Centre for Internet and Society

Konkani Wikipedia Goes Live After 'Nine Years' of Incubation

subha — 2016-06-18T18:15:05Z

Konkani Wikipedia is the second Wikimedia project after Odia Wikisource that has gone live out of incubation. The project stayed in the incubation for nine long years and the community has gone through a long debate to have a Wikipedia of their own. Here is a blog highlighting three Konkani Wikimedians and an advocate of the Wikipedia movement whose efforts finally paid off.

Read the original blog entry published on Wikimedia Blog on July 15, 2015 here.

The Goan Konkani Wikipedia (available at gom.wikipedia.org) has gone live after spending nine long years in incubation.

An Indo-Aryan language, of the Indo-European family of languages, Konkani is the official language of Goa. It is a minority language in other Indian states, such as Maharashtra, Karnataka, northern Kerala, Dadra and Nagar Haveli, and Daman and Diu. It is spoken by about 7.4 million people.

Konkani can be written in five different scripts: Devanagari—officially used by the Government of Goa—as well as Latin (locally known as Romi Konkani), Kannada, Malayalam, and Persian. Of these, the Goan Antruz dialect of the language, in the Devanagari script, is considered standard by the Indian constitution.

The Konkani Wikipedia has many heroes, as we see them. Melissa Simoes and Darshan Kandolkar are two of the many long-term contributors who joined during the Konkani Wikipedia @ Goa University program and are still active even after the program formally concluded. Darshan is an assistant professor at the Government College Pernem in Goa. His professor at Goa University, Dr. Madhavi Sardesai—who passed away last year—played a vital role in inspiring him to go for higher studies in Konkani. Darshan realized that there is a lot to be written in Konkani when he was introduced to Wikipedia, and after that, he became dedicated to contributing to the project.

“I would like to bring more students as contributors to our Konkani Wikipedia,” Darshan says. “My aim is to start with my students at Government College Pernem. Being an alumnus of Goa University, I also want my juniors there to join our community and enrich Konkani Wikipedia.”

“I have a dream to start a project for the freedom fighters of Goa and involve a diverse set of people, from students to journalists and columnists. I also want to build partnership with educational institutions so we could engage with the students for a longer run and the existing Konkani community could mentor them,” he continues.

“Being a new Wikipedia project, Konkani Wikipedia needs more quality measures and the articles have to grow to good quality articles with more images and templates, I want to take it to the level of English Wikipedia with both quantitative and qualitative growth in articles!”

The Konkani Wikimedia community has been using social media actively to promote the Konkani Wikipedia project, and to celebrate the successes of its contributors. After Melissa became the top contributor to the project, her fellow editor Luis Gomes congratulated her. That brought Melissa into the spotlight, gaining the attention of editors from the global Wikimedia community. The community is continuing a tradition to rewarding the most prolific contributor of each month as the “Wikipedian of the Month”.

Melissa was introduced to the Wikipedia program at her university where the target for each participating student was to write one article each about a village in Goa. “I wrote my article just for the sake of the marks, but never bothered to think about why I am writing it. After the program was over, I became inactive on Wikipedia.

“After some time, I met Father [Luis Gomes] in parish and then Darshan and Father inspired me to resume editing. Then, it became an addiction and I never stopped even for a day. I would come back from work and sit in front of my computer.

“Now, I am a teacher, and my fellow teachers are mostly women. I would like to introduce the Goan Konkani Wikipedia to them so they could also contribute to Wikipedia,” Melissa says.

As Konkani Wikipedia went live, long term Wikimedian Fredrick Noronha, an early advocate of Konkani Wikipedia, said, “It is a wonderful feeling to see the Goan Konkani Wikipedia live. I would like to congratulate all who have been involved in some or the other way with the making of Konkani Wikipedia live from the days of its inception and incubation.

“I am not a great contributor or even a language expert. I come from a content background and found my interest in Wikipedia, Wikimedia Commons and Creative Commons long ago. But this helped me to associate myself in some way with the Konkani Wikipedia incubator. I am happy that CIS-A2K chipped in to help build a community and help it grow in collaboration with the Goa University.

“Students of the Konkani department in the university are the real heroes to take this effort forward by filling the Wikipedia incubator with more editing activity to which the institutional backing acted as catalyst,” he added.

Fredrick feels there are major challenges that the community now has to start taking measures for: “The macrolanguage is written in multiple scripts. Out of five of the scripts three—Devanagari, Romi/Latin and Kannada—are actively used in printing and publication currently. People using all the scripts should be equally participating in a movement like Wikipedia to take their languages to other native speakers using Wikipedia as a digital tool.

“The second challenge is with the contributors. Goa, being home to majority of the Konkani language speakers, has English education from the primary level. This means many have a great level of technical ability. The technical contributor community here would be of great use to Konkani Wikipedia if tapped,” he adds.

“The technical contributors are eager to contribute but have not been approached in a manner that would interest them. Similarly the Konkani authors who are helping propagate the language to masses have sadly no or very little clue about Wikipedia’s existence in Konkani. This disparity is stopping a massive flow of local encyclopedic content to the Konkani Wikipedia. Unless we tap into the technological and the linguistic groups it will be only a tip of the iceberg.”

Fredrick explains that the the current Konkani Wikipedia community is primarily made up of students of Goa University. “This is both good and bad,” he says. “Having young and enthusiastic students as Wikipedia editors is helping the project to leap forward, which might not have happened if the faculty were targeted instead. There is, however, a great need for diversification.

“The approach to bring in authors in the 60–70 years age group will vary from the approach to bring in, for example, technical people. Our outreach strategies should ultimately fulfill both the literary and technological contributors, so that their work can help us to both grow content and to solve the problem of the multiple scripts, respectively,” Fredrick adds.

The Konkani Wikipedia community is organizing a public seminar on July 18 at Goa University to celebrate the launch of the Konkani Wikipedia and to pay tribute to Dr. Madhavi Sardesai, who always dreamed of the Konkani Wikipedia getting out of incubation.

Video


Wikimedian Darshan Kandolkar shares his experience of contributing to Konkani Wikipedia. Video in Konkani. Video by Wikimedia India, freely licensed under CC-BY-SA 4.0.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/konkani-wikipedia-goes-live

Reading Devanagari script based sites like Konkani Wikipedia in Kannada Script

pavanaja — 2016-06-18T18:14:43Z

This is a small hack to read websites with Devanagari script (used for Hindi, Marathi, Nepali, Maithili and a few more languages) based sites like Konkani Wikipedia in Kannada script.

Konkani Wikipedia finally went live in this June after being in Incubator for nine years. Konkani language is written using five different scripts; Devanagari (official script for Konkani in Goa), Kannada, Latin, Malayalam and Persian. The current Konkani Wikipedia is available at https://gom.wikipedia.org where “gom” is for the Goan variation of Konkani.

There is a significant Konkani population in coastal Karnataka and to a small extent in northern Kerala that use Kannada script for writing Konkani. Many of these people might be facing issues with reading the Konkani articles in Devanagari script in the Goan Konkani Wikipedia which brings the need for making the Wikipedia available in Kannada and other scripts that Konkani uses.

There are various ways to go about it. Some of the Wikimedia projects like the Serbian and Chinese Wikipedia already had this issue and had multi-script transliteration as a solution. Transliteration between Devanagari and Kannada scripts could be transliterated in multiple ways and below is one of them.

Noted typographer K. P. Rao who is known for creating fonts for almost all the Indian scripts has recently come up with a solution for Devanagari⟷Kannada transliteration by creating a new font “Devama” that has Devanagari Unicode encodings with Kannada glyphs. The font has the rendering logic as per Kannada rules which means if we set this fonts for any text typed using Devanagari script, it will display it in Kannada script. This will help anyone who can read Kannada script to read something written in Devanagari. Mr. Rao has generously released “Devama” under Open Font License (OFL) ver. 1.1. The source file for the font is currently available at https://github.com/pavanaja/DevamaNew for anyone to use and modify with attribution.

How to use the font:

Download and install the font as a .zip file.
Unzip the file and find the “Devama.otf” file. Install it. (the installation will vary based on your operating system, check a how-to guide to learn).
Now inorder to make the font working you need to change the browser settings. (check here for Firefox and Chrome browser settings). You need to set “Devama” as the display font for Devanagari script.
In Mozilla Firefox:

Select “Options” from Tools menu. It will open a new tab. Select the “Content” tab. Click on the button “Advanced...”. Select Devanagari from the drop-down list from “Fonts for” and set “Devama” as the font for all options. Click on “Ok” and close the dialog box. Now reload the Konkani Wikipedia to check if it is working or not.

Not just Konkani Wikipedia, any other site in Devanagari script (used for Hindi, Marathi, Nepali, Maithili, Bihari and a few other Indian languages) could also be read in Kannada. This might be useful for those who could read in Kannada and have problems reading in Devanagari.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/reading-devanagri-konkani-wikipedia-in-kannada-script

Kannada Wikipedia Workshop in Mangaluru (Coverage in Prajavani)

pavanaja — 2016-06-18T18:14:22Z

As part of its ongoing partnership with St. Aloysius College, Mangaluru, CIS-A2K along with the Wikipedia community in Karnataka organized a workshop on Kannada Wikipedia. Prajavani reported this in their edition published on July 5, 2015.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/news/kannada-wikipedia-workshop-july-5-2015-coverage-in-prajavani

Upload More Kannada Articles on Wikipedia

pavanaja — 2015-09-13T06:09:34Z

Uploading information in Wikipedia helps to develop language, said Indian Languages Programme Manager U B Pavanaja here on Saturday. The article was published in Indian Express (Mangaluru edition) on July 5, 2015.


Above: A scanned version of the article that appeared in Indian Express on July 5, 2015.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/news/indian-express-july-5-2015-upload-more-kannada-articles-on-wikipedia

Kannada Wikipedia Workshop in Mangaluru (Coverage in Udayavani)

pavanaja — 2015-09-13T06:17:49Z

As part of its ongoing partnership with St Aloysius College Mangaluru, CIS-A2K co-organized a workshop with the Kannada wikipedia community on Kannada Wikipedia. Udayavani covered this in their edition on July 5.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/news/kannada-wikipedia-workshop-july-4-2015-coverage-in-udayavani

Not many contributors for Kannada-centric Wiki page

pavanaja — 2015-09-13T05:42:46Z

Wikipedia, which has over 60,000 contributing editors in India, has only 33 Kannadigas contributing to the Kannada section, said Pavanaja U B, programme manager, The Centre for Internet and Society, Bengaluru.

The article was published in the Times of India (Mangaluru edition) on July 5, 2015.

At the inaugural of the two-day workshop on 'Kannada Wikipedia' organized for students by the department of Kannada at St Aloysius College on Saturday, he said, "Wikipedia, which has over three crore articles, has 18 lakh editors spread across the world. While there are 33 editors for Kannada, only eight are involved actively," he said, adding that Wikipedia at present has about 20,500 articles in Kannada.

On the objectives of the workshop, Pavanaja said, "We have plans to train 25 Kannada students from St Aloysius College in uploading and updating Kannada articles in Wikipedia. Those 25 students will train 500 more Kannada students in the college and thereby increase the number of articles uploaded to Kannada Wikipedia. It will be a part of their academic assignment."

Pavanaja told students to cross-check each article before uploading to Wikipedia. "Students should adopt a research methodology to prepare articles for Wikipedia. One must study the subject in detail and then upload it to Wikipedia. It does not require scholarly knowledge," he added.

Wikipedia, which is a collaborative encyclopedia, has 23 Indian languages including Kannada and Tulu, he said. "Though Tulu articles were being published from 2007, there were only 135 articles uploaded to Wikipedia. Later, after 2013, many volunteered to upload articles and at present there are more than 800 articles in it. We have plans to increase the number of Tulu articles," he added.

"It is very easy for one to become a Wikipedia editor. Those who want to become the Kannada Wikipedia editor may create a login after opening kn.wikipedia.org and go through the tutorial files. Writing suitable articles for Wikipedia will neither fetch you money, nor name in it. It is selfless social service and necessary for the protection of language," Pavanaja said.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/news/the-times-of-india-july-5-2015-not-many-contributors-for-kannada-centric-wiki-page

Statement by the Centre for Internet and Society on the Broadcast Treaty at SCCR 30

nehaa — 2015-07-02T01:20:38Z

The 30th Session of the World Intellectual Property Organization's ("WIPO") Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights ("SCCR") is underway in Geneva from 29 June, 2015 to 03 July, 2015. While CIS was unable to attend this meeting, we have the following statement to make on negotiations on the Proposed Treaty for Broadcasting Organizations.

This statement was prepared on behalf of CIS by Nehaa Chaudhari. Many thanks to Pranesh Prakash and Amulya Purushothama for their inputs.

Mister Chair,

Our intervention will speak to the presentations made by broadcasting organizations on Day 1 and Member and Group Statements on Days 1 and 2.

First, Mr. Chair, generally on technical panels- If this is the manner in which this Committee will be appraised of new developments, without prejudice to our reservations about this ad-hoc manner itself, we strongly suggest that other interest groups and stakeholders be provided a similar opportunity to present their side of the story, in front of this Committee, for one entire day. Industry representatives, including those from telecommunications, information technology, consumers electronics, and performers- and not just various public interest NGOs have been expressing reservations and concerns about this Treaty from at least as far back as 2006, if not earlier. We appreciate Group B’s ask in their introductory statement to “continue to hear the voices of the real world” – We only ask that you award all stakeholders an equivalent, if not equal opportunity to be heard in the manner that you have the broadcasters; without privileging the interests of the broadcasters above the others. There must be a recognition of the rights of other stakeholders including content owners- not just in the Treaty as noted by India yesterday, but also in the discussions leading up to it.

Second, Mr. Chair, on Technical Background Paper document SCCR 7/8 – which you had flagged off as relevant for this session in your summary of SCCR 29 – but, of course, I stand to be corrected if I have understood incorrectly. Mr. Chair, this document is more than a decade old – it seems to have seen no updates since 2002, and even in that form, it is wanting. The document excludes from its scope the rationale for the treaty as well as the scope for protection, which we find problematic, especially given as these have been among the most contentious topics in this Committee. Additionally in only dealing primarily with the Rome Convention with but a passing reference to other international instruments, if at all, it presents an incomplete overview of the legal framework already available to broadcasters. I also have other comments to this document, which I will send in writing. We’d strongly urge that an updated version of this document be presented to this Committee so that we can have a more accurate discussion, just like the one on market and technology trends has been updated as SCCR 30/5.

Third, Mr. Chair, on the presentations and statements themselves. A reason oft cited in this Committee, Mr. Chair, has been the need to protect the underlying investment and the purported loss of revenue. From their presentations on Day 1 Mr. Chair, it seems to us that the broadcasters are doing perfectly alright without a Broadcast Treaty. Mr. Knapp for IHS in fact said that “Despite digitization, TV homes, paid TV homes are growing globally”, stating also, that there was a very high average revenue per user in North America and a “double digit growth in the pay TV sector” in other regions, which meant a “fairly healthy industry despite all the digital disruption side”. We have also heard from TV Globo who told us of the progress made in advertising and pay TV and smartphone penetration in Brazil, and from Zee Telefilms from India who spoke of a booming broadcasting industry.

Mr. Chair, Nothing we have heard so far addresses three important questions – why is there a need for a separate right? Why are protections under the Rome Convention inadequate? While piracy might well be an issue, why can’t it be covered under existing copyright law – all of which comes down to why we’re discussing the creation of a para copyright regime for broadcasting organizations.

From the Caribbean Broadcasting Union, we heard about emerging technologies and the challenges due to piracy. There was also a mention of significant investment – but if that is to be the basis for this treaty, we would ask that detailed reports of these investments and losses also be placed before this Committee. Also, none of this addresses the lacunae in the Rome Convention or existing international copyright law.

Mr. Chair, we have repeatedly heard from Group B and the European Union on the ‘significant economic value of broadcasting’, but, this economic value has had international law recognition for a while now. While the CEBS group, Japan and Russia speak highly of technological advancements to justify the need for the Broadcast Treaty, there has still been no discussion on the inadequacy of existing international law to address these technological advancements. There needs to be something more that justifies this attempt to give broadcasters an additional layer of rights. It might be useful to conduct a comprehensive study on signal theft and piracy and the legal frameworks in every member state to deal with signal theft and piracy, and an updated study on the international legal framework as well. This Committee has precedent on such an exercise in Prof. Kenneth Crews’ study on limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives that has been tabled at this SCCR.

Mr. Chair, this para copyright we’re trying to create, especially without all stakeholders being heard equally, would in effect severely limit any competition that broadcasting organizations would face from the Internet and other emerging technologies; which is undesirable for any market, besides access to free knowledge and information, as well put by the delegation of Iran.

Thank you.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/statement-by-the-centre-for-internet-and-society-india-on-the-broadcast-treaty-at-sccr-30

Odia Wikipedia meets Google Developer Group

Sailesh Patnaik — 2015-07-16T13:17:07Z

This is a guest post by Wikimedian Sailesh Patnaik who has been a ardent contributor in Odia-language Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects and has led outreach and partnership building initiatives to grow the Wikimedia projects in Odia and other Indian languages. In this post Sailesh shares his personal experience from his interaction at the Google Extended I/O organised by Google Developer Group in Bhubaneswar, Odisha. All the views are author’s personal views.

On this June 14 Google Developer Group Bhubaneswar organised an extended I/O at Bhubaneswar. To my surprise I found that there were more than 60 participants attending the conference. Basanta Kumar Maharana. TELL WHO HE IS, was the speaker in the event. Basanta shared his memories from Google I/O 2015, San Francisco and demonstrated about the new launch and updates of Google. It was quite interesting for me to learn about various Google apps (?) kike Google cardboard, Android M, etc.

In an informal interaction with the host Sanjib Parida, he proposed me to speak about Odia Wikipedia there who came to know about the project while attending Odia Wikipedia's 13th anniversary.

I started my talk by asking four questions to the audience:

How many of the audience know about Wikipedia? (Everyone raised hands.)
Who have copied content from Wikipedia for assignments? (People giggled about it, 50-60% of the participants nodded saying yes!)
Who knows that anyone can “edit” Wikipedia? (the count reduced to about 10-20%)
Who knows about Odia Wikipedia and contributes in creating and editing articles? (Only 4-5 people said yes, I found 2-3 of them being contributors to Odia Wikipedia)

I started my talk with a brief introduction to the history of Odia Wikipedia and how it was started in 2002 as one of the first four Indic language Wikipedia projects along with Assamese, Malayalam and Punjabi.

Odia Wikipedia was in dormant for the next eight years which was intervened when Wikimedians like Subhashish Panigrahi, Ashutosh Kar, Anshuman Giri, Mrutyunjaya Kar and others started building a community to improve and increase the content of Odia Wikipedia. Now we have grown as a community consisting about 17 active editors and the project has more than 8800 articles. The monthly page view of Odia Wikipedia has grown to more than 800,000 from merely 200,000 in 2011. We have three active Odia-language Wikimedia projects; Odia Wikipedia, the largest Odia online encyclopedia, online library Odia Wikisource, and multilingual online dictionary Odia Wiktionary. Odia Wikipedia community has not limited their work only in editing articles, rather has expanded into many other aspects of Odia computing. On the day of Odia Wikipedia’s 13th anniversary it has launched a converter that can convert many non-Unicode encodings into Unicode. We have been supported by CIS-A2K for many activities to grow our community and the Odia Wikimedia projects. Like Odia Wikipedia we have 20 more Wikipedia projects in other Indic languages and in over 288 languages globally. Hindi Wikipedia among all the Indic Wikipedia projects has the highest number of articles whereas Malayalam Wikipedia has the highest number of quality articles.


Pictured above: Participants at the conference organized by the Google Developer Group at Bhubaneswar

Some of the state governments have been quite open and positive in bringing Wikipedia into academics. The Government of Kerala has introduced Wikipedia contribution in its curriculum for BA and MA students and The Government of Tamilnadu has introduced Tamil Wikipedia to participants at the International Tamil Conference which helped the Tamil Wikimedia community in expanding the community. Awareness and community building are two major challenges for us at this moment. I invited the participants there to take part in the Wikimedia movement.

I touched upon the Odia input for the audience. While it was quite difficult a few years back for Odia input it is no longer a challenge. With the help of the Android app “Indic Keyboard” we can also edit Odia Wikipedia from mobile phones. I myself have used it for editing Wikipedia, for tweeting and posting Facebook status in Odia. After the talk I was asked a few questions. There are two important ones I would like to share here. To the question “how can I contribute in Odia Wikipedia? Do I have to install any keyboard for it?” I elaborated how anyone can edit and expand articles or create new Wikipedia articles in Odia just by creating a new account and logging in to https://or.wikipedia.org, and how the Wikimedia projects like Wikipedia have an input tool called Universal Language Selector (ULS) enabled in them and one does not need to install any additional input method. I was asked by one from the here is no support from the government at this moment but we are constant effort to collaborate audience about the Government of Odisha helping to grow Odia Wikipedia.

Many participants came and personally greeted me after the event was over. I was really excited to share the news about our (Odia Wikimedia community's plans for creating Bhubaneswar Wiki Group/WikiTungi with two active communities in engineering colleges like CET and KIIT. It was a wonderful experience at Google I/O and I hope to grow our Wikimedia community by collaborating with more like minded communities.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/odia-wikipedia-meets-google-developer-group

Comments on the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations: Technical Background Paper Prepared by the WIPO Secretariat

Nehaa Chaudhari and Amulya Purushothama — 2015-09-03T01:47:59Z

Technical Background Paper prepared by the WIPO Secretariat in relation to the Broadcast Treaty (“Technical Background Paper) provides information on new and emerging technologies and on legal developments in the broadcasting sector. This Technical Background Paper will be discussed at the upcoming 30th session of the SCCR in Geneva on 29th June- 3rd July 2015. The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India had called for comments on the same. This is a submission made by Nehaa Chaudhari and Amulya Purushothama on behalf of the Centre for Internet and Society in this regard.

We thank Amulya Purushothama for her assistance with research and other assistance on this subject. While Amulya was acknowledged as the co author in the actual submission itself, the blurb didn't say so and this has now been changed. Click to view the PDF.

I. Preliminary

1. This submission presents preliminary comments by the Centre for Internet and Society ("CIS") on the Technical Background Paper prepared by the WIPO Secretariat in relation to the Proposed WIPO Treaty on the Protection of Broadcasting Organisations ("Broadcast Treaty").

2. This submission is based on the Technical Background Paper Submitted By the Secretariat at the Seventh Session of the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights ("SCCR") held at Geneva from May 13 to 17 2002 (SCCR/7/8) dated April 4, 2002.[1]

3. CIS commends the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India for its efforts at seeking inputs from various stakeholders prior to framing India's response to this document. CIS is thankful for the opportunity to provide this detailed submission.

II. Overview

Governing Principles

4. CIS is a non-governmental organization engaged in research and policy work in the areas of, inter alia, access to knowledge and openness. [2] CIS values the fundamental principles of justice, equality, freedom and economic development. This detailed submission is consistent with CIS' commitment to these values, the safeguarding of general public interest and the protection of India's National Interest at the International Level. Accordingly, the comments in this submission aim to further these principles and are limited to those sections of the document in question that most directly have an impact on these values.

Adoption of a Signals-Based Approach

5. CIS has consistently recommended the adoption of a Broadcast Treaty consistent with the signals based approach, [3] in consonance with the 2007 mandate of the WIPO General Assembly, binding on the SCCR. In this submission as well, we re-iterate our commitment to the same.

III. Detailed Comments

On the 'Introduction'

6. The Technical Background Paper was prepared twelve years ago, in 2002. Accordingly, more recent legal and technological developments, national approaches and industry practices would need to be addressed. Accordingly, it is submitted that at SCCR 30, the Indian delegation request that the SCCR be presented with an updated study. This would be in line with the stated aims of the Technical Background Paper itself, i.e., to focus on technological changes that affect the activities of broadcasting organizations.[4] Further CIS believes that the current Technical Background Paper reads as a justification for the Broadcast Treaty as opposed to a neutral study. It is submitted that an updated version of this paper with including inter alia, some of the safeguards discussed later in this submission might address this imbalance.

7. The Technical Background Paper excludes from its scope the rationale for protection as well as the scope of protection for broadcasters. [5] CIS is of the opinion that this limits the Technical Background Paper - issues such as the justification/ need for the treaty, the scope of protection to be offered and the kind of protection, go to the very heart of the issue and must be discussed in the Technical Background Paper if it is to inform a meaningful debate on the subject.

8. CIS further believes that the very need for a Broadcast Treaty has not been clearly established in the Technical Background Paper. As we have indicated earlier,[6] investments made by broadcasters in broadcasting infrastructure, licensing of copyrighted works and creation of copyrighted works are already protected under existing legal systems. While the licensing and creation of copyrighted works are protected under copyright law, the investment in broadcasting infrastructure might be construed to be a "broadcast right", which is enshrined [7] in the International Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organizations, 1961.[8] A detailed discussion on the existing legal framework is available in the next section of this submission.

On 'Broadcasting Organizations and the Rome Convention'

The Legal Framework Applicable to Broadcasting

9. This part of the Technical Background Paper discusses in detail the various provisions of the Rome Convention. However, it is noted that there is a very limited discussion of legal developments that have happened since the Rome Convention.[9]

10. CIS believes that for a complete understanding of the legal framework applicable to broadcasting, it is important that the Technical Background Paper document the evolution of international law on the subject since the Rome Convention. This is particularly critical when the need for this treaty itself is disputed.[10] In this regard CIS believes that the Technical Background Paper is inadequate and must be revised and updated to include other legal developments[11] including but not limited to the WIPO Copyright Treaty, 1996 ("WCT"), WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty, 1996 ("WPPT"), the Convention Relating to the Distribution of Programme -Carrying Signals Transmitted by Satellite, 1974, ("Brussels Convention") and the Beijing Treaty on Audio-Visual Performances, 2012 ("Beijing Treaty").

11. CIS further believes that for a complete understanding of the legal framework applicable to broadcasting, it is imperative for the Technical Background Paper to document national level legal developments in all member countries on this issue. Precedent for this exercise exists in the form of the study conducted in related to the Proposed International Legal Instrument on Limitations and Exceptions for Libraries and Archives. [12] In this regard CIS calls for a comprehensive study on legislation surrounding broadcasters rights - both as related rights and as a separate right - and on the nature and extent of protection offered to broadcasters under the national legislations of all member states.

12. CIS believes that for a complete understanding of the legal framework applicable to broadcasting, it is important for the Technical Background Paper to further document any other widely followed industry practices and contractual arrangements that might have developed in the field. In this regard CIS believes that the present Background Paper should be edited and the above mentioned information be made available to the SCCR.

Signal, Content and Program

13. This part of the Technical Background Paper documents how a signal is defined and how it is different from the content carried on the signal. Further this part also states that it has been generally indicated that protections should be granted to broadcasting organisations for their signals independent of the copyright and related rights protection of the content.[13] In this regard CIS submits that definition of a signal is well settled under various international legal instruments, which have adopted uniform terminology that excludes content underlying the signal.[14] It is submitted that the Technical Background Paper must be edited to include all of this information to allow for informed debate on the matter. It is further submitted that technologically neutral terminology must be avoided and only terminology based on the "signals based approach" decided at the 2007 WIPO General Assembly must be adopted. [15] It is lastly submitted that any deviation from the signals based approach would lead to a Para-copyright regime for broadcaster's rights which would substantially harm public interest and increase costs to access to knowledge. [16]

14. This part of the Technical Background Paper also avers "during the discussions in the Standing Committee, it has generally been indicated that protection should be granted to broadcasting organizations for their signals independently of the copyright and related rights protection of the content." [17] It is submitted that this statement is not entirely accurate. Several Member States and Observers have submitted at various sessions of the SCCR that any protection granted must be limited to signal to address signal theft only; and that any other sort of protection would create a legal fiction that would lead to uncertainty, the creation of multiple rights holders, a Para-copyright regime and increased costs for legitimate use of copyrighted material.[18]

On 'Legal Issues to be Considered'

15. CIS reiterates the impetus to fully establish the need and the justification for the Broadcast Treaty, before considering other substantive legal issues. CIS strongly believes that the need for the treaty has not been fully established.[19]

16. It is also suggested that a recommendation be made for the Technical Background Paper to include a section on limitations and exceptions as 'legal issues to be considered', critical from the perspective of the protection of freedom of speech and expression and access to knowledge.

Broadcasting and Piracy

17. This part of the document discusses the signal piracy and its effect on markets in developing and developed countries. [20]

18. CIS submits that since the justification for this treaty is based on signal piracy, this section of the Technical Background Paper ought to be more detailed. Illustratively, this section must be updated to include studies on the losses that occur due to signal piracy in various countries, and the exact lacunae in the current legal system that render it inadequate to address this issue.

Program-Carrying Signals

19. In this part the Technical Background Paper discusses program carrying signals that are sent from point to point before the broadcast that could possibly be pirated.[21]

20. CIS believes that the claim that pre-broadcast signals have been stolen before[22] must be backed up by adequate data and studies. As of this document they remain assertions. CIS further believes that any steps taken in this regard must adopt the 'signals based approach' mandated by the 2007 WIPO General Assembly[23] and ensure that the underlying content is not subject to an additional layer of protection.[24]

The Object of Protection

21. This part of the paper provides a cursory overview of the different definitions adopted to define the object of protection, i.e., the broadcast under the Rome Convention, the Brussels Convention, and the WPPT.[25]

22. CIS believes that a more in-depth study of definitions of broadcast under all international instruments [26]is called for. CIS further believes that in keeping with the 2007 WIPO General Assembly mandate as mentioned above, 'signals based approach' is to be adopted which would preclude technologically neutral terminology from being adopted in the object of the protection.

The Subject of Protection

23. This part of the paper provides a cursory overview of the different definitions adopted to define the subject of protection, i.e., the broadcast under the Rome Convention, the Brussels Convention, the WPPT and the ITU Radio Regulations.[27]

24. CIS believes that the mandate of 'signals based approach' as mentioned in the 2007 WIPO General Assembly mandate must be adhered to (as stated earlier) and only those entities that broadcast signals and are therefore vulnerable to signal theft must be considered beneficiaries under the Broadcast Treaty. As stated above, technologically neutral terminology would fall outside of this mandate. CIS believes that this should be made clear in the Technical Background Paper.

IV. Concluding Observations

25. In conclusion, CIS submits the following recommendations on the Technical Background Paper.

a) Updating the Technical Background Paper to include legal and technological developments to better inform the discussion on the Broadcast Treaty.

b) Updating the Technical Background Paper with an expanded scope that explores all issues relevant to discussion including the scope for protection and the justification for protection.

c) Updating the Technical Background Paper to include provisions made under all relevant international conventions, even those that have come into existence after the Rome Convention.

d) Updating the Technical Background Paper to include widely prevalent industry practices that could affect the discussion around the Broadcast Treaty.

e) Conducting a comprehensive study on legislations regarding broadcasters' rights and broadcasting under all national regimes to enable a more informed discussion on the possible effects of the proposed treaty.

f) Updating the Technical Background Paper to include a discussion on limitations and exceptions under the proposed treaty.

g) Conducting a separate study on the extent of signal piracy and losses incurred due to signal piracy including a section that traces the causes behind signal piracy and explores whether or not a legal lacunae is to blame.

h) Updating the Technical Background Paper keeping in mind the WIPO 2007 General Assembly mandate on 'signals based approach' especially in parts relating to object, subject and scope of protection.

V. Other Resources

Statements made by CIS to the SCCR on Broadcast Treaty

1. 29^th Session of the WIPO SCCR :CIS 2^nd (brief) Intervention on the Broadcast Treaty, http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-29-cis-second-brief-intervention-on-broadcast-treaty (last accessed 25 June, 2015)

2. CIS Intervention on Proposed Treaty of Broadcasting Organizations, SCCR 29: http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-29-cis-intervention-on-proposed-treaty-for-protection-of-broadcasting-organizations (last accessed 25 June, 2015)

3. CIS Statement at SCCR 28 on the Proposed Treaty for Protection of Broadcasting Organisations, Available at: http://lists.keionline.org/pipermail/a2k_lists.keionline.org/2014-July/002720.html (last accessed 25 June, 2015)

4. CIS Statement at 27^th SCCR on the WIPO Proposed Treaty for the Protection of Broadcasting Organisations, Available at: http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-statement-27-sccr-on-wipo-proposed-treaty-for-protection-of-broadcasting-organizations (last accessed 25 June, 2015)

5. CIS' Statement at SCCR 24 on WIPO Broadcast Treaty, Available at: http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-statement-sccr24-broadcast-treaty (last accessed 25 June, 2015)

6. Statement of CIS on the WIPO Broadcast Treaty at the 23^rd SCCR, Available at: http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/sccr-23-broadcast-cis-statement (last accessed 25 June, 2015)

7. Statement of CIS, India on the WIPO Broadcast Treaty at the 22^nd SCCR, Available at: http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/sccr-22-broadcast-cis-statement (last accessed 25 June, 2015)

8. CIS Statement on the WIPO Broadcast Treaty at SCCR 19, Available at: http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/sccr19-broadcast-treaty (last accessed 25 June, 2015)

Submissions made by CIS on the Broadcast Treaty

1. CIS Submission to the Expert Committee: Protection of Broadcasting Organisations under the Proposed Treaty as Compared to Other International Conventions, 21 December 2014, Available at: http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/protection-of-broadcasting-organisations-under-proposed-broadcast-treaty (last accessed 25 June, 2015)

2. CIS Submission to the Expert Committee: Comment on the Broadening of Definitions in the Proposed Braodcast Treaty Compared to Other International Conventions, 11 December 2014, Available at: http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/the-broadening-of-definitions-in-the-proposed-broadcast-treaty-compared-to-other-international-conventions (last accessed 25 June, 2015)

3. CIS Comments to the Ministry of Human Resource Development on the Proposed WIPO Treaty for the Protection of Broadcasting Organisations, 7 December 2013, Available at: http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/comments-to-hrd-ministry-on-wipo-treaty-for-protection-of-broadcasting-organizations (last accessed 25 June, 2015)

4. Comments to MHRD on WIPO Broadcast Treaty, March 2013, Available at: http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/comments-on-wipo-broadcast-treaty

5. Comments on the Broadcast Treaty and Exceptions and Limitations for Libraries and Archives, 29 November 2012, Available at: http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/comments-on-broadcast-treaty-and-exceptions-and-limitations-for-libraries-and-archives (last accessed 25 June, 2015)

6. Comments to the Ministry on WIPO Broadcast Treaty, March 2011, Available at: http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-broadcast-treaty-comments-march-2011 (last accessed 25 June, 2015)

On behalf of the Centre for Internet and Society,

Nehaa Chaudhari Amulya Purushothama

Lawyer/Programme Officer Lawyer/Research Assistant

nehaa@cis-india.org amulyaindavar@gmail.com

[1] Hereafter "Technical Background Paper"

[2] See www.cis-india.org (last accessed 25 June, 2015) for details about CIS' work.

[3] WIPO General Assembly, 34th (18th Ordinary Session, Geneva, September 24- October 3 2007,WO/GA/34/16, p. 55-56;

[4] Protection of Broadcasting Organisations, Technical Background Paper Prepared by the Secretariat, WIPO, Seventh Session, Geneva , April 4 2002, SCCR/7/8, p.3.

[5] Id at p.2.

[6] See for Instance CIS' Statement at SCCR 24 on the WIPO Broadcast Treaty, Available at: http://cis-india.org/a2k/blog/cis-statement-sccr24-broadcast-treaty (last accessed 25 June, 2015).

[7] Id.

[8] Hereafter, the Rome Convention.

[9] Protection of Broadcasting Organisations, Technical Background Paper Prepared by the Secretariat, WIPO, Seventh Session, Geneva , April 4 2002, SCCR/7/8, p.4-5

[10] See 'Overview' of this submission.

[11] See for instance CIS Submission to the Expert Committee: Protection of Broadcasting Organisations under the Proposed Treaty as Compared to Other International Conventions, CIS, Available at: http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/protection-of-broadcasting-organisations-under-proposed-broadcast-treaty#_ftn79 (last accessed 25 June, 2015) ; See Also CIS Submission to the Expert Committee: Comment on the Broadening of Definitions in the Proposed Broadcast Treaty Compared to Other International Conventions, C IS, Available at: http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/the-broadening-of-definitions-in-the-proposed-broadcast-treaty-compared-to-other-international-conventions#_ftn1 (last accessed 25 June, 2015).

[12] See for example, Study on Copyright Limitations and Exceptions for Libraries and Archives, Available at: www.wpio.int/copyright/en/limitations/libraries_and_archives.html (last accessed 25 June, 2015).

[13] Protection of Broadcasting Organisations, Technical Background Paper Prepared by the Secretariat, WIPO, Seventh Session, Geneva , April 4 2002, SCCR/7/8, p.5

[14] CIS Submission to the Expert Committee: Comment on the Broadening of Definitions in the Proposed Broadcast Treaty Compared to Other International Conventions, C IS, Available at: http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/the-broadening-of-definitions-in-the-proposed-broadcast-treaty-compared-to-other-international-conventions#_ftn1 (last accessed 25 June, 2015).

[15] WIPO General Assembly, 34th (18th Ordinary Session, Geneva, September 24- October 3 2007,WO/GA/34/16, p. 55-56;

[16] CIS Submission to the Expert Committee: Protection of Broadcasting Organisations under the Proposed Treaty as Compared to Other International Conventions, CIS, Available at http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/protection-of-broadcasting-organisations-under-proposed-broadcast-treaty#_ftn79 : http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/protection-of-broadcasting-organisations-under-proposed-broadcast-treaty#_ftn79(last accessed 25 June, 2015) ; See Also CIS Submission to the Expert Committee: Comment on the Broadening of Definitions in the Proposed Broadcast Treaty Compared to Other International Conventions, C IS, Available at: http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/the-broadening-of-definitions-in-the-proposed-broadcast-treaty-compared-to-other-international-conventions#_ftn1 (last accessed 25 June, 2015)

[17] Protection of Broadcasting Organisations, Technical Background Paper Prepared by the Secretariat, WIPO, Seventh Session, Geneva , April 4 2002, SCCR/7/8, p.5

[18] For details see CIS Submission to the Expert Committee: Protection of Broadcasting Organisations under the Proposed Treaty as Compared to Other International Conventions, CIS, Available at: http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/protection-of-broadcasting-organisations-under-proposed-broadcast-treaty#_ftn79 (last accessed 25 June, 2015) ; See Also CIS Submission to the Expert Committee: Comment on the Broadening of Definitions in the Proposed Broadcast Treaty Compared to Other International Conventions, C IS, Available at: http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/the-broadening-of-definitions-in-the-proposed-broadcast-treaty-compared-to-other-international-conventions#_ftn1 (last accessed 25 June, 2015).

[19] See comments under Introduction in this submission.

[20] Protection of Broadcasting Organisations, Technical Background Paper Prepared by the Secretariat, WIPO, Seventh Session, Geneva , April 4 2002, SCCR/7/8, p.15

[21] Protection of Broadcasting Organisations, Technical Background Paper Prepared by the Secretariat, WIPO, Seventh Session, Geneva , April 4 2002, SCCR/7/8, p.15-16

[22] Protection of Broadcasting Organisations, Technical Background Paper Prepared by the Secretariat, WIPO, Seventh Session, Geneva , April 4 2002, SCCR/7/8, p.15

[23] WIPO General Assembly, 34th (18th Ordinary Session, Geneva, September 24- October 3 2007,WO/GA/34/16, p. 55-56;

[24] CIS Submission to the Expert Committee: Protection of Broadcasting Organisations under the Proposed Treaty as Compared to Other International Conventions, CIS, Available at: http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/protection-of-broadcasting-organisations-under-proposed-broadcast-treaty#_ftn79 (last accessed 25 June, 2015).

[25] Protection of Broadcasting Organisations, Technical Background Paper Prepared by the Secretariat, WIPO, Seventh Session, Geneva , April 4 2002, SCCR/7/8, p.16-17

[26] CIS Submission to the Expert Committee: Comment on the Broadening of Definitions in the Proposed Broadcast Treaty Compared to Other International Conventions, C IS, Available at: http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/the-broadening-of-definitions-in-the-proposed-broadcast-treaty-compared-to-other-international-conventions#_ftn (last accessed 25 June, 2015).

[27] Protection of Broadcasting Organisations, Technical Background Paper Prepared by the Secretariat, WIPO, Seventh Session, Geneva , April 4 2002, SCCR/7/8, p.17-18

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/comments-on-the-protection-of-broadcasting-organizations-technical-background-paper

National IPR Policy Series : Follow-up RTI to DIPP on the IPR Think Tank

nehaa — 2015-06-25T00:43:34Z

This RTI was prepared by Varun Baliga and Nehaa Chaudhari as a follow-up, based on the responses of the DIPP to our earlier RTI requests (available at http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/national-ipr-policy-series-rti-requests-by-cis-to-dipp-dipp-responses)

To,

Ms. Palka Sahni,

Deputy Secretary,

Central Public Information Officer,

IPR-II, IPR-III, IPR-IV, IPR-VI,

Room No. 254,

Udyog Bhawan, Delhi.

Subject: Request for Information under Section 6 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 regarding Information on the Procedure to File a Right to Information Application with the IPR Think Tank

Dear Madam,

1. Full Name of the Applicant: Nehaa Chaudhari

2. Address of the Applicant: Centre for Internet and Society, G-15 Top Floor, Hauz Khas, New Delhi - 110016

Mailing Address : nehaa@cis-india.org

3. Information Required: Context

Please consider this an application for information under Section 6 of the Right to Information Act, 2005. Since the request for this information is inextricable from the context in which it is made, it is previewed with a succinct overview of the facts.

I, as an employee of the Centre for Internet and Society ["CIS"], first filed a Right to Information ["RTI"] application with the Department of Industrial Policy & Promotion ["DIPP"] requesting information on the procedure followed in the appointment of the IPR Think Tank ["Think Tank"]. We received a response from the DIPP detailing the procedure followed. Then, we filed a RTI application with the DIPP requesting information on its functioning, particularly procedure followed and comments received prior to and after the release of the first draft of the National IPR Policy ["Policy"]. [1] In your response dated 26^th February 2015, the DIPP stated that the Think Tank functioned "independently without any interference of this Department (DIPP)". Therefore, apart from information that an "interactive meeting with stakeholders" was conducted while drafting the Policy, the DIPP stated it was not in a position to give any further information. Finally, the DIPP in a separate response dated 26^th February 2015, stated that "suggestions and comments on the draft of on [sic] National IPR Policy have been received by the IPR Think Tank directly". CIS followed this up by filing a RTI application with the Think Tank itself but we have not received a response.

4. Information Required: Details

Therefore, I seek information on the following:

a) The Think Tank is a public authority constituted for the purpose of the RTI Act. Who is the Public Information Officer of the Think Tank for the purpose of filing RTI applications? What are the measures taken by the Think Tank to comply with its obligations under the RTI Act?

b) What is the procedure to be followed in filing an RTI Application with the Think Tank?

c) Given that there is no information on the above, would the appropriate authority to request for information on the functioning of the IPR Think Tank be the DIPP?

5. Proof of Payment of Application Fee:

An Indian Postal Order for the amount of Rs. 10 dated ___________ favouring the Public Information Officer, Department of Industrial Policy & Promotion is enclosed as proof of payment of application fee.

This is to certify that I, Nehaa Chaudhari, am a citizen of India.

Please provide me this information at the address provided earlier in this letter.

Thank you

Yours sincerely

Nehaa Chaudhari

[1] http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/national-ipr-policy-series-rti-requests-by-cis-to-dipp-dipp-responses

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/national-ipr-policy-series-follow-up-rti-to-dipp-on-ipr-think-tank

Train the Trainer: Running effective outreach activities in India

tanvir — 2015-07-30T15:20:46Z

It is heartening to report that many Wikimedia projects in Indian languages have sustained, and even experienced an upward trend in, editor engagement. However, in terms of content creation, the majority of these projects are still facing grave challenges that put their very existence at risk.


February’s Train the Trainer program—which aims to increase the number of new editors and ‘ambassadors’ for the movement at large—proved a rewarding experience for attendees. Photo by U.B. Pavanaja, freely licensed under CC-BY-SA 4.0.

Pageview statistics for Indian-language Wikipedias are pleasantly surprising. Almost all exceed one million unique views every month—but despite these positive readership figures, very few of these readers become actively involved in the project’s communities. There is almost no increase in the number of active and very active editors on a month-to-month basis.

These statistics are alarming. They suggest a very real possibility of volunteer burnout, a dearth of second-generation editors who might continue established work, and, perhaps most importantly, the projects losing their reputation as frequently-updated and reliable encyclopedias.

The most realistic way of dealing with this problem is to bring in new volunteers who will be guided by more experienced users. They would, eventually, fill the shoes of senior Wikimedians and continue to fight for free and open knowledge.

The Centre for Internet and Society – Access to Knowledge (CIS-A2K)—a campaign to promote the fundamental principles of justice, freedom, and economic development—realised as part of its needs-assessment program that although outreach activities are being conducted to attract more volunteers to Wikipedia, they had not been as successful as expected.

To address this problem, CIS-A2K came up with the ‘Train the Trainer’ program (TTT). The program is designed to teach volunteers essential skills and abilities to, in turn, train the general public on all things Wikipedia.

These volunteers, or “trainers,” develop key competencies that will allow them to conduct a successful outreach workshop, such as public speaking, presentation skills, peer-to-peer learning, effective communication, reporting, and followup strategies.

To take part in the TTT program, it is imperative that participants be active Wikipedians. CIS-A2K is angling TTT as both a skill-building initiative amongst Indian-language Wikimedians, as well as a platform where Indian-language Wikipedians can meet and greet each other in-person. This allows participants to interact with Wikimedians from many different communities, to understand their nature of engagement, and share the challenges they have faced and overcome.

The contextual learning and exchange of ideas at these events, similar to editathons, are very special. They help participants feel like they are a part of both their linguistic community and a greater Indian-language community, opening up new opportunities of collaboration, project development, and friendship.

TTT intends to train Indian-language Wikimedians into effective ambassadors of the movement—keen and able to spread the goals and mission of the open knowledge movement. The program also strives to combine best practices from all over the world, taking cues from various chapters, user groups, and thematic organisations. It builds bridges between communities in terms of communication, encouraging partnerships and collaborations that can result in long term rewards.

Link to the original entry on Wikimedia Blog

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/train-the-trainer-running-effective-outreach-activities-in-india

The US 301 Report – A Myopic View of IP Rights

nehaa — 2015-06-24T15:35:29Z

Varun Baliga and Nehaa Chaudhari discuss the 2015 US 301 Report, focussing on its narrow and convenient understanding of IP rights. A farrago of contradictions, it supports a rightsholder-centric view but not when the right, Geographical Indicator, is not to their liking. Similarly, the emphasis on the rights themselves gives short shrift to critical exceptions and limitations that also enhance and incentivize innovation, the ostensible purpose of IP.

The US Trade Representative ["USTR"] is the office in charge of the United States Special 301 Report ["301 Report"] - an annual report on the state of intellectual property rights in countries around the world. The Executive Summary of the 2015 Report states that it is conducted "pursuant to Section 182 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended by the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988 and the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. § 2242)". [1] The relevant excerpt of the provision states:

" The Trade Representative shall, by not later than the date by which countries are identified under subsection (a) of this section, transmit to the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Finance of the Senate, a report on actions taken under this section during the 12 months preceding such report, and the reasons for such actions, including a description of progress made in achieving improved intellectual property protection and market access for persons relying on intellectual property rights ."

The 2015 301 Report, much like its predecessors, prioritizes the existence of institutional mechanisms for the protection of intellectual property rights over the purported end goals of those rights, as argued by Shamnad Basheer.[2] The purported link between intellectual property and innovation, a key element of the CIS comment on the National IPR Policy , is not studied by the Report but simply assumed as a truism. In the usual criticism of India's laws, the Report notes that "IPR protection and enforcement challenges continue, and there are serious questions regarding the future of the innovative climate in India", operating on the assumption that IPR is the sole driving force of innovation. Instead, the Report is guided by the 'business climate' in a country as facilitated by its IP laws. To borrow from the EFF's incisive critique of this annual exercise, the 301 Report pressurizes India to criminalize the act of camcording in a cinema hall despite domestic copyright law that prohibits it subject to statutory exceptions.[3] Further, the Report finds India's compliance with the Berne Convention to be insufficient since 'business climate' favours as comprehensive an intellectual property regime as possible directed at the expansion of rights and the narrowing of exceptions critical to education and openness of knowledge.

International law on intellectual property is interpreted instrumentally by the drafters of the report. What this means is that IP is being viewed solely through the prism of national interest. A particularly egregious implication is being witnessed in the shift of preferred fora to discuss IP from bodies like the WIPO to trade-oriented platforms, a theme that is discussed later on in this piece. Further, Italy's notice and takedown regime is praised in the 2015 Report notwithstanding its procedure of obtaining an order of removal not from the courts but the Communications Regulatory Authority, against the Manila Principles of Intermediary Liability, an important albeit non-binding piece of state practice.[4]

Furthermore, the emphasis on the interests of rightsholders themselves coupled with enforcement seldom happens in a comparative context, in the Report. This means that the Report privileges the interests of rightsholders to the exclusion of any interest that the exceptions to copyright, for fair use and education for instance, may hold. The 2015 Report, for instance, notes positive developments in IP law as exclusively including the strengthening of the regulatory framework weighted in favour of rights. It fails to note the ratification of the Accessible Books Consortium or the Report of the UN Special Rapporteur Farida Shaheed on copyright policy,[5] implicitly signalling that the US does not consider these developments favourable. This is problematic at two level.

First, competing interests of free speech, open access to knowledge, education, public health are either downplayed or outright ignored. For example, the Report entirely ignores the work of WIPO on exceptions and limitations, and the Marrakesh Treat among the multilateral and plurilateral initiatives of note. Switzerland, for instance, is censured for the 2010 Swiss Federal Court decision that erred on the side of privacy by prohibiting Logistep from tracking IP addresses of entities accused of file-sharing.[6] Even in the emphasis on rightsholders, the 301 Report reeks of hypocrisy and doublespeak. Gabriel J. Michael notes that the 301 Report criticized the European Union for having too much protection of IP through geographical indicators (GI). So, IP protection appears to be an unreserved good as long as it's the right kind of IP as determined by the United States.

" For example, by any reasonably objective standard, the European Union offers very high levels of IP protection. Yet as recently as 2006, Special 301 listed the European Union on its watch list, citing "concerns" about the EU's geographical indication (GI) regime. Given that GIs are a form of intellectual property, USTR essentially placed the EU on its watch list for offering too much IP-or, if you prefer, the wrong kind of IP. Interestingly, this is a tacit admission by the U.S. that at least some kinds of IP can act as trade barriers ."[7]

Second, the 301 Report operates on the assumption that intellectual property is a right in rem. It does not even attempt to engage with the notion of IP as a public right. This is a direct implication of the methodology of the Report that privileges the simple existence of IP frameworks and enforcement mechanisms over a more substantive examination of the causal nexus between IP and its purported raison d'etre. Therefore, the interpretive approach of the 301 Report towards intellectual property law construes it not as a means to ends but as an end in itself.

What Does This Mean?

Finally, there are two implications of this approach to IP rights. The first is on the Report's words on India this year. Credit is given to India for establishing the High Level Working Group on Intellectual Property ["IPR Working Group"]. The purpose of the Working Group is said to be to "enable India to achieve its important domestic policy goals of increasing investment and stimulating innovation through, not at the expense of, IPR protection and enforcement". The façade of public interest behind which the 301 Report attempted to operate is finally off, one might say. IP exists, it seems, to facilitate not broader goals of public interest but investment and innovation within the myopic interests of 'rightsholders'. Paradoxically, however, the Report does call for more consultation on the First Draft of India's National IPR Policy - a noteworthy development, although inconsistent with the tenor of the rest of the Report. Second, the 301 Report as a reflection of American foreign policy goals is now being understood through the lens of ongoing trade negotiations. This steady shift in the preferable forum for IP negotiations from inclusive and democratic platforms, such as WIPO, towards restrictive and secretive ones, such as the WTO, is driven by regressive notions of IP as reflected in the 301 Report. Signalling a move towards a state-centric approach heralded by the United States, critical non-state actors from civil society find it increasingly difficult to exercise agency in these negotiations. While WIPO provides space for non-state actors such as non-governmental organizations to represent their positions and aid states with research, trade negotiations shunt civil society. The cloak and daggers approach of the United States Government towards the Trans-Pacific Partnership Treaty,[8] brought to some light with recent votes in the US Congress, negotiations contrasted with the democratic and open nature of the negotiations surrounding the Marrakech treaty underscores the important difference in approach.[9]

As a result, the civil society finds itself unable to counterbalance the power hierarchies entrenched in international relations as it has done, for example, with the attempted imposition of TRIPS-plus standards through bilateral and multilateral agreements. A state-centric approach makes it easier for larger economies to coerce smaller and dependent countries to draft laws with little regard for limitations and flexibilities that are key for innovation and standard of life in large swathes of Global South - peoples who cannot afford the costs of IP protected-innovation. Further, issues of IP and trade are not pertinent solely to states but are increasingly driven by and relevant to a raft of non-state actors. Any policy that does not actively seek to include these stakeholders in the decision making process is destined to fail. Therefore, on both principled and consequentialist grounds, the Special 301 Report deserves very little attention from the international community.

[1] Full text of the provision available at https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/19/2242.

[2] http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/these-rancid-rankings/99/

[3] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/04/special-301-balance-not-found

[4] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/04/special-301-balance-not-found ; https://www.manilaprinciples.org/

[5] http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/HRC/28/57 .

[6] http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2010/09/switzerland-gathering-ip-addresses-from-bittorrent-sites-illegal/

[7] https://topromotetheprogress.wordpress.com/2014/06/05/special-301-is-it-effective/ ;

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140612/17435227561/ustrs-special-301-list-naughty-countries-without-strong-enough-patent-copyright-laws-is-complete-joke.shtml

[8] http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/05/tpp-elizabeth-warren-labor-118068.html#.VWvcMk-qqko ; http://www.ip-watch.org/2015/04/23/divide-and-conquer-the-new-us-strategy-to-disentangle-the-tpp-negotiations/

[9] http://www.ip-watch.org/2013/12/19/wipo-delegates-hear-concerns-of-ngos-on-exceptions-for-libraries/

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/us-301-report-a-myopic-view-of-ip-rights

National IPR Policy Series : India's National IPR Policy - What Would WIPO Think?

nehaa — 2015-07-02T17:47:58Z

As part of the National IPR Policy Series, CIS is evaluating how India's National IPR Policy framework and process holds up to WIPO's suggestions. In this note, Varun Baliga and Nehaa Chaudhari examine in particular, the functioning of the IPR Think Tank and the first draft of the National Policy in light of the WIPO framework and the principles it encapsulates.

This note is a brief overview of the approach set out by the World Intellectual Property Organization ("WIPO") for the development of National IPR Strategies by various countries. This note also compares WIPO's approach to the approach adopted by the IPR Think Tank ("Think Tank") in the formulation of India's National IPR Policy This note is only an academic exercise and is not to be construed as a recommendation of the procedure set out by WIPO for the development of National IPR Policies/Strategies.

An Overview of WIPO's Approach

WIPO's suggested model of a National IPR Policy operates at three levels - The Process, Baseline Questionnaire and Benchmarking Indicators. [1] On process, WIPO suggests an 8-step procedure in developing a National IP Strategy that lays clear emphasis on both continuous consultation and methodological rigour in data collection. The initial 'Assessment Mission' is aimed at preparing the ground for the formulation of the policy, and includes meetings with stakeholders so as to involve interested entities from the very beginning. [2] Given that an IPR policy is necessarily a political exercise, WIPO recommends that the mission be used to secure the political capital and commitment that would be necessary to see the exercise through. Then, a 'project (national) team' is constituted for an IP audit and develop an understanding of the economic, social and political infrastructure as context for the formulation of the policy. It is also stated that, in most instances, the team will include an international consultant. This is further complemented by 'Desk Research' and 'Data Collection' using the 'Baseline Survey Questionnaire', an integrated data collection tool developed by WIPO. The desk research is an assessment of the existing IP policies coupled with the country's broader goals - developmental, economic and social, so as to conceptualize a policy that is in conformity with the goals.

The data collection through the Baseline Survey Questionnaire is meant to complement the IP audit to understand the "weaknesses, strengths and potential" of "the current IP situation in the country". This audit and data collection drive is then buttressed with 'National Consultations' to validate the data and conclusions reached thus far. WIPO is unambiguous that the aim of these consultations is to enable a wide range of parties to exercise meaningful ownership and agency over the process of conceptualizing a national IPR policy. With the inputs received from the process so far, WIPO recommends that the drafting of the strategy commence on the basis of the "suggestions, opinions and recommendations received during the national consultation process". The drafting should operate at the level of each sector and the country as a whole. This is followed by a 'second round of stakeholder consultations'. These serve a dual purpose: to validate the findings of the first draft and to verify whether the first round of inputs are reflected in the draft itself. Finally, an 'implementation framework' including "implementation structures, a resource mobilization strategy, and monitoring and evaluation mechanisms".

Assessing the First Draft of India's National IPR Policy:

Now, we look at the National IPR Policy in India in light of the WIPO framework outlined above. First we look at the Assessment Mission or process followed prior to the announcement of any IPR policy. Then, we look at what assessment was undertaken of the existing IP laws in the country. Finally, the stakeholders meetings conducted so far are analysed in comparison to the purpose of such consultations that WIPO envisages.

Assessment Mission: There are no reports of an initial meeting having been held to explain the scope and methodology of the process. However, the IPR Think Tank invited comments before the release of the draft national policy in order to seek suggestions on the tentative policy. It should be noted that these comments have not been published.
Assessment of existing IP framework: The overview of the existing IP system in the draft policy covers just the various IP legislations and the relevant government departments. It then proceeds to underscore elements in Indian law that enhance and incentivize stricter standards for IP protection. For example, it illustrated the future challenge in copyright law as being enforcement on digital platforms. It identifies a need for concerted action to increase patent filings by Indians as over "75% of patent filings are by foreign entities". Further, even when it mentions India's ratification of the 2013 Marrakesh Treaty ensuring access to copyrighted works for persons with visual impairment, it is in the context of further reinforcement of copyright.Therefore, it is clear that the perspective of the draft policy towards India's existing framework downplays provisions ensuring access and protecting the public interest and focusses on more expansive IP protection, narrower exceptions and an overall priority for IP rights over the public interest in accessing knowledge. The purpose of the IP audit and desk research, "to obtain a clear picture of the current IP situation…, its weaknesses, strengths and potential.", has not been done justice by this audit weighted in favour of rightsholders. Finally, the Baseline Survey Questionnaire -an integrated tool for extensive data collection - has no mention in the draft policy. There is no indication that it has been utilized for the purpose of data collection, if any.
On stakeholder meetings: The Draft National IP Policy was released on 24 December 2014. A DIPP Press Release called for comments and suggestions to the First Draft to be sent in by January 30^th, 2015.[3] The first set of stakeholder meetings were only held on February 5^th and 6^th, 2015.[4] This is at odds with what the WIPO recommends. The very first step in the WIPO framework is the 'Assessment Mission' which involves meetings with stakeholders that explains the scope and methodology of the process, presumably to elicit views. There is no publicly available information that suggests that this has taken place. Second, the national consultation precedes the drafting of the strategy with the explicit goal of validating the IP audit findings and eliciting views on the drafting of the strategy. This is not intended to be a merely formalistic exercise but meaningful involvement of stakeholders in the whole process of conceptualizing a national IPR policy. Now, the DIPP has solicited comments prior to the publication of the first draft. However, mere solicitation of comments without meaningful consultation is a mere shadow of the objective of the WIPO recommendation of national consultations - "..to actively participate in the validation of the IP audit findings and the formulation of the National IP Strategy..to enhance a wide a range of IP stakeholders' ownership of the process of developing and eventually implementing a national IP strategy." Therefore, the principled objective of the consultation process as outlined by WIPO - enabling stakeholders to exercise a sense of agency over the policy document and drafting process - was severely undermined. Furthermore, WIPO suggests that the drafting of the policy should be based on the findings and suggestions submitted by the stakeholders. Given that comments have been solicited before the policy was drafted, it is incumbent upon the Think Tank to make comments submitted public. [5]

The following table summarizes the comparison in the WIPO approach to that of the IPR Think Tank. Apart from the procedure outlined thus far, the table touches upon other points of comparison that are sure to inform the continued functioning of the Think Tank in the road towards a National IPR Policy.

WIPO Suggestion	India's National IP Policy Framework - Comparison
WIPO has also suggested a number of justifications that may be advanced for the development of a national IP strategy. [6] These justifications will help in grounding the policy in a clear, lucid set of objectives. These are: Need to consolidate sectoral policies National long-term development agenda Benchmarking and best practices International trade obligations Strengthening the national IP office	India's Draft National IP Policy provides for the following objectives:[7] Create awareness of the economic, social and cultural benefits of IP (IP Awareness and Promotion) Stimulate the creation and growth of IP (Creation of IP) Strong and effective laws that protect IP rights in a manner consistent with national priorities and intl obligations and that balance the interests of the rights owners and the public (Legal and Legislative Framework) Strengthen IP administration and management of IP rights (IP Administration and Management) Augment Commercialization of IP rights; valuation, licensing and technology transfer (Commercialization of IP) Strengthen enforcement and adjudicatory mechanisms to protect and combat against IP rights violations ( Enforcement and Adjudication) Human Capital Development in IP
The second prong of WIPO's suggestions is devoted entirely to the Baseline Survey Questionnaire. There are seven clusters identified: IP Administration and Management Generation of IP by universities, research organizations, business, industry, SMEs and individuals Commercialization of IP and technology transfer by universities, research organization, business, industry, SMEs and individuals Copyright and copyright industries Plan breeders; rights (plant variety protection) Enforcement of IP rights IP and public policy	While there are elements of these clusters in the draft policy, there is no mention of them in the context of the method of a Baseline Survey Questionnaire. This means that the data collection was not undertaken in compliance with WIPO's recommendations and means that there was either no data collected or the results are undermined.
Finally, the WIPO framework places great emphasis on the implementation of the policy.[8] It has elements of this in all three prongs. It requires the policy to have an effective framework for its implementation that includes resource mobilization and monitoring and evaluation mechanisms.[9]	The issue of implementation is covered by the draft policy at two levels: 1. Implementation of IP rights - This includes a) Placing the burden on individuals to protect their IP rights as IP is an "essentially private rights [sic]". [10] The state merely plays the role of the facilitator for protection. b) Enacting rules and setting up institutions. Examples include the Intellectual Property Rights (Imported Goods) Enforcement Rules 2007 framed to implement border control measures as well as the Copyright Enforcement Advisory Council. [11] Further, strengthening enforcement mechanisms includes the establishment of a centralized 'Multi-Agency Task Force' for coordination between the raft of agencies that India has. [12] c) Facilitate IP dispute resolution through the designation of a specialized patent bench in select High Courts. It also calls for the creation of regional benches of the IPAB in all five regions where IPOs are located as well as an increase in the powers of the IPAB. [13] 2. Implementation of the Policy itself -[14] a) It suggests that the integration of the policy with stated government programmes such as 'Make in India' and 'Digital India' would enable its implementation. b) The establishment of IP Promotion and Development Council (IPPDC) which will open IP Promotion and Development Units (IPPDU) for promoting IP awareness, protection and utlilization. c) IP support to MSMEs. d) Technology Acquisition and Development Fund under the Manufacturing Policy for licensing or procuring patented technologies. e) Manufacturing units will be encouraged to set up IP cells in their own units and make IP a part of their corporate strategy. f) Integrate with government initiatives.

Conclusion: Testing Times Ahead

The IPR Think Tank has not been consistent with WIPO's recommendations on drafting a National IPR Policy. In terms of data analysis, the Think Tank has not displayed an iota of the analytical rigour and data collection that WIPO believes is necessary to understand both the state of IP in the country and devise effective means of responding to lacunae. Further, while consultations have been held with civil society, these have been lacking in two respects. They have not followed the timelines prescribed by WIPO insofar as consultations have happened only after the release of the first draft. As a result, the Think Tank has failed in actualizing the raison d'etre behind national consultations - "enhance a wide range of IP stakeholders' ownership of the process of developing and eventually implementing a national IP strategy". Finally, this piece is not an endorsement of WIPO or its recommendations but a mere acknowledgement of the role WIPO has played in this exercise. In the final analysis, India has fallen short of adhering to the principles reflected in the WIPO framework.

[1] http://www.wipo.int/ipstrategies/en/methodology/

[2] The stakeholders that WIPO mentions are "..inter alia, the national IP office(s), relevant government departments, universities and research institutes, SMEs, inventors, creators, legal practitioners, non-governmental organizations (NGOs)".

[3] http://www.dipp.nic.in/English/acts_rules/Press_Release/pressRelease_IPR_Policy_30December2014.pdf

[4] http://spicyip.com/2015/01/examining-the-draft-national-ip-policy-stakeholder-meetings-to-be-held.html

[5] http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/national-ipr-policy-series-cis-comments-to-the-first-draft-of-the-national-ip-policy

[6] Methodology for the Development of National Intellectual Property Strategies, Tool 1: The Process, p. 11.

[7] National IPR Policy (First Draft), p. 6-23.

[8] Methodology for the Development of National Intellectual Property Strategies, Tool 1: The Process, p. 9.

[9] Ibid .

[10] Ibid , p. 20.

[11] Ibid , p. 20.

[12] Ibid , p. 21.

[13] Ibid , p. 22.

[14] Ibid , p. 25-26.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/national-ipr-policy-series-indias-national-ipr-policy-what-would-wipo-think

Odia Wikipedia Celebrates 13 Years of Free Knowledge Contribution at Bhubaneswar

subha — 2016-06-18T18:21:13Z

The event was held at the Institute of Physics, Near Apollo Hospital, Bhubaneswar, Odisha on June 3, 2015, at 5 p.m.

The article was published by FullOdisha.com on June 3, 2015.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/news/fullodisha-june-3-2015-odia-wikipedia-13-years-of-free-knowledge-contribution

The Newly Updated Indic Keyboard App Now Supports 22 Asian Languages

subha — 2016-06-18T18:21:03Z

This blog post was written in my personal capacity.

The blog post was published by Global Voices on June 12, 2015.

The Indic Project, which belongs to the Indian non-profit Swathanthra Malayalam Computing (SMC), has released a new and significantly upgraded version of its input app “Indic Keyboard” for the Android mobile operating system. This major update comes roughly one year after the app's initial release in March 2014.

Indic Keyboard now supports 22 Asian languages, including 18 Indian languages apart from English, and 54 input layouts. The 23 supported languages are Assamese, Arabic, Bengali, Burmese, English, Gujarati, Hindi, Kannada, Kashmiri, Malayalam, Manipuri, Maithili, Marathi, Mon, Nepali, Odia, Punjabi, Sanskrit, Santali, Sinhala, Tamil, Telugu, and Urdu. On its company blog, SMC lists the various features included in the new update:

Addition of 7 new languages and several new layouts.
We now support 23 languages and 54 layouts in total.
All new Setup wizard makes it simpler for you to get started.
Material design, ability to changes themes.
Material white, Material dark, Holo blue and Holo white themes are available.
Intelligent word suggestion for transliteration – type faster with fewer keystrokes.
For languages with complex letters we now have the ability to type ZWJ and ZWNJ characters directly.
Arabic keyboard – by popular demand.
Code base is updated to support Android Lollipop edition.
A number of bug fixes (e.g. 1 and 2).

So far, the updated keyboard is enjoying a warm response from users:

20,000 people upgraded Indic Keyboard in first 2 days after its new release.

— Jishnu (@jishnu7) May 30, 2015

Brilliant for #Android users interested in writing in their mother tongue. Indic Keyboard v 2.0 supports 23 languages http://t.co/ZVoWuMPFai

— Karthik Subramanian (@chennaikat) May 29, 2015

One commenter writes:

Vernacular computing is a blocker for the complete roll out of computers and Internet to the world. Projects like these are welcome patches to fix that issue.

Typing on touch-screens can be rethought. Especially when it comes to Indic languages which have about double the number of characters compared to English. We shouldn’t constrain our minds to think in traditional layouts. Transliteration is a very good idea. But it puts the dependency back on English. We need radicalize the input methods for non-English languages and avoid the dependence of English altogether.

Anivar Aravind, Executive Director of Indic Project at SMC, and Jishnu Mohan, a Project Administrator at SMC, recently sat down with Rising Voices to discuss the updated app.

Rising Voices (RV): What was the objective behind bringing this mobile app for Indian languages? What has been Indic Project's core motivation?

Anivar Aravind (AA): Indic project focuses on community powered Research and Development of free and open source Indian language information infrastructure for majority of India that does not speak English. “It is pretty clear that unlike most other countries, India will be a “mobile-first” country because the first computing device for most Indians will be the mobile and not the PC.

RV: Why you think language display and input are important for Indian users?

AA: Unavailability of Indian Language interfaces, keyboards and fonts limits freedom of expression of people in their native languages and prevents them from tapping the full potential offered by smart phones and Internet. We believe all mobile users must able to read and write in their native language using their choice of layout. Indic Keyboard is coming as a part of our effort for digital inclusion on the mobile frontier.

RV: What is the reach of the app at this moment?

AA: Indic Keyboard received good user base of 168K+ downloads so far, primarily based on user reviews, without any advertisements and promotions.

RV: Can you share how Indic Keyboard was conceived and has grown?

AA: Indic Keyboard was started as a personal project by Malayalam-language computing advocate and developer Jishnu Mohan in 2013, is later upscaled into a community project collecting Indian language layouts suitable for mobile devices, updated and maintained by the free and open source community.

RV: Jishnu, as the core developer on this project, can you tell us how you overcame major roadblocks while designing Indic Keyboard?

Jishnu Mohan (JM): Absence of fonts in Android operating system was the major roadblock in increasing the language coverage. Android 4.4 supported only few Indian scripts, but some vendors like Samsung included more Indian language scripts. So we decided to go with 16 language support in Indic Keyboard 1.0 version last year. Since Android 5.1 has increased script coverage, we were able to support more languages in this 2.0 release.

RV: What were the other major challenges you faced, Anivar?

AA: The initial challenges of bringing a mobile input layout were many; from building dictionaries to the user interface. Google's Android Open Source Project (AOS) was used as a base for building this app where the keyboards that were integrated came from various sources. Keyboard layouts are not copyrighted and this was very useful for us to use a popular layout like Tamil99 for Tamil or another popular layout like Lekhani that was developed by the Odia Wikimedia community.

Happy to see Script support for Odiya , Saurashtra , Meetri Mayek, Lepcha, Limbu, Ol chikki (Santhali), Sylheti Nagari In Android 5.1

— indicproject (@indicproject) March 15, 2015

RV: How was Indic Project started and what have been its major accomplishments, so far?

AA: During 2005-2008 major ground work was done for localization support in Indic languages and overall improvement of communication using Indian languages. By 2009 web based technology were became our focus which oriented towards building and improving mobile applications for more users reading and writing in their native Indian languages. The project upscaling and 1.0 release of project was part of with the SMC-ICFOSS collaboration as a part of Department of Telecommunications (DIT) Android R & D Project of the Government of India. The project also received another grant from ICFOSS via Government of Kerala's Malayalam Computing project.

RV: What can you tell us about your work in policy-level lobbying and negotiations?

AA: We have done some work in policy front and recently submitted a policy brief requesting the government to mandate the inclusion of at least one Indian language font and one keyboard layout of all 22 official languages recognized as per 8th schedule of the Indian constitution in all smart phones and tablets selling in India.

RV: How did you reach so many users? What are your future promotion plans?

AA: The most important reason why Indic Keyboard reached out to 200k users with over 100k downloads is because of it not bringing up new keyboard layouts where as almost all other mobile input apps have their own proprietary layouts that users take time to learn and use.

RV: What are the difficulties of reaching out to masses of people?

AA: Many of the layouts were already popular and it was an added benefit for the primarily targeting people who know about inputting in their languages. Partnerships with mobile manufacturers and integrators this year for adoption of these keyboards. So users can get Indian language experience via vendor firmware itself without any extra download. Indic Keyboard liberated Indian language input in mobile devices and we want to port the same experience to all emerging mobile platforms.

RV: Are there any final comments or bit of information you'd like to share?

AA: Continuing research and development in this domain including ability to download of dictionaries for user preferred languages, increasing coverage to all 22 official languages in India, developing an free software library for gesture typing and building support for predictive input will be our main focus in the future.

As a promoter and developer of free and open source language technology, SMC plans to focus more on cross-platform mobile input-library-building and policy-level adoption for language input and other language technology advancements in the near future. SMC says it's currently in talks with the Indian government about mandating native keyboards on smart phones.

The keyboard can be downloaded from the Google Play store at http://j.mp/indicmal and also from the software repository at Gitlab at https://gitlab.com/smc/indic-keyboard.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/the-newly-updated-indic-keyboard-app-now-supports-22-asian-languages