutrality regulation is not yet the norm in India. In any event, any such regulation must take into account the consequences of regulation on innovation, competition, and consumer choice, as well as on the freedom of the medium (which may have detrimental impacts freedom of expression).

36. Though net neutrality regulation is being mooted, there is as yet anarray of definitions of 'net neutrality'. The views of telcos themselves differ in India. Further study on the methods of identifying and/or circumventing net neutrality is necessary before a policy position can be taken.

IV. Conclusions

37. CIS welcomes ASSOCHAM's initiative to study and develop industry-wide positions on Internet governance. This note provides brief descriptions of several issues in Internet governance where policy windows are open internationally and domestically. These issues include freedom of expression and privacy under Part III (Fundamental Rights) of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court's hearing of a set of cases alleging unconstitutionality of Ss. 66A, 69, 69A and 79 (among others) of the IT Act, 2000, as well as consultations on issues such as pornography by the Rajya Sabha Parliamentary Committee and media laws by the Law Commission of India are important in this regard.

38. International and domestic engagement is necessary in the transition of stewardship of the IANA functions, as well as ICANN's own accountability and transparency measures. Similarly, in the area of cyber-security, though several initiatives are afoot internationally, India's engagement has been cursory until now. A concrete position from India's stakeholders, including the government, on these and the question of multi-stakeholderism in Internet governance would be of immense assistance.

39. Finally, net neutrality is an emerging issue of importance to industry's revenues and business models, and to users' rights such as access to information and freedom of expression.

[1] CIS gets ITU-D Sector Membership, goo.gl/PBGKWt (l.a. 8 Feb. 2015).

[2] Letter for Civil Society Involvement in WCIT, goo.gl/gXpYQD (l.a. 8 Feb. 2015).

[3] See, ex., Hariharan, What India's ITU Proposal May Mean for Internet Governance, goo.gl/hpWaZn (l.a. 8 Feb. 2015).

[4] Panday, WSIS +10 High Level Event: Open Consultation Process MPP: Phase Six: Fifth Physical Meeting, goo.gl/3XR24X (l.a. 8 Feb. 2015).

[5] Hariharan, WSIS+10 High Level Event: A Bird's Eye Report, goo.gl/8XkwyJ (l.a. 8 Feb. 2015).

[6] Pranesh Prakash elected as Asia-Pacific Representative to the Executive Committee of NonCommercial Users Constituency, goo.gl/iJM7C0 (l.a. 8 Feb. 2015).

[7] See, ex., CIS@IGF 2014, goo.gl/Werdiz (l.a. 8 Feb. 2015).

[8] Multi-stakeholder Internet Governance: The Way Ahead , goo.gl/NuktNi; Minimising legal risks of online Intermediaries while protecting user rights, goo.gl/mjQyww (l.a. 8 Feb. 2015).

[9] First Meeting of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group for India Internet Governance Forum, goo.gl/NCmKRp (l.a. 8 Feb. 2015).

[10] See Zero Draft of Content Removal Best Practices White Paper, goo.gl/RnAel8 (l.a. 8 Feb. 2015).

[11] See, ex., UK-US surveillance regime was unlawful 'for seven years', goo.gl/vG8W7i (l.a. 9 Feb. 2015).

[12] See, ex., Twitter: Turkey tops countries demanding content removal, goo.gl/ALyO3B (l.a. 9 Feb. 2015).

[13] See, ex., The ITU convenes a programme on Child Online Protection, goo.gl/qJ4Es7 (l.a. 9 Feb. 2015).

[14] Hariharan, Why India's Proposal at the ITU is Troubling for Internet Freedoms, goo.gl/Sxh5K8 (l.a. 9 Feb. 2015).

[15] Hickok, Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy vs. The Leaked 2014 Privacy Bill, goo.gl/454qA6 (l.a. 9 Feb. 2015).

[16] See, Supreme Court Of India To Hear Eight IT Act Related Cases On 11th April 2014 - SFLC, goo.gl/XLWsSq (l.a. 9 Feb. 2015).

[17] See, Dara, Intermediary Liability in India: Chilling Effects on Free Expression on the Internet, goo.gl/bwBT0x (l.a. 9 Feb. 2015).

[18] See, ex., Arun, Blocking online porn: who should make Constitutional decisions about freedom of speech?,goo.gl/NPdZcK; Hariharan & Subramanian, Search Engine and Prenatal Sex Determination: Walking the Tight Rope of the Law, goo.gl/xMj4Zw (l.a. 9 Feb. 2015).

[19] CSTD, The mapping of international Internet public policy issues, goo.gl/zUWdI1 (l.a. 9 Feb. 2015).

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/preliminary-submission-on-internet-governance-issues-to-assocham

Heads I Win, Tails You Lose: The Intransigence of STM Publishers

praskrishna — 2015-02-12T00:16:46Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/heads-i-win-tails-you-lose-the-intransigence-of-stm-publishers

Facebook launches Internet.org in India

praskrishna — 2015-03-13T02:27:14Z

Joins hands with Reliance Communications. Move spurs neutrality concerns.

The article by Lalatendu Mishra and Sriram Srinivasan was published in the Hindu on February 11, 2015. Pranesh Prakash was quoted.

Facebook on Tuesday announced a tie-up with Reliance Communications to launch Internet.org in India, bringing to the land of a billion-plus people a service that the social media giant says helps affordable Internet access but whose critics disapprove its restrictiveness.

India now becomes the sixth destination for Internet.org, a Facebook-led initiative envisaged about a year-and-a-half back with six other founding partners, including Samsung and Qualcomm. The service has already been launched in Zambia, Tanzania, Kenya, Colombia and Ghana.

Facebook’s 30-year-old founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced the development on his social network. He posted, “More than a billion people in India don’t have access to the internet. That means they can’t enjoy the same opportunities many of us take for granted, and the entire world is robbed of their ideas and creativity.”

The tie-up gives subscribers of the Anil Ambani-led Reliance Communications who have Internet-enabled handsets free access to 38 Websites – a mix of news, music, education, weather and health sites. The list includes Facebook, Wikipedia, and Reliance Astrology. The lone search option available is Microsoft’s Bing. They can be accessed via an Android app.

For the time being, the service has gone live in Maharashtra, Gujarat, Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, and Kerala. The pan-India launch is planned in three months. Nearly 70% of Reliance’s customers who have Internet-enabled phones but are now offline are expected to avail themselves of this service.

Gurdeep Singh, CEO, Consumer Business, Reliance Communications, said during the launch in Mumbai, “This partnership will not only accelerate internet penetration In India, it will also open new socioeconomic opportunities to users in fields like education, information and commerce.”

Chris Daniels, Vice President of Internet.org at Facebook, said, “This is a big step forward in our efforts to connect every one in India to the internet and help people discover new tools and information that can create more jobs and opportunities.”

Critics, however, see little altruism in Internet.org. Rather, what they see is a huge challenge to the neutrality of the Internet. Their point is that a selective access to the Internet makes it extremely difficult for rivals not part of the service.

Lawyer Prashant Reddy said, “It will be interesting to see how Trai (the regulator Telecom Regulatory Authority of India) handles such deals, and whether the market will accuse both these players of violating network neutrality.”

He said, “Also one needs to see how public understands the principles of Net neutrality.” His point is: there is no outcry when data packs are offered free but controversy erupts when a service provider tries to charge subscribers for services, as in the case of Airtel recently.

Internet activist and director of the Center for Civic Media at MIT, Ethan Zuckerman, told The Hindu in an email interview that "If Facebook were donating millions or billions to upgrade infrastructure - or even to lobby mobile phone carriers for cheaper data services for all - it would be less troubling. But instead, they're offering a limited version of the internet, one that centers on Facebook, to low-income internet users. That raises real concerns that this is not a charitable effort, but a customer acquisition strategy."

Pranesh Prakash, Policy Director of the Bengaluru-based research and advocacy organisation The Centre for Internet & Society, said he is worried about the long-term consequences. “The Internet.org model violates most definitions of net neutrality, as it provides access to a limited menu of services claiming to be the Internet — being based on a cable TV model — rather than providing actual access to the Internet at a low cost.”

He said, “Since it is an exclusive deal with a single mobile service provider, it also calls into question the genuineness of Mark Zuckerberg’s publicly-stated motive of bringing the Internet to a billion people and bridging the digital divide.”

It isn’t clear how Facebook and Reliance would bear the cost of the free service. What Facebook said in its annual report of 2013 is that it would continue to invest in projects even if it doesn’t have a clear path to monetisation, “such as our commitment to the Internet.org initiative to increase global Internet access.”

Even prior to the internet.org initiative, companies such as Facebook and Twitter have individually worked out deals with telecom companies in fast-growing markets to make their services free for subscribers. Research firm eMarketer had forecast India to be the fastest-growing geography for Facebook in terms of users in 2014.

(With inputs from Sanjay Vijayakumar)

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/hindu-lalatendu-mishra-sriram-srinivasan-february-11-2015-hindu-facebook-launches-internet-org-in-india

Open Letter to Prime Minister Modi

rohini — 2016-02-14T04:39:01Z

After the government introduced the "Make in India" and "Digital India" programmes, the air is thick with the promise of reduced imports, new jobs, and goods for the domestic market. In light of the patent wars in India, the government can ill-afford to overlook the patent implications in indigenously manufactured mobile phones. CIS proposes that the Government of India initiate the formation of a patent pool of critical mobile technologies and a five percent compulsory license.

The blog post was re-published by Medianama on March 24, 2015.

Honourable Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi,

We at the Centre for Internet and Society support the "Make in India" and "Digital India" initiatives of the Indian government and share your vision of a digitally empowered India where “1.2 billion connected Indians drive innovation”, where “access to information knows no barriers”, and where knowledge is the citizens’ power. The government’s plan of incentivising the manufacturing of electronics hardware, including that of mobile phones in the 2015 Union Budget is equally encouraging. Towards this important goal of nation building, the Centre for Internet and Society is researching the patent and copyright implications of Internet-enabled mobile devices that are sold in the Indian market for Rs 6,000 or less.

Bolstered by Make in India, several mobile phone manufacturers have started or ramped up their manufacturing facilities in India. Homegrown brands — such as Spice, Maxx Mobile and Lava — and foreign manufacturers alike are making humongous investments in mobile phone plants. Chip manufacturer Mediatek; one of the newest entrants in the Indian smartphone market, Xiaomi; and telecom company Huawei, all different links in the mobile phone manufacturing chain, are setting up research and development units in India having recognised its potential as a significant market. These developments promise to cut or substitute imports, cater to the domestic market, create millions of jobs, and stem the outflow of money from India.

However, mobile phone manufacturers, big and small, have also been embroiled in litigation in India for the past few years over patents pertaining to crucial technologies. Micromax, one of the several Indian mobile phone manufacturers with original equipment manufacturers in China was ordered by the Delhi High Court late last year to pay a substantial 1.25 to 2 per cent of the selling price of its devices to Ericsson, which has claimed infringement of eight of its standard essential patents. Intex and Lava, two members of Micromax’s ilk, have been similarly sued and claim to have received the short end of the stick in the form of unreasonable and exorbitant compensations and royalty rates. Chinese budget phone manufacturers operating in India — Xiaomi, OnePlus, and Gionee — also have come under the sledgehammer of sudden suspension of the sale of their devices. The bigger companies such as Asus, Samsung and ZTE have faced the heat of patent litigation as well.

The fear of litigation over patent infringement could thwart local innovation. Additionally, the expenses incurred due to litigation and compensation could lead to the smaller manufacturers shutting shop or passing on their losses to their consumers, and in turn, driving the price points of Internet-enabled mobile devices out of the reach of many. It could also become a stumbling block to the success of ambitious plans of the government, such as the one to provide free WiFi in 2,500 cities and towns across India.

We propose that the Government of India initiate the formation of a patent pool of critical mobile technologies and mandate a five percent compulsory license. Such a pool would possibly avert patent disputes by ensuring that the owners' rights are not infringed on, that budget manufacturers are not put out of business owing to patent feuds, and that consumers continue to get access to inexpensive mobile devices. Several countries including the United States regularly issue compulsory licenses on patents in the pharmaceutical, medical, defence, software, and engineering domains for reasons of public policy, or to thwart or correct anti-competitive practices.[1] [2] Unfortunately, we did not receive a response from the previous government to our suggestion of establishing such a patent pool. We believe that our proposal falls in line with your ambitious programmes designed to work towards your vision of India, and we hope that you would consider it.

Yours truly,
Rohini Lakshané,
Programme Officer,
The Centre for Internet and Society

Copies to:

Shri Arun Jaitley, Minister for Finance
Shri Rajiv Mehrishi, Secretary to Ministry of Finance
Smt. Smriti Zubin Irani, Minister for Human Resource Development
Shri Satyanarayan Mohanty, Secretary to Ministry of Human Resources Development
Smt. Nirmala Sitharaman, Minister for Commerce and Industry
Shri Amitabh Kant, Secretary to Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion
Shri Ravi Shankar Prasad, Minister for Communication and Information Technology
Shri Rakesh Garg, Secretary to Department of Telecommunications
Shri R. S. Sharma, Secretary for Department of Electronics and Information Technology

Also read: FAQ: CIS' Proposal for Compulsory Licensing of Critical Mobile Technologies

[1]. James Love, Knowledge Ecology International (KEI) written comments and notice of intent to testify at the Special 301 Public Hearing, Page 6, "US use of compulsory licensing",http://keionline.org/sites/default/files/KEI_2014_Special301_7Feb20014_FRComments.pdf, February 7, 2014, Last accessed February 10, 2015.

[2]. Colleen Chien, Cheap Drugs at What Price to Innovation, Does the Compulsory Licensing of Pharmaceuticals Hurt Innovation, Berkeley Technology Law Journal, Volume 18, Issue 3, Article 3, Page 862, "Compulsory licensing in the United States", http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1429&context=btlj, June 2003, Last accessed February 10, 2015.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/open-letter-to-prime-minister-modi

A Wikipedia Presentation at BITS, Goa

Radhakrishna Arvapally — 2015-03-09T01:21:43Z

Quark is one of India's largest science, technology and management festivals, held every February at BITS Pilani - K.K. Birla Goa Campus. This year in 2015, the event was held from February 6 to 8, 2015. This blog post captures the key moments. About 12 delegates attended the event.

How it Started?

For celebrating this annual event, "Quark 2015", BITS Pilani invited speakers from all over India. Many parallel tracks happen during this event. I got an Invite to speak about Wikimedia projects.The Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) supported my event participation.

Dr. Sunil Kumar, a BITS physics professor who could not join the presentation due to conflicting meetings met me in the morning that day. He was curious to understand how Wikimedia projects work, how people collaborate to write the same article, how the conflicting views gets resolved among editors and how one can trust the content. He was excited to know the mechanics behind. We discussed about organizing a quiz for their students. He responded very positive and said that he will discuss this internally and get back to me later.

CIS team also helped me to establish contact with Luis Gomes, a local Konkani Wikipedian. We met at the event and shared our thoughts. It was a good learning for me to understand how Konkani Wikipedia is progressing.

I gave my speech in the afternoon. The participants showed great enthusiasm to learn about Wikipedia projects. The session was very interactive. The participants tried answering open ended questions like — As on today, what are the possible ways to preserve unique knowledge and skill? The participants also asked questions on the source of knowledge contribution to Wikipedia and how it survives?

My presentation showcased how anyone could contribute to Wikipedia and also explore greater possibilities of exploring existing frame work with examples like QRpedia, WikiWand, and many more.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/a-wikipedia-presentation-at-goa

‘Internet is an absolute human right’

praskrishna — 2015-02-05T15:10:58Z

The right to the internet is an absolute human right, Bengaluru-based lawyer Lawrence Liang said.

The article was published in the Times of India on February 1, 2015. Pranesh Prakash was quoted.

Pranesh Prakash, policy director, Centre for Internet and Society, said people should fight for this right "as we fight for the right to food".

There was vigorous espousal of the concept of net neutrality at the session on 'Is free internet a fantasy?' Net neutrality is the notion of keeping the internet free and open. It implies preventing broadband companies from blocking or deliberately slowing down legal content; and preventing them from collecting a higher fee from content providers to enable them to reach consumers faster.

Session moderator and writer Vivek Kaul noted that broadband companies had been arguing for the right to price internet services differentially on the grounds that they had made huge investments on their infrastructure. Prakash challenged that argument saying the companies were already highly profitable and their consumers were anyway paying for the internet. "Even the argument that large content providers like Google and Facebook are having a free ride on their networks is not true because they pay intermediaries who carry their traffic," he said.

Last November, US president Barack Obama upheld net neutrality, saying that for almost a century, "our law has recognized that companies who connect you to the world have special obligations not to exploit the monopoly they enjoy over access into and out of your home or business." He went on to say: "It is common sense that the same philosophy should guide any service that is based on the transmission of information — whether a phone call or a packet of data."

If broadband companies are allowed to charge content providers higher for faster internet services, it would discriminate against those who can't afford to pay such rates. This would mean lopsided availability of information - a fundamental resource for a democratic world.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/times-of-india-february-1-2015-internet-is-an-absolute-human-right

National IPR Policy Series : CIS Comments to the First Draft of the National IP Policy

nehaa — 2015-02-09T00:59:10Z

The Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion, Government of India invited comments on the First Draft of India's National IPR Policy. The Centre for Internet & Society (CIS) made this submission. The comments were prepared by Nehaa Chaudhari, Pranesh Prakash and Anubha Sinha. We also thank our intern, Varnika Chawla for her assistance.

The press release from the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion in which it invited comments is here. The First Draft of India's National IPR Policy is here. Click to view the PDF. Note: In some places there might be references to paragraph/page numbers (of the document) and for that readers should refer to the PDF since the formatting in HTML is slightly different.

Preliminary

This submission presents comments from the Centre for Internet and Society, India ("CIS")¹ on the proposed National Intellectual Property Rights Policy ("the Policy") to the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India.("DIPP").
This submission is made in response to the requests and suggestions from stakeholders sought by the DIPP in its Press Release. ²
CIS commends the DIPP for this initiative, and appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the National IPR Policy. CIS' comments are as stated hereafter.

About CIS

CIS³ is a non-profit research organization that works on among others, issues of intellectual property law reform,⁴ openness,⁵ privacy, freedom of speech and expression and internet governance,⁶ accessibility for persons with disabilities,⁷ and engages in academic research on digital humanities⁸ and digital natives. ⁹
CIS is an accredited Observer¹⁰ at the World Intellectual Property Organization ("WIPO"), enabling us to attend formal meetings of member states and participate in debates and consultations on various issues. CIS has been attending meetings of the WIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights since 2010. At these sessions, CIS has actively participated through various interventions, emphasizing the adoption of an approach balancing the rights holders' perspective with public interest. CIS has also attended sessions of some other committees at WIPO, made interventions wherever applicable, produced reports of these meetings, and profiled the work of other non-governmental organizations engaging in similar work on intellectual property law and policy reform. ¹¹
CIS undertakes research in other fields of intellectual property, in addition to WIPO-related work. Over the past five years since our inception, some of our key research has included analyses of intellectual property issues of the proposed Indo-EU Free Trade Agreement¹² and other free trade agreements,¹³ the US Special 301 Report,¹⁴ the (2010) amendment to the Copyright Act, 1957,¹⁵ the (draft) Science, Technology and Innovation Policy,¹⁶ parallel importation, ¹⁷ the (draft) Patent Manual and the subsequent Guidelines for Computer Related Inventions,¹⁸ royalty caps,¹⁹ copyright exceptions and limitations for education, ²⁰ and the preparation of the India Report for the Consumers International IP Watch List.²¹

Structure of this Submission

This submission is divided into 4 parts. The first part gives a preliminary overview of the suggestions submitted by CIS. The second part highlights the principles that should be followed in the formulation of a National IPR Policy, the third part provides detailed comments and recommendations for the National IPR Policy and the last part provides certain concluding remarks.

Principles

The characterization of intellectual property rights may be two-fold - first, at their core, intellectual property rights, are temporary monopolies granted to inter alia, authors and inventors; and second, they are a tool to ensure innovation, social, scientific and cultural progress and further access to knowledge. This dual nature and purpose of intellectual property protection is particularly critical in developing economies such as India. Excessive intellectual property protection could result in stunted innovation and negatively impact various stakeholders.²² It is therefore our submission that the development of the IPR Policy be informed by broader principles of fairness and equity, balancing intellectual property protections with limitations and exceptions/user rights such as those that promote freedom of expression, research, education and access to medicines, cultural rights, data mining, use of governmental works, etc.

Detailed Comments

This section will detail CIS' submissions on various aspects of the National IPR Policy. Submissions have been categorised thematically.

On the Vision

It is submitted that the Vision of the National IPR Policy ("Vision") in encouraging growth for the 'benefit of all' and in accepting the philosophy that knowledge owned 'is transformed into knowledge shared' ²³ is commendable.However, the vision is at odds with the methods proposed in the document. True advancement in science and technology, arts and culture, protection of traditional knowledge as well as bio-diverse resources and the true sharing of knowledge would be impaired by a system centred only around the development and maximization of intellectual property.
An attractive social culture would be one where citizens had access to a cornucopia of ideas and information, thereby fostering an environment of cultural diversity, which would enable individuals to shape themselves. Indeed, this is not just an ideal, but is a right recognized under Article 27(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and Article 15 of the .²⁴ However, an IP maximization approach, which the draft stategy seems to embrace, hinders the growth of such a culture, creating a protectionist environment while preventing access to various resources which may be of use for further innovations.
The question of whether IP rights given to innovators are the most effective tools to promote innovation in society has been widely discussed in economics, politics and law, especially in the last four decades.²⁵ Traditional arguments in favour of temporary monopolies incentivising innovation have been effectively questioned as creating monopolies on innovation, contributing to increasing prices and a distorted allocation of resources, inefficiency and a net loss of welfare. ²⁶ It has also been effectively established that most innovation is incremental and cumulative, necessitating the access to pre-existing data and works.²⁷ It would be welcome if the huge amount of academic literature on these matter were taken into consideration by the expert group. While intellectual property rights are not per se antithetical to innovation, creativity, and cultural development, an IP-maximalist policy and law has been shown to harm those very objectives.
CIS therefore submits that the vision of the policy also reflect the commitment to the creation of a holistic and balanced framework of intellectual property rights in the nation with the recognition that an intellectual property-centric system would not necessarily be the best means of promoting creativity, innovation and access, the promotion of which are part of the stated desire of the policy.
Further, we believe that the principles of freedom of expression and of due process of law, both of which are constitutionally-recognized rights in India, should be recognized in the vision as principles that any intellectual property rights regime should respectively seek to promote and respect.

On the Mission

CIS appreciates the commitment to establish a balanced, dynamic and vibrant intellectual property system in India.²⁸ We recommend that the mission of the policy also include a commitment tofoster access to knowledge as well as the commitment to creating asystem of intellectual property rights which serve the public interest by strengthening limitations and exceptions to IP regimes, which are aimed to provide a public interest oriented counterbalance to the monopoly rights granted under IPR laws.
We believe that preventing unreasonable and disproportionate remedies to IPR law violations are an important part of ensuring that these laws serve the public interest rather than subvert them for purely private interests. This important principle ought to find reflection in the policy's mission statement.
It is suggested that in addition to public health, food security and the environment²⁹, other areas of socio-economic and cultural importance, including inter alia,foundational scientific research, education, disability rights, and access to knowledge, be added as additional areas that warrant special protection , in the mission statement.
It is submitted that these commitments are essential to the creation and working of a balanced intellectual property framework that the Policy seeks to achieve.

On Objective 1: IP Awareness and Promotion

The first objective of the Policy lays out a detailed action plan for creating awareness about intellectual property as well as for the promotion of intellectual property. The underlying rationale for this endeavour has been identified on various levels - that there are economic, social and cultural benefits of intellectual property;³⁰ that intellectual property protection accelerates development, promotes entrepreneurship as well as increases competitiveness; ³¹ and that the global regime is one of strongly protected intellectual property rights.³²
It is submitted that the identification of this underlying rationale is not backed by sufficient evidence. These justifications, in their pursuit of a favourable intellectual property regime do not present a balanced picture of all the facts.
Current existing empirical research does not show an unambiguous nexus between the granting of IP rights and an increase in innovation and productivity, as innovation and productivity cannot not identified with the number of patents awarded. ³³ This can be seen in the US economy, where despite an enormous increase in the number of patents, there has been no dramatic acceleration in technological progress. ³⁴ In fact, studies prove the contrary to be true. In the United States, patenting increased drastically over the last few decades, quadrupling from 59,715 patents being issued in 1983, to 244,341 in 2010. However, according to the Bureau of Labour Statistics, annual growth in the total factor productivity reduced from 1.2% in 1970-79 to below 1% in 2000-09, ³⁵ whereas the annual expenditure on research and development saw hardly any change, oscillating in a band of 2.5% of the GDP for over three decades.³⁶ In relatively new industries such as software and biotechnology, still in their nascent stages of development, patenting has been introduced without any positive contributions to innovation. In fact, in their empirical work described in Patent Failure (2008), ³⁷ Bessen and Meurer have argued that increased patenting has resulted in decreased social welfare.
Further, no unambiguous connections have been found between innovation and intellectual property rights in academic studies. In a meta-study conducted in 2006,³⁸ Boldrin and Levine observed that there was weak or no evidence which suggested that strengthening the patent regime led to an increase in innovation. Similarly, it was observed by Jaffe that "despite the significance of policy changes and the wide availability of detailed data relating to patenting, robust conclusions regarding the empirical consequences for technological innovations of changes in patent policy are few. There is widespread unease that the costs of stronger patent protection may exceed the benefits. Both theoretical and, to a lesser extent, empirical research suggest this possibility." ³⁹
In his study of 60 nations over the past 150 years, Josh Lerner concluded that "the impact of patent protection-enhancing on innovation was in fact negative, thereby running counter to assumptions made by economists that incentives affect behavior and that stronger property rights encourage economic growth.⁴⁰
Even in those studies, where support is found for a positive correlation between patents and innovation, it is made clear that this correlation is not applicable to developing and least-developed countries. This, for instance, is the conclusion of the United Nations Industrial Development Organization's meta-study titled "The Role of Intellectual Property Rights in Technology Transfer and Economic Growth: Theory and Evidence". ⁴¹
It is crucial that all policy be based on evidence, and not ideology.
Thus, it is submitted that any program that seeks to create awareness about intellectual property must necessarily be one that presents a balanced view, clearly stating all facts and as many diverse opinions as possible; avoiding the current situation where public interest groups and academics are sidelined in favour of rights-holders groups.
CIS submits that the nation-wide program of promotion on the benefits of intellectual property ⁴² must be based on evidence. Crucially, the importance of the public domain, for which a great deal of evidence exists,⁴³ must highlighted in any such also equally promote the importance the role of limitations and exceptions and clearly identify the issues with the intellectual property system, including the fact that it has not been proven that there is a nexus between intellectual property and innovation. The nation wide program should convey the role of different stakeholders, including libraries and archives, organizations working with persons with disabilities and educational institutions and the negative effects of a rights centric intellectual property system on such important institutions.
It is important that public-funded research organizations should be engaged in neutral - non-industry funded -research, and not campaigns (as identified in the policy).⁴⁴ This will help identify the issues of the present intellectual property system as well as the potential for reform, tailored to the Indian context. We have to ensure that campaigns - as with policymaking and pedagogic material - are based on research rather than faith or ideology. It is further submitted that course materials to be created for educational institutions at all levels as well as for online and distance learning programs ⁴⁵ should include a discussion on the drawbacks of a maximalist intellectual property system, a discussion on limitations and exceptions, alternatives to intellectual property, as well as case studies from different parts of the world highlighting the use of intellectual property as well as alternatives in a socio-economic and culture specific environment. Particularly in the case of education institutions as well as online and distance learning mechanisms, which are often faced with great challenges as a result of rights-holders centric intellectual property laws, the irony in promoting a system that only acts to their detriment would be great.

On Objective 2: Creation of IP

The second objective of the Policy seeks to stimulate the creation and growth of intellectual property through measures that encourage IP generation.⁴⁶ This objective seeks to encourage IP generation and creation across various sectors, including the introduction of the system of 'utility models' in India. There are several problems with this objective, primarily that it assumes IP generation is necessarily a means to innovation, whereas it is submitted that the emphasis should be on innovation holistically, including by incentive mechanisms other than IP.

On the IP-Innovation/ Creativity Nexus

It is submitted that similar to the earlier objective relating to the promotion and the creation of awareness about intellectual property, the underlying rationale behind this objective too seems to be the perception that there is a positive correlation between greater amounts of intellectual property and greater innovation, and the belief that intellectual property protection necesarrily promotes innovation. However, there is relatively little research to back this assumption. Illustratively, the following example may be considered. In a study conducted by Heidi L. Williams,⁴⁷ the sequencing of the human genome was used to provide an empirical context to showcase the deterioration in development due to the presence of IP. It was concluded by Williams that the presence of IP rights in the sequencing of the human genome resulted in reductions in subsequent scientific research and product development by up to 20-30%. ⁴⁸ Williams further observed that "if more socially valuable technologies are more likely to be held with IP, then the welfare costs for the same could be substantial." The presence of intellectual property rights, it is argued, stifles subsequent product development by restricting access to the data or technology required for further development. ⁴⁹
Prof. Petra Moser of Stanford has conducted a large volume of research on economic evidence on the linkages between patents and innovation. Her research, which shows that in the 19th century the majority of inventions happened outside the patent system ⁵⁰ indicates that alternative explanations might explain inventions better, including "the importance of a culture of entrepreneurship,⁵¹ experimentation,⁵² the free exchange of knowledge, ⁵³ and science.⁵⁴ In a paper titled, "How do Patent Laws Influence Innovation", she concludes that "I find no evidence that patent laws increased levels of innovative activity but strong evidence that patent systems influenced the distribution of innovative activity across industries."
Prof. Bryan Mercurio, in a paper written for the World Economic Forum and the International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development, concludes, "The empirical evidence suggests that increasing levels of patent protection have not resulted in increased innovation. Instead, it has limited competition, and increased the cost of business, to the detriment of the world economy. Innovation has also suffered, as increasing protection has inhibited the ability of many firms to innovate." He further recommends that we "conduct further research on the correlation or causal relationship between patents and innovation, including the indirect benefits for innovation that patent protection may provide". Petra Moser notes, "Patent laws that existed in the mid-nineteenth century had been adopted in a relatively ad-hoc manner, dependent more on legal traditions than economic considerations".⁵⁵
The empirical data collected by scholars, as provided above is goes to show that innovation is not necessarily benefitted by stronger patent regimes. Further, even the literature that asserts a positive correlation between the two acknowledge that this doesn't apply to developing countries. In addition, whilepatents may provide revenue to patent owners, it also makes further innovation more costly, thereby discouraging competitors from entering the arena due to high prices, and due to the large number of pre-existing patents. This effect, known as the
The Supreme Court of Canada, has for instance, has on multiple occasions recognized the importance of the public domain. In "2002, Justice Binne, writing for the majority in Théberge v. Galerie d'Art du Petit Champlain inc., stated: 'Excessive control by holders of copyrights and other forms of intellectual property may unduly limit the ability of the public domain to incorporate and embellish creative innovation in the long-term interests of society as a whole (para.32).' Two years later, in CCH Canadian Ltd. v. Law Society of Upper Canada, Chief Justice McLachlin spoke of the importance that there be 'room for the public domain to flourish as others are able to produce new works by building on the ideas and information contained in the works of others (para. 23).'"⁵⁶
Lastly, there is even evidence that in multiple sectors - including fashion, finance, font design, and software - lesser IP protection in the form of patents, trademarks, and copyright, actual encourages increased innovation.⁵⁷

On Utility Models

On the question of introduction of a new on utility models⁵⁸ CIS observes that DIPP has previously considered developing a framework for granting Utility Models for 'innovations' and invited suggestions on a discussion paper on the subject.⁵⁹ Reports ⁶⁰ suggest that Small, Medium and Micro Enterprises are in favour of the Utility Model Protection system in India because developing countries such as China and Korea have demonstrated a corresponding economic growth attributable to the introduction of the system. However, there is no evidentiary data to support this hypothesis. Studies suggest that there exist only correlations and not causal links between heightened innovative activity and implementation of utility model protection. ⁶¹ Empirical evidence on the role of intellectual property protection in promoting innovation and growth in general remains limited and inconclusive.⁶² Reports also suggest that in China, the abundance of Utility Model has led to lowering of quality of innovation. ⁶³ In Australia, an "innovation patent" - the Australian version of utility model protection - was awarded for a "circular transportation facilitation device", i.e., a wheel. ⁶⁴
It is this submitted that whether the ushering of a 2nd tier of protection model for lower and incremental innovations would have a positive impact on innovation in India is extremely debatable. There have been several criticisms of utility models, inter alia, explosion in litigation of poor quality patents and legal uncertainty - which impact small business the maximum in terms of costs ⁶⁵; the system may be more utilised by foreign companies rather than local firms, in which case there is a possibility that this will lead to an increase in a flow of royalties and licensing fees to overseas producers. Utility model rights can be, and have been, used by companies to cordon off entire areas of research. ⁶⁶
CIS submits that as the policy 'intends to harness the full benefits of creation and innovation in the larger interest of society and citizens' ⁶⁷ the introduction of a law on utility models would be antithetical to this objective.

On Improving IP Output of National Research Laboratories, Universities et al

The Policy seeks to improve the output of national research laboratories, universities and technical institutions, among others.⁶⁸ It is submitted that these institutions are public funded institutions, ⁶⁹ and in effect, this recommendation of the Policy seeks to therefore promote intellectual property creation in public funded institutions.
A significant chunk of research and development occurs at public funded academic and research institutions and, excessive use of IPR as a tool to creating private ownership rights over inventions may preclude use of such innovation by the public. This may also create a barrier to access the best technologies and research- which were funded by taxpayers' money to begin with. CIS supports the principle that IPRs resulting from of publicly funded research should automatically belong to the funder.⁷⁰
Further, it is submitted that there exists a danger of public funded research institutions re-orienting their objectives focus only on areas of commercial value. This may lead to neglect of certain research areas. A stringent policy will create an unfavourable conflict between revenue generation and sharing of public good. The policy must ensure that it is flexible and compensates the inventors whilst permitting public access to research.
CIS submits that there should be no encumbrances over public funded research and inventions. The Policy must also ensure that such proposed IP creation does not prevent or interfere with dissemination of public funded research. ⁷¹
CIS strongly supports the recent steps by government agencies (including the Department of Science and Technology and the Department of Biotechnology⁷² as well as other institutions including the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research⁷³, Indian Council of Agricultural Research⁷⁴ and Institute of Mathematical Sciences ⁷⁵) in making scholarly research openly accessible. The benefits of implementing an open access policy with regard to scientific and scholarly works are manifold. Providing open access to scholarly research will ensure percolation of cutting edge research into the society.
It is thus submitted that the Policy should adopt a more nuanced, cautious and balanced take on the creation of intellectual property, particularly taking into consideration India's economic status as an emerging economy and our international position. The Policy must recognise that there is no inherent societal merit in the mere creation of intellectual property and that innovation flourishes even in the absence of intellectual property protections.

On Objective 3: Legal and Legislative Framework

According to the Policy, the objective sought to be achieved is the creation of strong and effective laws on intellectual property, consistent with national priorities as well as our international obligations, balancing the interest of the rights holders with public interest. ⁷⁶
CIS fully supports the view that the legislative framework on intellectual property must balance the rights of all stakeholders and be in public interest. CIS is also appreciates the importance of national priorities in the framing of India's legislative framework. CIS also notes with appreciation that the discussion in the Policy reiterates that India's laws are in compliance with the TRIPS Agreement ⁷⁷ as well as the stance that India will continue to utilize the flexibilities available in international treaties as well as the TRIPS Agreement⁷⁸ while creating its legal framework.
CIS also supports the acknowledgement of the fact that India's laws need to be updated periodically, depending on various factors.⁷⁹ CIS fully supports the process proposed for amendments to the law, including,inter alia, the conduction of objective and analytical studies and inputs from various stakeholders. ⁸⁰ It is submitted however, that equal weightage must be given to the inputs from all stakeholders and measures must be taken to ensure that the interests and demands of rights-holders do not outweigh the interests and demands of other stakeholders, particularly those at the other end of the spectrum, who greatly rely on the existence and guarantee of flexibilities, limitations and exceptions to intellectual property.

On Utility Models and Intellectual Property in Public Funded Research

The Policy envisages significant changes to India's intellectual property system, including the creation of a law for the protection of utility models as well as introduction of intellectual property in public funded research.
CIS recommends that it would not be advisable to introduce intellectual property in public funded research as well as cautions against the introduction of a law on utility patents. A detailed submission on these issues has been made earlier in this document, in Section 3.4.3. at page 7 for intellectual property in public funded research as well as in Section 3.4.2. at page 6 on utility models.

On the Negotiation of International Treaties and Agreements

CIS commends the recommendation of the Policy that the negotiation of international treaties and agreements will be in consultation with various stakeholders. However, CIS cautions against entering into bilateral or plurilateral international agreements which increase India's IPR obligations beyond our current obligations under multilateral agreements. It was only in 2006 that
It is submitted that FTAs often levy standards which are beyond those found in the TRIPS Agreement, and have thus been criticized. ⁸¹ A central aspect of this criticism is that TRIPS-plus-FTAs reduce policy space for the implementation of TRIPS flexibilities. This also creates the impression that TRIPS only imposes a "minimum level" of protection, which must be available in all national laws of its Member States, without any apparent limitation to a further extension of such protection or intervention which one country may impose on another. The World Health Organization enunciated that "bilateral trade agreements should not seek to incorporate TRIPS-plus protection in ways that may reduce access to medicines in developing countries.⁸² Further, WHO members were urged in the Fifty-Seventh World Health Assembly "to take into account in bilateral trade agreements the flexibilities contained in the Agreement on Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights and recognized by the Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health adopted by the WTO Ministerial Conference."⁸³
Furthermore, TRIPS-plus initiatives consequent in the dilution into a bilateral forum, as opposed to the plurality provided in multilateral fora, provided by the TRIPS. The imposition of standards by FTAs may ultimately disturb the balance of rights and obligations which are enshrined in the TRIPS Agreement,⁸⁴ and also have the potential to constrain the flexibilities provided to Member States in the TRIPS, particularly in areas which are of extreme significance to developing countries, such as transfer of technology, socio-economic development, promotion of innovation, public health and access to knowledge. Furthermore, they also tend to negate decisions which were taken multilaterally such as the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health.
It is therefore submitted that the Policy must caution against entering into any international agreement that seeks to enforce TRIPS-plus standards, contrary to India's stance (as noted by the Policy itself) that its laws were compliant with international obligations.

On Limitations and Exceptions

It is observed that the Policy recommends that laws be enacted to address national needs, ⁸⁵ but the only mentions limitations and exceptions as an area of study for future policy development.⁸⁶It is submitted that while it is indeed necessary for further research to be undertaken in the area of limitations and exceptions, it is also critical to enact new laws and amend existing ones to foster a rich environment for limitations and exceptions, in order to achieve a holistic and balanced intellectual property framework. It is further submitted that this would also be in consonance with the objective of the negotiation of international treaties and agreements in consultation with stakeholders.
While the granting of exclusive rights over intellectual property is considered to be an incentive for further investments into innovative activities and the production of knowledge, allowing the exercise of the full scope of this exclusion in all circumstances may not meet the end goal of the enhancement of public welfare, using the intellectual property system. Therefore, it is essential that an intellectual property system be flexible allowing for certain limitations and exceptions in order to strike a balance between right holders, the public and third parties. The need for such flexibility in the intellectual property system of a country has also been highlighted by the World Intellectual Property Organization.
It is therefore suggested that the Policy include an additional recommendation for the inclusion, adoption and periodic renewal of limitations and exceptions in India's intellectual property laws, either be enacting new legislations or by amending existing legislations wherever applicable. It is further suggested that this recommendation also inform India's negotiations at the international level, where any agreement that India might potentially sign, not invalidate or narrow in any form any limitations and exceptions and provide for their continued exercise in the broadest possible scope and manner.

On Standard Setting

CIS commends the Policy's focus on standards in technology and standard setting organisations. CIS strongly supports the adoption of open standards as a measure that helps stimulate active competition amongst implementors of various standards, and thereby encourages innovation. The Department of IT finalized its Policy on Open Standards for e-Governance in 2010,⁸⁷ and CIS strongly supports this policy, and would encourage it be adopted by all state governments as well.
CIS strongly recommends developing and supporting the evolution of open standards. The Policy must not encourage use of IPR to limit access to standards, because these are the foundational rules any technology must adhere to enter the market or ensure quality. ⁸⁸ CIS submits that access to these standards must not be limited by making them proprietary through IPR protection. Further, the Policy must support transparent standard setting processes and procedures in national and at international for a for all participants.
CIS further appreciates the endeavor to encourage the development of global standards influenced by technologies developed in India.
CIS submits that it is also important to ensure that India emerges as a global player in the technology sector, not just in the development of indigenous standards, but also in the equally important space of manufacturing using existing standards, particularly in light of the Government's recent "Make In India" and "Digital India" initiatives. It is further submitted however, that in most instances, these standards are protected by patents; where patents essential to a standard would be standard essential patents. CIS suggests that the Policy recommend measures that might be adopted to ensure access to standards essential patents, including, for instance, the establishment of a government aided patent pool. It is submitted that addressing the question of access to standards and not just their development would be a holistic approach that the Policy should adopt.

On Objective 5: Commercialization of IP

CIS appreciates that the Policy seeks to promote licensing and technology transfer for intellectual property, and notes that the Policy also seeks to promote reasonable and non-discriminatory patent pooling to maximise the ability of smaller companies to commercialise IP and bring innovative solutions based on standards to the market.
CIS believes that the government establishing patent pools for digital technologies will promote access to knowledge and stimulate manufacturing in the information technology and electronics sectors in India, in line with the government's "Make In India" and "Digital India" initiatives. CIS has earlier urged the government to enable access to low cost access devices by establishing a government-aided patent pool of essential technologies, without which there is a high likelihood of such devices getting caught up in the 'patent wars' that have happened elsewhere around the world over smartphones.⁸⁹ CIS submits that the creation of government-aided patent pools and facilitation of cross-licensing will also be helpful in resolving issues created by patent thickets and gridlocks by reducing transaction costs for licensees and solving an economic cooperation problem.

Concluding Remarks

Debabrata Saha, the Deputy Permanent Representative of India to the United Nations, while speaking on the introduction of the Development Agenda at the World Intellectual Property Organization, with admirable clarity noted, "Let me start on a positive note by asking: with all the damage that TRIPS has wrought on developing countries could it possibly have a silver lining? Maybe - if we want to be generous. TRIPS, one might argue, did bring intellectual property to the forefront of consciousness of people everywhere, and, over time made them aware of the dangers inherent in a protective regime that takes little account of either public policy, or the state of development of a member country." It is thus imperative that when we fashion our public policy, we take account of the dangers he mentioned. He went on to note, "Intellectual property rights have to be viewed not as a self contained and distinct domain, but rather as an effective policy instrument for wide ranging socio-economic and technological development. The primary objective of this instrument is to maximize public welfare." We wholeheartedly support this position of the Indian government, and would encourage the IPR Think Tank to seek to maximize public welfare and creativity and innovation rather than maximizing IPR alone. Importantly, as Mr. Saha, speaking on behalf of the Indian government noted, IP is not an end in itself, contrary to what the current draft of the National IPR Policy seems to promote.
Flexibility is considered to be an essential characteristic in defining and shaping the intellectual property system of countries around the world. Such flexibility allows scope for further innovations and creations, thereby subserving the common good. As per Article 39 of the Constitution of India, "the State shall in particular, direct its policy towards securing that the ownership and control of the material resources of the community are so distributed as best to subserve the common good." It is therefore submitted that the National IPR Policy of India should be contoured in such a manner that it encourages greater use of exceptions and limitations to the otherwise exclusionary use of intellectual property, encourages the expansion of the public domain, secures proportionality in enforcement of IP rights, promotes alternatives to IP - including open access to scholarly literature, open educational resources, free/open source software, open standards, open data, and aims to create a regime of intellectual property that aims to serve the public interest and not just the narrow interest of private right holders. Such an approach should not be merely rights-based, but look at interests of the general public, especially the poor, as well, in order to further the aim of the nation to create a more egalitarian society, and adopt the Directive Principles in the Constitution.

1 www.cis-india.org (last accessed 30 November, 2014).

2 http://www.dipp.nic.in/English/acts_rules/Press_Release/pressRelease_IPR_Policy_30December2014.pdf.

3 See http://cis-india.org/ (last accessed 18 January, 2015).

4 See http://cis-india.org/a2k (last accessed 18 January, 2015).

5 See http://cis-india.org/openness (last accessed 18 January, 2015).

6 See http://cis-india.org/internet-governance (last accessed 18 January, 2015).

7 See http://cis-india.org/accessibility (last accessed 18 January, 2015).

8 See http://cis-india.org/digital-natives (last accessed 18 January, 2015).

9 See http://cis-india.org/raw (last accessed 18 January, 2015).

10 See http://www.wipo.int/members/en/admission/observers.html (last accessed 18 January, 2015).

11 See http://cis-india.org/a2k/blog/ngo-profile-knowledge-ecology-international (last accessed 18 January, 2015); http://cis-india.org/a2k/blog/ngo-profile-third-world-network (last accessed 18 January, 2015).

12 See illustratively http://cis-india.org/a2k/blog/analysis-copyright-expansion-india-eu-fta (last accessed 18 January, 2015); http://cis-india.org/a2k/blog/india-eu-fta-copyright-issues (last accessed 18 January, 2015); http://cis-india.org/a2k/blog/a-guide-to-the-proposed-india-european-union-free-trade-agreement (last accessed 18 January, 2015).

13 See illustratively http://cis-india.org/news/inet-bangkok-june-8-2013-governance-in-the-age-of-internet-and-fta (last accessed 18 January, 2015).

14 See illustratively http://cis-india.org/a2k/blog/2010-special-301 (last accessed 18 January, 2015).

15 See illustratively http://cis-india.org/a2k/blog/analysis-copyright-amendment-bill-2012 (last accessed 18 January, 2015); http://cis-india.org/a2k/blog/sc-report-on-amendments (last accessed 18 January, 2015); http://cis-india.org/a2k/blog/copyright-bill-parliament (last accessed 18 January, 2015); http://cis-india.org/a2k/blog/tpm-copyright-amendment (last accessed 16 January, 2015); http://cis-india.org/a2k/blog/copyright-privacy (last accessed 16 January, 2015); http://cis-india.org/a2k/blog/copyright-bill-analysis (last accessed 18 January, 2015).

16 See http://cis-india.org/a2k/blog/comments-on-science-technology-and-innovation-policy-draft (last accessed 18 January, 2015).

17 See http://cis-india.org/a2k/blog/exhaustion (last accessed 18 January, 2015); http://cis-india.org/a2k/blog/parallel-importation-of-books (last accessed 18 January, 2015).

18 See http://cis-india.org/a2k/blog/cis-submission-draft-patent-manual-2010 (last accessed 18 January, 2015) and http://cis-india.org/a2k/blog/comments-on-draft-guidelines-for-computer-related-inventions (last accessed 18 January, 2015) respectively.

19 See http://cis-india.org/a2k/blog/lid-on-royalty-outflows (last accessed 18 January, 2015).

20 See http://cis-india.org/a2k/blog/exceptions-and-limitations (last accessed 18 January, 2015).

21 See illustratively http://cis-india.org/a2k/consumers-international-ip-watchlist-report-2012 (last accessed 18 January, 2015); http://cis-india.org/a2k/blog/ip-watch-list-2011 (last accessed 18 January, 2015); http://cis-india.org/a2k/blog/consumers-international-ip-watch-list-2009 (last accessed 18 January, 2015).

22 The Washington Declaration on Intellectual Property and Public Interest concluded after the Global Congress on Intellectual property and Public Interest in August 2011 attended by over 180 experts from 32 countries articulate this position perfectly. Available at: http://infojustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Washington-Declaration.pdf (Last Accessed: 29 November, 2014).

23 IPR Think Tank, National IPR Policy (First Draft) at page 5.

24 Article 27(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: "Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits."

25 Julia Brüggemann, Paolo Crosetto et al, Intellectual Property Rights Hinder Sequential Innovation - Experimental Evidence, Center for European, Governance and Economic Development Research, Number 227, January 2015.

26 Joseph E. Stiglitz, Economic Foundations of Intellectual Property Rights, Duke Law Journal, 57(6): 1693-1724.

27 Graham M. Dutfield, Uma Suthersanen, The Innovation Dilemma: Intellectual Property and the Historical Legacy of Cumulative Creativity, Intellectual Property Quarterly, 2004 at 379.

28 IPR Think Tank, National IPR Policy (First Draft) at page 5.

29 IPR Think Tank, National IPR Policy (First Draft) at page 5.

30 IPR Think Tank, National IPR Policy (First Draft) at page 6.

31 Id .

32 Id .

33 Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine, The Case Against Patents, Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 27, No.1 - Winter 2013, 3-22.

34 Id .

35 Id .

36 Id .

37 James Bessen and Michael J. Meurer, Patent Failure: How Judges, Bureaucrats and Lawyers Put Innovation at Risk, March 2008.

38 Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine Supra Note 32.

39 B.J. Jaffe, The US Patent System in Transition: Innovation and the Innovation Process, Research Policy, 29, 531-557, 2000.

40 Josh Lerner, The Empirical Impact of Intellectual Property Rights on Innovation: Puzzles and Clues, Intellectual Property Rights and Economic Growth in the Long-Run: A Discover Model (2009).

41 Rod Falvey & Neil Foster, The Role of Intellectual Property Rights in Technology Transfer and Economic Growth: Theory and Evidence (UNIDO Working Paper,

42 ¶ 1.2 IPR Think Tank, National IPR Policy (First Draft) at page 6.

43 See

44 ¶ 1.3 IPR Think Tank, National IPR Policy (First Draft) at page 7.

45 ¶ 1.5 IPR Think Tank, National IPR Policy (First Draft) at page 8.

46 IPR Think Tank, National IPR Policy (First Draft) at page 8.

47 Heidi L. Williams, Intellectual Property Rights and Innovation: Evidence from the Human Genome, National Bureau of Economic Research. Working Paper 16213, July 2010.

48 Id .

49 Id .

50 Petra Moser, Innovations and Patents in Oxford Handbook of Economic History (Cain et al., eds., forthcoming), http://ssrn.com/abstract=2503503.

51 See generally , David. S. Landes, The Unbound Prometheus: Technological Change and Industrial Development in Western Europe from 1750 to the Present (1969).

52 See generally , Joel Mokyr. The Lever of Riches: Technological Creativity and Economic Progress (1990).

53 See generally , Alessandro Nuvolari Collective Invention during the British Industrial Revolution: the Case of the Cornish Pumping Engine, 28 Cambridge J. Econ. 347 (2004). See also, Robert C. Allen, Collective Invention, 4 J. Econ. Behavior & Org. 1 (1983).

54 A. Arora & N. Rosenberg, Chemicals: A US Success Story in Chemicals and Long-Term Economic Growth 71 (Arora et al., eds., 1998); see also, David C. Mowery & Nathan Rosenberg, Paths of Innovation. Technological Change in 20th-century America (1998).

55 Petra Moser, How Do Patent Laws Influence Innovation? Evidence from Nineteenth-Century World Fairs, NBER Working Paper Series 9909, http://www.nber.org/papers/w9909.

56 Meera Nair, A Short-Lived Celebration, Fair Duty (Jan. 8, 2012), https://fairduty.wordpress.com/2012/01/08/a-short-lived-celebration/

57 See generally, Kal Raustiala & Christopher Sprigman, The Knockoff Economy (2012).

58 ¶ 2.10 IPR Think Tank, National IPR Policy (First Draft) at page 10.

59 See FICCI Suggestions on Discussion Paper on Utility Model available at http://www.ficci.com/Sedocument/20179/UM.pdf (last accessed January 28, 2015).

60 See FICCI Suggestions on Discussion Paper on Utility Model available at http://www.ficci.com/Sedocument/20179/UM.pdf (last accessed January 28, 2015).

61 See Utility Model: A Tool for Economic and Technological Development: A Case Study of Japan available at http://www.ipindia.nic.in/research_studies/finalreport_april2007.pdf (last accessed January 28, 2015).

62 U. Suthersanen, Utility Models and Innovation in Developing Countries, International Center for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD), Issue Paper No. 13 (2006), available at http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/iteipc20066_en.pdf , (last accessed January 28, 2015).

63 See China's great leap forward in patents , available at http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/04/04/chinas-great-leap-forward-in-patents/id=38625/ (last accessed January 28, 2015).

64 Will Knight, Wheel Patented in Australia, New Scientist (July 3, 2001), http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn965-wheel-patented-in-australia.html .

65 Keith E. Maskus, Beyond the Treaties: A Symposium on Compliance with International Intellectual Property Law, February 6, 2000.

66 U. Suthersanen, Utility Models and Innovation in Developing Countries, International Center for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD), Issue Paper No. 13 (2006), available at http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/iteipc20066_en.pdf , (last accessed January 28, 2015).

67 IPR Think Tank, National IPR Policy (First Draft) at page 1.

68 ¶ 2.3 IPR Think Tank, National IPR Policy (First Draft) at page 10.

69 See http://mhrd.gov.in/technical-education-1 (last accessed 30 January, 2015).

70 See 'Expert Group Report on Role and Strategic Use of IPR (Intellectual Property Rights) in International Research Collaborations' by European Commission 'available at http://ec.europa.eu/research/era/pdf/ipr-eur-20230_en.pdf (last accessed January 28, 2015).

71 See 'Ministry of Science makes Open Access to Research Mandatory ', available at http://cis-india.org/news/down-to-earth-july-16-2014-aparajita-singh-ministry-of-science-makes-open-access-to-research-mandatory (last accessed January 28, 2015).

72 DBT and DST Open Access Policy - Policy on Open Access to DBT and DST Funded Research, Department of Biotechnology and Department of Science and Technology, Ministry of Science and Technology, Government of India.

73 Id.

74 Id.

75 Id.

76 IPR Think Tank, National IPR Policy (First Draft) at page 11.

77 Id .

78 IPR Think Tank, National IPR Policy (First Draft) at pages 10, 11.

79 IPR Think Tank, National IPR Policy (First Draft) at page 12.

80 Id .

81 The Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health and the Contradictory Trend in Bilateral and Regional Free Trade Agreements (2004), Available at http://www.quno.org/geneva/pdf/ec onomic/Occasional/TRIPS-Public-Health-FTAs.pdf.

82 World Health Organization, Report of the Commission on Intellectual Property Rights, Innovation and Public Health, Recommendation 4.26 (2006), available at http://www.who.int/intellectualproperty/ documents/thereport/CIPIHReport23032006.pdf [hereinafter WHO].

83 Fifty-Seventh World Health Assembly, May17-22,2004, (May 22, 2004), available at http:// apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/WHA57/A57_R14-en.pdf;

84 Preamble, Articles 7, 8, TRIPS Agreement, 1994.

85 ¶ 3.2 IPR Think Tank, National IPR Policy (First Draft) at page 12.

86 ¶ 3.6 IPR Think Tank, National IPR Policy (First Draft) at page 13.

87 See 'Open Standards Policy' , available at http://cis-india.org/news/open-standards-policy (last accessed January 28, 2015).

88 See 'The BIS, Standards and Copyright' , available at http://spicyip.com/2014/11/the-bis-standards-and-copyright.html (last accessed January 28, 2015).

89 See CIS' Letter for Establishment of Patent Pool for Low-cost Access Devices through Compulsory Licenses , available at http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/letter-for-establishment-of-patent-pool-for-low-cost-access-devices (last accessed January 29, 2015).

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/national-ipr-policy-series-cis-comments-to-the-first-draft-of-the-national-ip-policy

ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଭାଷା ପାଇଁ ଅନ୍ତର୍ଜାତୀୟ ପ୍ରକଳ୍ପ

subha — 2015-01-31T04:51:15Z

This is an op-ed I authored for Odia newspaper the "Samaja" that got published on January 30, 2015. Through this post I intend to highlight the needs for taking the Odia language to international fora instead of keeping it confined within the books. I have covered the focus area of 3 free and open source projects: Odia Wikipedia, Odia Wikisource and Global Voices Odia in the column highlighting the need for more people to contribute.

The Unicode version of the post is below. Interestingly 10 new accounts got created on Odia Wikipedia so far which seem to be an impact of the portion explaining about Wikipedia.

ଭାଷାଟି ଆମର ଏ ଦେଶର ମୋଟ ୬୦୦ରୁ ଅଧିକ ଭାଷା ଓ ତହିଁରୁ ୬ଟି ପୁରୁଣା ଭାଷା ଭିତରୁ ଗୋଟିଏ ବୋଲି ମାନ୍ୟତା ପାଇଲା । ଆମ ଭାଷା ମୂଳ ବିଶାଳ କଳିଙ୍ଗ ଭୂଖଣ୍ଡର ସତ୍ତାକୁ ଧରି ରଖିଥିବା ବୋଧେ ଏକଇ ଭାଷା । ଏତେ ସବୁ ପରେ ମଧ୍ୟ ଆମ ଭାଷା ଆନ୍ତର୍ଜାତିକ ସ୍ତରରେ କେତେ ପରିଚିତ, ତାହା ନକହିବା ଭଲ । ଯେଉଁଠି ନିଜ ରାଜ୍ୟର ଲୋକେ ଓଡ଼ିଆରେ କଥା ହେବାକୁ ନାରାଜ ସେଠି ଦେଶବିଦେଶରେ ପତିଆରା କଥା କହିବା ତୁଚ୍ଛା ପାଗଳାମି ବୋଲି ପାଠକେ ହୁଏତ ଭାବୁଥିବେ । ତେବେ ଏ ପ୍ରସଙ୍ଗ ଆଲୋଚନା କରିବା ପଛରେ ରହିଛି ଆମ ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଜାତିର ମାନସିକତା ବିଦେଶରୁ ଆସିଥିବା ଲୋକଟେ ଅଧିକ ଆଦର ପାଏ, ନିଜ ଲୋକେ ବିଦେଶ ଯାଇ ବାହୁଡ଼ିଲେ ଅଧିକ ସମ୍ମାନର ଅଧିକାରୀ ହୁଅନ୍ତି, ଏମିତି ଲୋକେ ମଦ ପିଇଲେ ବିଦେଶୀ ଭାଷାରେ ବକନ୍ତି ବୋଲି ଶୁଣାଯାଏ! ଏଣୁ ନିଜ ରାଇଜ ଆଉ ଦେଶରେ ଯେବେ ଆମ ଭାଷାଟି ଗାଁ କନିଆଁ, କାଳେ ବିଦେଶରେ କାଟ୍‍ତି ବଢ଼ିଲେ, ଭାଷାଟି ଏକ ଅନ୍ତର୍ଜାତୀୟ ଭାଷା ବୋଲି ବିଖ୍ୟାତ ହେବ ଆଉ ନିଜ ଲୋକଙ୍କ ତା' ପ୍ରତି ଆଦର ବଢ଼ି ।ରେ ବୋଲି ବିଚାରିବା । କେଇଦିନ ତଳେ ଇଟାଲିରୁ ଜଣେ ସାଙ୍ଗ ଜଣାଇଲେ "ଓଡ଼ିଆ' ଶବ୍ଦଟି (ସେମାନେ, ପର୍ତ୍ତୁଗୀଜ ଓ ସ୍ପାନିସ ଭାଷାଏ "ଓଦିଆ' ବୋଲି ଉଚ୍ଚାରଣ କରନ୍ତି) ଘୃଣା କରିବା ପାଇଁ ବ୍ୟବହାର ହୁଏ । ମୁହଁରେ କହିଲି ନାହିଁ, ହେଲେ ମନରେ ଭାଜିଲି ଆମ ଲୋକେ ନିଜ ଭାଷାକୁ କ'ଣ କମ ହୀନିମାନ କରନ୍ତି! ଯଦି ଆମ ଭାଷା ଜଗତର ଛାମୁଆଁ ଭାଷା ଭିତରୁ ଗୋଟେ ହୋଇପାରନ୍ତା ତା'ହେଲେ ଏ "ଘୃଣାର ଭାଷା' ହୋଇ ଆଉ ରହନ୍ତା ନାହିଁ । ତେବେ ଆମ ଭିତରୁ କେତେଜଣ ଜଗତର ଆଉ ଭାଷା ଗବେଷାଳିଙ୍କ ସଙ୍ଗେ ନିଜ ଭାଷା କଥା ପକାଉଛୁ? ଓଡ଼ିଶା ସୀମା ଡେଇଁଲେ ଓଡ଼ିଆମାନେ ଏତେ ଅନର୍ଗଳ ହିନ୍ଦୀ କହିବେ ଆପଣଙ୍କୁ ବୋଧ ହେବ ବୋଧେ ଏମାନେ ମାଆ ପେଟରୁ ହିନ୍ଦୀ ଶିଖିଥିଲେ । ଅଧିକ ଭାଷା ଶିଖିଲେ ଭଲ, କାମରେ ଆସେ । ହେଲେ ନିଜ ଭାଷାକୁ ତୁଚ୍ଛକରି କିଏ ନୂଆ ଭାଷାରେ ଏତେ ପାରଙ୍ଗମ ହୁଏନା । ଆଜି ଯାଏ ଆମ ଭାଷାର ଏତେ ସାହିତ୍ୟ ଯେ ଗଢ଼ା, ତା'ଭିତରୁ କେତେ ଅନ୍ୟ ଭାଷାରେ ଅନୁବାଦ ହୋଇଛି? ଯେଉଁମାନେ ଆମ ସାହିତ୍ୟର ମୁଖିଆ ବୋଲାଇ କାଳକାଳ ଧରି ଗାଦି ମାଡ଼ି ବସିଛନ୍ତି, ସେମାନଙ୍କୁ ପୁଚ୍ଛିବାର ବେଳ ଆସିଛି କାହିଁକି ଆମେ ଖାଲି ଅନ୍ୟ ଭାଷାରୁ ଅନୁବାଦ କରୁଛୁ, କାହିଁକି ଆମର କାଳଜୟୀ ଲେଖାମାନ ଦେଶ ଓ ଦେଶ ବାହାରେ ପଢ଼ାଯାଉନାହିଁ? ଭାରତୀୟ ଭାଷା ଭିତରୁ କେବଳ ତାମିଲ ଭାଷା କଥା ଚର୍ଚ୍ଚା ହୁଏ ଦେଶବିଦେଶରେ । କାରଣ କ'ଣ ଜାଣନ୍ତି? ବାକିସବୁ କାରଣ ବାଦ୍‍ ସବୁଠୁ ବଡ଼ କାରଣଟି ହେଲା ସେ ଭାଷାର ପୁରୋଧାମାନେ ରାଜ୍ୟ କି ଦେଶ ଭିତରେ ବାନ୍ଧି ନହୋଇ ନିଜ ଭାଷାକୁ ସାରା ଜଗତକୁ ନେଇଛନ୍ତି । ଖାଲି ପଇସାର ଟାଣରେ ଏ କାମ ହୋଇନାହିଁ, ଏଥିରେ ଧନ, ରାଜନୀତି ଆଉ କୂଟନୀତି ଲାଗିଛି । ଆମ ସାହିତ୍ୟିକମାନେ ଥରୁଟେ ବିଦେଶ ଗଲେ ସେଠି ନିଜ ଭାଷା, ରାଇଜ କଥା କେତେ ଯେ ଗପନ୍ତି ତା ମା' ଗଙ୍ଗେଇଙ୍କି ଜଣା । ଗପୁଥିଲେ ତାଙ୍କ ପରିଚିତ ମହଲରେ ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଭାଷା ବାବଦରେ ମଞ୍ଜିଟିଏ ପୋତା ହୋଇଥାନ୍ତା, ଅନ୍ତତଃ କିଛି ଭାଷାରେ ଓଡ଼ିଆ ବହି ଅନୁଦିତ ହୋଇଥାନ୍ତା, ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଭାଷାର ପୁରୁଣାପଣ ବାବଦରେ ବିଦେଶୀ ବ୍ଲଗରେ, ଖବରକାଗଜରେ, ଟେଲିଭିଜନରେ ଚର୍ଚ୍ଚା ହୋଇଥାନ୍ତା । ହୋଇଛି କି ଏଥିରୁ କାଣିଚାଏ? ଆଜିର ପିଢ଼ି ଯାହାଦେଇ ଶିଖୁଛନ୍ତି, ତାଙ୍କୁ ସେଇ ମାଧ୍ୟମରେ ଶିଖାଇପାରିଲେ ସିନା ସେମାନେ ଶିଖିବେ । ଖାଲି ଏବର ପିଢ଼ିକୁ ଦୋଷ ଦେଇ ଭାଷା ମରିଯାଉଛି ବୋଲି କୁମ୍ଭୀର କାନ୍ଦଣା କାନ୍ଦିଲେ କି ହେବ କି ଆମେ ନିଜ ଭାଷାର ବିଶ୍ୱବିଦ୍ୟାଳୟ କଥା ବିଚାରୁଛୁ, ହେଲେ ଆକାଶ କଇଆଁ ସ୍ୱରୂପ "ଶାସ୍ତ୍ରୀୟ ମାନ୍ୟତା କେନ୍ଦ୍ର ଅନୁଦାନ ରାଶି' ଆସିବାକୁ ନଚାହିଁ ବିଦେଶରୁ ରାଶି କେମିତି ଆସି ଏ କାମରେ ଲାଗିବ ତା ପାଇଁ ବାଟ ତିଆରୁଛୁ କି? ତେବେ ଏ ଦୁଃଖ ବଖାଣିଲେ ନସରେ । ଚୋରକୁ ମାନ ମାରି ଖପରାରେ ଖାଇଲେ ଏଠି ଘରବୁଡ଼ି ଆଣ୍ଠୁଏ ହେବ । ତେଣୁ ବେଳ ଥାଉଁଥାଉଁ କିଛି ନିଅଁ ପୋତା ଚାଲୁ, ତେଣିକି ଘର ଯେବେ ଗଢ଼ାଯିବ ଏ ସାହା ହେବ । ଓଡ଼ିଆର ପରିଚିତି ଦେଶବିଦେଶରେ ଯେତିକି ଉଣା, ଜଗତର ବାକି ଭାଷା ପାଇଁ ତିଆରି ହୋଇଥିବା ବିଭିନ୍ନ ଜ୍ଞାନର ଭଣ୍ଡାରରେ ମଧ୍ୟ ସେତିକି ଅଜଣା । ଇଂରାଜୀ ବାଦ୍‍ ଅନ୍ୟାନ୍ୟ ଭାଷାର ଲେଖାର ପ୍ରକାଶନ ପାଇଁ ଅନେକ ସ୍ଥାନ ରହିଛି । ତେବେ ଏମିତି କେତୋଟି ଜାଗତିକ ସ୍ଥାନରେ ଓଡ଼ିଆର ଚିହ୍ନଟେ ଯେ ରହିବା ଲୋଡ଼ା ତା କହିବା ବାହୁଲ୍ୟ । କାନ୍ଦିବୋବାଳି ରାମମୋହନ ଲାଇବ୍ରେରି ସକାଶେ କେଇଶହ ବହି ଛାପି ଯେଉଁମାନେ ନିଜର ବା ଭାଷାର ଉନ୍ନତି କରିବେ ବୋଲି ସାଧି ବସିଥିବେ ତାଙ୍କ ପାଇଁ ନାକରା ଖବର- ଆଉ ପିଲେ ଓଡ଼ିଆ ପଢ଼ୁନାହାନ୍ତି । ଓଡ଼ିଆ କଥା ଛାଡ଼ନ୍ତୁ, ପିଲେ ବହି ପଢ଼ୁନାହାନ୍ତି । ତାଙ୍କୁ ଆଜିକାଲି ଲୋଡ଼ା ଭଳିକି ଭଳି ଗେମ, ଆନିମେସନ ଆଉ ଗ୍ରାଫିକ୍‍ ନଭେଲ (କମିକ୍ସ ଭଳି ଛବି ସମ୍ବଳିତ ବହି) । ପୁଣି ପିଲାଏ ମୋବାଇଲ ଆଉ କମ୍ପ୍ୟୁଟରରୁ ଇଣ୍ଟରନେଟରେ ଖୋଜି ବସିୁଛନ୍ତି ନୂଆନୂଆ କଥା । ଆଜିର ପିଢ଼ି ଯାହା ଦେଇ ଶିଖୁଛନ୍ତି ତାଙ୍କୁ ସେଇ ମାଧ୍ୟମରେ ଶିଖାଇପାରିଲେ ସିନା ସେମାନେ ଶିଖିବେ । ଖାଲି ଏବର ପିଢ଼ିକୁ ଦୋଷ ଦେଇ ଭାଷା ମରିଯାଉଛି ବୋଲି କୁମ୍ଭୀର କାନ୍ଦଣା କାନ୍ଦିଲେ କି ହେବ? ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଉଇକିପିଡ଼ିଆ: ଇଣ୍ଟରନେଟରେ ପହଞ୍ଚôଲେ କୌଣସି ବିଷୟ ଖୋଜିବାକୁ ପ୍ରଥମେ ଖୋଲାହୁଏ ଗୁଗୁଲ କି ୟାହୁ ଭଳି ସର୍ଚ୍ଚ ଇଞ୍ଜିନ । ଖୋଜିଲାପରେ ଯାହା ପ୍ରଥମ ଲିଙ୍କ୍‍ରେ ଆସେ ସେ ହେଲା ଉଇକିପିଡ଼ିଆ । ଏଇଟି ଜଗତର ବିଶାଳତମ ଜ୍ଞାନକୋଷ । ୨୦୦୧ରେ ଇଂରାଜୀ ଉଇକିପିଡ଼ିଆରେ ପରେ ପ୍ରଥମ ଭାରତୀୟ ଭାଷା ଭାବେ ପଞ୍ଜାବୀ ଓ ଅହମିୟା ସହ ଯେ ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଏଥିରେ ସ୍ଥାନ ପାଇଲା ତା' ଅନେକ ଜାଣିନଥିବେ । ୨୦୦୨ରେ ତିଆରି ସିନା ହୋଇଗଲା । ହେଲେ ଏଥିରେ ଲେଖିବ କିଏ? ଇଂରାଜୀର ପାଠକ ଓ ଲେଖକ ଅଧିକ । ଆଉ ଉଇକିପିଡ଼ିଆରେ ଲେଖିଲେ କଉଡ଼ିଟିଏ ମିଳେନାହିଁ । ସ୍ୱେଚ୍ଛାରେ ଲେଖିବାକୁ ବିଦେଶରେ ଯେମିତି ଲୋକ ବାହାରନ୍ତି ଆମର ସେ ଅବସ୍ଥା ନାହିଁ । ତଥାପି ୨୦୧୧ ବେଳକୁ ଓଡ଼ିଶା ବାହାରେ ଥିବା କିଛି ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଏ ତିମିରରେ କିଛି ଆଲୁଅ ଜଳାଇଲେ । ଧୀରେଧୀରେ ଓଡ଼ିଶାରେ ଥିବା ଓଡ଼ିଆମାନେ ମଧ୍ୟ ସେଥିରେ ଯୋଡ଼ିହେଲେ । ଆଉ ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଉଇକିପିଡ଼ିଆ ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଭାଷାର ବିଶାଳତମ ଅନଲାଇନ ଜ୍ଞାନକୋଷ । or.wikipedia.org ରେ ଉପଲବ୍ଧ ଏ ଏନସାଇକ୍ଲୋପିଡ଼ିଆ ସୀମିତ ସ୍ୱେଚ୍ଛାସେବୀଙ୍କ ଦେଇ ସମ୍ପାଦିତ ହେଉଥିବାରୁ ସେତେ ବିଶାଳ ନୁହେଁ ସତ, କିନ୍ତୁ ଏହା ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଭାଷାରେ ଉପଲବ୍ଧ ବିଶାଳତମ ୱେବସାଇଟ । ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଉଇକିପିଡ଼ିଆର ମାସିକ ପାଠକ ୫ ଲକ୍ଷରୁ ଅଧିକ । ବହିର ପାଠ ବହି ବାହାରେ ବ୍ୟବହାର ହେବାରେ ପୁଣି ଟାଇପ କରିବାର ଯେଉଁ ବାଧକ ତା' ଏଥିରେ ନାହିଁ । ମଜାର କଥା ଯେ ଅନେକ ସମୟରେ ବିଭିନ୍ନ ଭାଷାଭାଷୀ ଉଇକିଆଳିଗଣ (ଉଇକିପିଡ଼ିଆର ସମ୍ପାଦକ) ବେଳେବେଳେ ଆପୋଷରେ ଏକ ଆଉଜଣଙ୍କ ଦେଶ-ଭାଷା-ଚଳଣି-ବ୍ୟକ୍ତିତ୍ୱଙ୍କ ସମ୍ବନ୍ଧରେ ଲେଖିବା ଦେଖାଯାଏ । ୨୮୮ରୁ ଅଧିକ ଭାଷାଭାଷୀ ଏମିତି ଅଗଣିତ ଲୋକ ଯେଉଁଠି ମିଶି ଲେଖନ୍ତି ସେଠି ଭାଷାଟିଏ ଯୋଜନଯୋଜନ ଡେଇଁ ଜଗତର କୋଣ ଅନୁକୋଣ କେଡ଼େ ସହଜରେ ପହଞ୍ଚିପାରେ ଏ ତା'ର ଏକ ଉଦାହରଣ । ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଉଇକିପାଠାଗାର: ଆମ ଭାଷାରେ ଏଯାବତ୍‍ କେଇ ଲକ୍ଷ ବହି ଛପାଯାଇସାରିବଣି । ହେଲେ ଏ ସବୁ ବହି କ'ଣ ସଭିଁଏ ପଢ଼ିବାର ସୁଯୋଗ ପାଆନ୍ତି? କାହାପାଖରେ ପାଠାଗାର ଯିବାପାଇଁ ବେଳ ନାହିଁ ତ ହାତପାହାନ୍ତାରେ ବହି ନଥିବାରୁ କିଏ ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଛାଡ଼ି ବାକି ଭାଷାର ଲେଖାପଢ଼ା ଆଦରୁଛି । ଆମ ଭାଷାର ପାଠକ କମିକମି ଯାଉଛନ୍ତି । ସମାଧାନର ପନ୍ଥା କ'ଣ ହୋଇପାରେ? ଆମ ଭାଷା ଖାଲି କ'ଣ ସାହିତ୍ୟ ଆଉ ସାହିତ୍ୟକଙ୍କ ଭାଷା କି ଲୋକମୁଖର କଥିତ ଭାଷା ହୋଇ ରହିଯିବ? ଆଜିର ପିଢ଼ି ପାଖରେ ପହଞ୍ଚôବାଲାଗି ତାକୁ ମନ ପଢ଼ିବାକୁ, ଜିଣିବାକୁ ହେବ । ଏଥି ।ଇଁ ପ୍ରାଥମିକ କାମଟି ହେଲା ବିରଳ ଓ ଛପା ହେଉନଥିବା ଅନେକ ପୁରାତନ ବହି ଇଣ୍ଟରନେଟ ଜରିଆରେ ପାଠକମାନଙ୍କ ନିକଟକୁ ନେବା । ଯଦି ପାଠାଗାରରୁ କୌଣସି କାରଣରୁ ବହିଟି ଚୋରିହୁଏ କି ପୋକ ଖାଇଯାଏ ତା'ହେଲେ ଲେଖକର ଶ୍ରମର ଦେଉଳ ଭୁଶୁଡ଼ି ଡ଼େ । ତାକୁ ସାଇତିବାର ସବୁଠୁ ବଡ଼ ବାଟ ହେଉଛି ଇଣ୍ଟରନେଟ୍‍ । ପୁରୁଣା ଓ ବିରଳ ବହିମାନ ଛପାଇବାରେ ଭୁବନେଶ୍ୱରର ସୃଜନିକା ଅନୁଷ୍ଠାନର କାମ ଏକ ଐତିହାସିକ ପଦକ୍ଷେପ । ୧୮୪୦- ୧୯୪୦ ଭିତରେ ପ୍ରକାଶିତ ପତି୍ରକା, ୨୫ରୁ ଅଧିକ ଅଭିଧାନ ତଥା ପୂର୍ଣ୍ଣଚନ୍ଦ୍ର ଭାଷାକୋଷ ଭଳି ପୋଥିକୁ ମିଶାଇ ୭୪୦ରୁ ଅଧିକ ବହିକୁ ଡିଜିଟାଲ ରୂ ଦେବାରେ ସେମାନଙ୍କ ଅବଦାନ କାହିଁରେ କେତେ । ହେଲେ ଏ ବହିର ଲେଖାସବୁ ଆଉଥରେ ବ୍ୟବହାର ହେବା, ଇଣ୍ଟରନେଟ୍‍ରେ ଖୋଜିପାଇବା ତଥା ମୋବାଇଲ ଆଦିରେ ପଢ଼ିବା ପାଇଁ ଆଉଥରେ ଟାଇପ ହେବା ଜରୁରୀ । ସବୁଯାକ ବହିକୁ ଟାଇପ କରିବା ସମ୍ଭବ ନୁହେଁ, ହେଲେ କିଛିକିଛି ବହି ଧୀରେଧୀରେ ଟାଇପ ହୋଇପାରିବ । ସେ କାମଟି ଅଧୁନା ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଉଇକିାଠାଗାରରେ ଆରମ୍ଭ ହୋଇଛି । ଇଣ୍ଟରନେଟରେ or.wikisosurce.org ରେ ପାଠକେ ଏହାକୁ ଖୋଲି ପଢ଼ିପାରିବେ ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଭାଗବତଠୁ ଆରମ୍ଭ କରି ଭଞ୍ଜ ସାହିତ୍ୟ ଏବଂ ଗୋପବନ୍ଧୁଙ୍କ ପରି ଏ ଯୁଗର ମହାନ ସାହିତ୍ୟିକଙ୍କ ରଚନାବଳୀ । ପ୍ରକଳ୍ପଟି ଅଣଲାଭକାରୀ, ଆଉ କପିରାଇଟ ନଥିବାରୁ ବହି ସବୁ ଖୋଲାରେ ପାଠକଙ୍କ ପାଇଁ ଉପଲବ୍ଧ ।

ଗ୍ଲୋବାଲ ଭଏସେସ: ଉପର ଦୁଇ ପ୍ରକଳ୍ପ ତ ଗଲା ବହିର ରକ୍ଷଣାବେକ୍ଷଣ ଆଉ ଜ୍ଞାନକୋଷ ବା ଏନସାଇକ୍ଲୋପିଡ଼ିଆ ଗଢ଼ିବାର କଥା । ହେଲେ ଘଟୁଥିବା ଘଟଣା ଆଉ ଜନମତର ମହତ ମଧ୍ୟ ଊଣା ନୁହେଁ । ଘଟୁଥିବା ଘଟଣାବଳୀ ଓ ତହିଁରେ ଜନ-ଅଭିମତକୁ ଭରିବା ଲକ୍ଷ୍ୟରେ ଏକ ବିଶ୍ୱବ୍ୟାପୀ ଆନ୍ଦୋଳନ ହେଉଛି ଗ୍ଳୋବାଲ ଭଏସେସ । ସୌଭାଗ୍ୟର କଥା ଯେ ହିନ୍ଦୀ ଓ ବଙ୍ଗଳା ପରେ ଏଥିରେ ୩ୟ ଭାରତୀୟ ଭାଷା ଭାବେ ଓଡ଼ିଆ ସ୍ଥାନୀତ । ଓଡ଼ିଆ ପାଠକଙ୍କ ପାଇଁ ଖବର ବୋଲି ଯାହା ଖବରକାଗଜରେ ଆସେ ତା ବାହାରେ ଘଟୁଥିବା ଘଟଣା ସହ ପରିଚିତ ଲାଭ ପାଇଁ ଏ ଏକ ବଡ଼ ମାଧ୍ୟମ ହୋଇପାରେ । ଏହା or.globalvoicesonline.org ରେ ଉପଲବ୍ଧ । ଏ ମଧ୍ୟ ଏକ ସ୍ୱେଚ୍ଛାସେବୀ ପରିଚାଳିତ ପ୍ରକଳ୍ପ ଯାହାର ଦୁଆର ଭାଷା ଦକ୍ଷତା ଥିବା ଲେଖକଙ୍କ ପାଇଁ ଖୋଲା ।

Click to read a copy of the original article published by the Samaja here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/op-ed-samaja-jan-2015

Poesis in the Information Age: Language and its Limit[ation]s

praskrishna — 2015-01-26T13:57:34Z

Alec Schachner, an independent scholar, translator, multi-genre musician and sound artist will give a talk on the limits/limitations of languages at the Centre for Internet & Society's office on January 30, 2015 at 5 p.m.

The Talk

An examination of the limits/limitations of language(s) through the lens of contemporary Vietnamese poetics and print culture, aiming to open a deeper dialogue on the nature of self/state expression and censorship in the age of internet connectivity.

Alec Schachner

Alec graduated from Columbia College with a degree in Sociocultural Anthropology, English & Comparative Literature, Creative Writing and Music Theory/Composition. Alec currently resides in Vietnam, where he has served as lecturer on literature for 5 years with the Faculty of English Linguistics and Literature at the Vietnam National University of Social Sciences and Humanities HCMC. He is working on English translations of several anthologies of Vietnamese poetry, one of which - the purification festival in April - just went to print across VN earlier this month. He is also pursuing research into contemporary Saigonese print culture and the social/cyber mileus surrounding literary circles/movements in the post-Socialist cultural sphere.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/events/poesis-in-the-information-age

January 2015 Bulletin

praskrishna — 2015-02-26T17:02:23Z

Our newsletter for the month of January can be accessed below.

The Centre for Internet & Society (CIS) welcomes you to the first issue of the newsletter (January 2015). Archives of our newsletters can be accessed at: http://cis-india.org/about/newsletters.

Highlights

Forbes India in an article titled “Minds that (should) matter” names Sunil Abraham as one of the Thinkers who best explain a rapidly-changing India to the world (and the world to India).

Subhashish Panigrahi won the 2015 Opensource.com Community Awards under the category 'People's Choice Awards'.
Sumandro Chattapadhyay has joined CIS team as Research Director. Sumandro has replaces Nishant Shah who stepped down from the position.
Rishika on behalf of CIS prepared an analysis of the disability exceptions in Copyright Legislations . The blog post provides in detail the country-wise exceptions in copyright legislations.
NVDA team conducted a training programme on Malayalam eSpeak with NVDA in Thiruvananthapuram on January 24 and 25, 2015. Chakshumathi's main trainer Akhil M. took eSpeak Malayalam classes and Dr. Homiyar took classes on NVDA and accessible equipment.
The Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion, Government of India invited comments on the First Draft of India's National IPR Policy. CIS made its submission.
As part of the Pervasive Technologies project, Nehaa Chaudhari has produced a research methodology document which maps the existing literature around questions of competition law intersecting with intellectual property law on the specific issue of enabling access to sub hundred dollar mobile devices .
Maggie Huang, an intern at CIS as part of the Pervasive Technologies project has written a blog entry which documents, synthesizes, and analyses learnings from attending various music industry trade conferences.

CIS-A2K team on December 28, 2014 organized a MediaWiki hackathon event for Telugu Wikimedia community members to enhance their skills and understanding of technical matters related to MediaWiki usage. The theme of the workshop was “Mediawiki, its extensions and tools to work around” and it aimed at allowing Wikipedians to use MediaWiki tools more effectively.

Subhashish Panigrahi authored an op-ed that highlights the need for taking Odia language to the international fora instead of keeping it confined in the books. The op-ed was published in the Samaja on January 30, 2015.

A journal article by Subbiah Arunachalam, Perumal Ramamoorthi and Subbiah Gunasekaran the steps taken by scientists and librarians in the West to reclaim ease of access to research findings with what is happening in India along with a few suggestions was published by the Indian National Science Academy Journals.
The Supreme Court, in Sabu George v. Union of India and Ors. (WP (C) 341/2008), is looking into the presence of material regarding pre-natal sex determination on search engines such as Google, Bing, and Yahoo that has been falling foul of section 22 of the Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act, 1994 as amended in 2002. Geeta Hariharan and Balaji Subramanian analyse this in their blog post.
As part of its Making Methods for Digital Humanities project, CIS-RAW organized two consultations on new figures of learning in the digital context. For a proposed journal issue on the theme of 'bodies of knowledge' which draws upon these conversations, participants were invited to write short sketches on these figures of learning. Tejas Pande wrote an abstract which examines the figure of the visual designer, and emerging practices of mapmaking.

Accessibility and Inclusion

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

NVDA and eSpeak

Monthly Update

January 2015 Report (Suman Dogra; January 31, 2015).

Event Organized

Training of Malayalam eSpeak with NVDA (Co-organized by CIS, DAISY Forum of India and Chakshumathi Assistive Technology Centre; Thiruvananthapuram; January 24-25, 2015).

Other

Blog Entries

Response to RTI Applications from Different States on Accessibility (Anandhi Viswanathan; January 31, 2015).

Access to Knowledge

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

Pervasive Technologies

As part of the Pervasive Technologies project, Maggie Huang conducted interviews with fabless semiconductor industry professionals in Taiwan. The findings from the samples are highlighted in four part series. The third and fourth parts have been published:

Blog Entries

Pervasive Technologies Project Working Document Series: Document 2 Literature Review on Competition Law + IPR + Access to < $100 Mobile Devices (Nehaa Chaudhari; January 1, 2015).
Relationship between App Developers and App Platforms: An Intellectual Property Perspective (Anubha Sinha; January 7, 2015).
Beyond Alcohol and Angel Investors: Building Business Models in an Age of Mobile Music Streaming (Conference Learnings) (Maggie Huang; January 20, 2015).
National IPR Policy Series: The Development of the National IPR Policy (Nehaa Chaudhari; January 22, 2015).
RTI Responses - MHRD IP Chairs: Details of Funding & Expenditure (Nehaa Chaudhari; January 31, 2015).
National IPR Policy Series: CIS Comments to the First Draft of the National IP Policy (Nehaa Chaudhari; January 31, 2015).

Participation in Events

Global Intellectual Property Convention (Organized by ITAG Solutions; Mumbai; January 15 - 17, 2015). Rohini Lakshané attended the event.
Library and Information Professionals Summit (LIPS) 2015 (Organized by Society for Library Professionals, National Law University Delhi with UN Information Centre for India & Bhutan and Special Library Association (USA), Asian Chapter; January 23 - 24, 2015; New Delhi). Nehaa Chaudhari was on a panel discussing Internet Technology and Challenges for Libraries in IPR Regime. She made a presentation on Technology (Internet?), Libraries and the Law (?).

Upcoming Event

Announcing the Institutional Partner for the Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest 2015 (Organized by the National Law School of India University; New Delhi; December 2015).

Wikipedia

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

Op-ed

ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଭାଷା ପାଇଁ ଅନ୍ତର୍ଜାତୀୟ ପ୍ରକଳ୍ପ (Subhashish Panigrahi; The Samaja, January 31, 2015).

Blog Entries

Telugu Wikimedia Hackathon 2014 (Rahmanuddin Shaik; January 31, 2015).

Telugu Wikimedia Hackathon 2014 (Rahmanuddin Shaik; January 31, 2015). The event was conducted on December 28, 2014. However, the blog post was published in January 2015.

News and Media Coverage

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

Works of Veerasalingam Pantulu on web (Hans India; January 1, 2015).
Centre should partner local communities in 'Digital India': Expert (IANS and mirrored in Zee News; January 9, 2015).
Musician donates Gwalior Gharana songs to free e-library (Times of India; January 20, 2015).

Announcement

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

Participation in Event

Citizen Media Summit 2015 (Organized by Global Voices; January 24 - 25, 2015). Subhashish Panigrahi was a speaker.

Openness

Journal Article

Heads I Win, Tails You Lose: The Intransigenc of STM Publishers (Subbiah Arunachalam, Perumal Ramamoorthi and Subbiah Gunasekaran; Indian National Science Academy Journals, Proc Indian Natn SciAcad 80 No. 5 December 2014 pp. 919-929).

Internet Governance

Articles and Blog Entries

Indians Plead for #NetNeutrality as Airtel Raises Data Charges (Subhashish Panigrahi; Global Voices; December 30, 2014). The article was published in the month of December but mirrored on CIS website in January.
Indian Netizens Criticize Online Censorship of 'Jihadi' Content (Subhashish Panigrahi; Global Voices; January 6, 2015).
Security and Surveillance - Optimizing Security while Safeguarding Human Rights (Elonnai Hickok; January 19, 2015).
Search Engine and Prenatal Sex Determination: Walking the Tight Rope of the Law (Geetha Hariharan and Balaji Subramanian; January 29, 2015).

Event Co-organized

Security, Governments, and Data: Technology and Policy (Organized by CIS and Observer Research Foundation; January 8, 2015, New Delhi). Sunil Abraham, Pranesh Prakash, Elonnai Hickok, Bhairav Acharya and Nehaa Chaudhari participated in this event.

Participation in Events

Symposium on Human Rights and the Internet in India (Organized by the Center for Communication Governance at National Law University, Delhi in collaboration with the UNESCO Chair on Freedom of Communication and Information at the University of Hamburg; New Delhi; January 17, 2015). Bhairav Acharya was a panelist.
Winter School on Privacy, Surveillance and Data Protection (Organized by the Centre for Communication Governance (CCG) in collaboration with the UNESCO Chair on Freedom of Communication and Information at the University of Hamburg and the Hans Bredow; Delhi; January 19 - 23, 2015). Bhairav Acharya was a facilitator.
ASSOCHAM National Council on IT / ITes (Organized by ASSOCHAM; New Delhi; January 30, 2015). Geetha Hariharan participated in the event.

Blog Entries

Overview of the Constitutional Challenges to the IT Act (Pranesh Prakash; December 15, 2014).
Reply to RTI filed with BSNL regarding Network Neutrality and Throttling (Tarun Krishnakumar; December 22, 2014).

News & Media Coverage

CIS gave its inputs to the following media coverage:

Government blocks 32 websites to check ISIS propaganda (Kim Arora; The Times of India; January 1, 2015).
Internet users fume as govt blocks 32 sites (Jaison Lewis; Mumbai Mirror; January 1, 2015).
India 'jihadi' web blocking causes anger (BBC; January 2, 2015). This was also mirrored in Puffington Post.
Govt cracks down on cyber jehad network, blocks access to 32 websites (India Today, January 1, 2015).
Indian Government still blocks 20+ websites - Indian Censorship on Internet (Times of Assam; January 2, 2015).
350% surge in Cyber crimes in last 3 years (Devanik Saha & Indiaspend.org; Hindustan Times; January 20, 2015).
TOI literary festival kicks off today (The Times of India; January 31, 2015).

Digital Humanities

CIS is building research clusters in the field of Digital Humanities. The Digital will be used as a way of unpacking the debates in humanities and social sciences and look at the new frameworks, concepts and ideas that emerge in our engagement with the digital. The clusters aim to produce and document new conversations and debates that shape the contours of Digital Humanities in Asia:

Staff Movement

Sumandro Chattapadhyay has joined CIS as Research Director. His academic interests span over topics of history and politics of informatics in India, new media and technology studies, and data infrastructures and economies. He is also keenly interested in questions and techniques of digital humanities. Recently, Sumandro has completed a study on policy and practices of open data in India as part of the Open Data Research Network managed by the World Wide Web Foundation. He is an involved member of DataMeet, a leading community of open data and data science enthusiasts from India. Sumandro studied economics in Visva-Bharati, Shantiniketan, and in Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. He has variously worked on topics of urban development, information technology in governance, data visualisation, and early electronic governance in India with MOD Institute, Azim Premji University and the Sarai Programme at the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies.

Blog Entry

Figures of Learning: The Visual Designer (Tejas Pande; January 30, 2015).

About CIS

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

► Follow us elsewhere

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

► Support Us

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

► Request for Collaboration:

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

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

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

Sumandro Chattapadhyay

praskrishna — 2015-01-15T01:41:40Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/sumandro-chattapadhyay.pdf