Centre for Internet and Society

'महाराष्ट्र ग्रंथोत्तेजक' होणार लोकाभिमुख, महाराष्ट्र टाईम्स

praskrishna — 2015-12-15T07:55:38Z

Coverage of Marathi Wikipedia in Maharashtra Times.

Scanned version of the media coverage below:

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/news/92e93993e93093e93794d91f94d930-91794d93090292594b92494d92494791c915-93994b92393e930-93294b91593e92d93f92e941916-92e93993e93093e93794d91f94d930-91f93e90892e94d938

भाषाई कंप्यूटिंग के मानक बनाने के लिए चेन्नई में हुआ तीसरा फ्यूल जिल्‍ट

praskrishna — 2015-12-15T07:53:31Z

“मूसलाधार बारिश से जूझ रही चेन्नई में तीसरा फ़्यूल ज़िल्ट कॉन्फरेंस 2015 सफलतापूर्वक रविवार 22 नवंबर को संपन्न हुआ। भाषाई कंप्यूटिंग के लिए मानक भाषाई संसाधन और औज़ार बनाने में पिछले सात सालों से जुटी फ़्यूल परियोजना के द्वारा 2013 में आरंभ किए गए इस सम्मेलन के प्रायोजक और आयोजक दुनिया की जानी-मानी कंपनियां मोज़िला, सी-डैक और रेड हैट हैं। इसके पहले के दोनों सम्मेलन पुणे में आयोजित किए गए थे। यह सम्मेलन लोकलाइजेशन क्षेत्र का ओपन सोर्स का सबसे बड़ा सम्मेलन है।”

The article was published in Outlook on November 26, 2015.

तीन दिवसीय यह सम्मेलन 20 नवंबर को चेन्नई के अन्ना विश्वविद्यालय के टैग ऑडिटोरियम में आरंभ हुआ। इसके उद्घाटन सत्र को मोज़िला के लोकलाइजेशन ड्राइवर एक्सेल हेच्ट, आईआईटी मद्रास की प्रोफ़ेसर हेमा मूर्ति, आईआईटी मद्रास के ही हेमचंद्रण कराह और सीडैक के सहायक निदेशक जसजीत सिंह ने संबोधित किया। पहले दिन के शाम के पैनल डिसक्शन में मोज़िला की पेइंग मो और आर्की तथा अवाया के जी. करूणाकर और फ्यूल प्रोजेक्ट के संस्थापक राजेश रंजन के मॉडरेशन में खुली परिचर्चा हुई। पहले दिन के कार्यक्रम में भाषाई कंप्यूटिंग पर काम करने वाले कई जाने-माने विद्वानों ने हिस्सा लिया।

तमिलनाडु के स्थानीय भाषाई तकनीक विशेषज्ञों के अलावा इस सम्मेलन में भारत और नेपाल के विभिन्न भाषा-भाषाई करीब पचास से अधिक लोग उपस्थित हुए। तीन दिवसीय इस सम्मेलन का पहला दिन सभी लोगों के लिए खुला था जबकि अगला दो दिन मोज़िला लोकलाइजेशन हैकाथन का कार्यक्रम चला जिसके लिए सहभागी ख़ास तौर पर आमंत्रित किए गए थे। लोकलाइजेशन स्रोत भाषा से स्थानीय भाषा में किसी उत्पाद को बदलने की पूरी तकनीकी प्रक्रिया को कहा जाता है। इसके अंतर्गत मोज़िला के विभिन्न उत्पादों के लोकलाइजेशन यानी स्थानीयकरण की प्रक्रिया, उसमें सुधार और भविष्य की कार्ययोजना पर विस्तार से चर्चा हुई। पूरे कार्यक्रम का संचालन सी-डैक के तकनीकी अधिकारी चंद्रकांत धूताडमल ने किया।

उद्घाटन सत्र का आरंभ करते हुए फ़्यूल प्रोजेक्ट के संस्थापक राजेश रंजन ने फ़्यूल प्रोजेक्ट के बारे में उपस्थित श्रोताओं को बताया। उन्होंने बताया कि महज सामुदायिक योगदान और कुछ संगठनों की मदद के बदौलत भाषाई संसाधन का यह प्रोजेक्ट दुनिया की भाषाई संसाधन जैसे तकनीकी शब्दावली, स्टाइल गाइड आदि की सबसे बड़ी खुली परियोजना बन गई है। मानक तकनीकी शब्दावली, स्टाइल गाइड, ट्रांसलेशन एसेसमेंट मैट्रिक्स सहित कई महत्वपूर्ण संसाधनों से लैस यह प्रोजेक्ट विश्वव्यापी भाषाई संदर्भ का बड़ा अभिलेख बन गया है। गौरतलब है कि दुनिया की क़रीब 60 भाषाओं के भाषा समुदाय अभी इस परिजोयना से जुड़ी हुई है। मोज़िला के एक्सेल हेच्ट ने भारत में बढ़ रहे इंटरनेट उपयोगकर्ताओं के महत्व को रेखांकित करते हुए बताया कि मोज़िला और इसके खुले मूल्यों की उपस्थिति कितनी इनके लिए कितनी महत्वपूर्ण है। हेमा मूर्ति ने कहा कि अभी भी भाषाई कंप्यूटिंग की स्थिति काफी अच्छी नहीं हुई है और इस क्षेत्र में काफी काम होना बाकी हैं। जसजीत सिंह ने कहा कि कुछ और बड़ी कंपनियों के साथ फ़्यूल का जुड़ाव होना जरूरी है और उन कंपनियों को सामुदायिक रूप से तैयार किए गए संसाधन के महत्व को समझना चाहिए। ‘समानता के चिह्न और डिजिटल मानविकी का विकास’ विषय पर हेमचंद्रण का वक्तव्य बेहद उम्दा रहा। उन्होंने कहा कि डिजिटल मानविकी ने पारंपरिक मानविकी को हैक कर लिया है। उन्होंने कहा कि हमें महज इंटरफेस स्तरीय लोकलाइजेशन से ऊपर उठना चाहिए।

कार्यक्रम में लिब्रेऑफिस के इटालो विग्नोली, हमारा लिनक्स के विकास तारा, इतिहासकार रविकांत और जाने-माने ब्लॉगर रवि रतलामी और कनाडा के अमनदीप सिंह सैनी ने भी अपना वक्तव्य दिया। जहाँ रविकांत ने भाषाई शुद्धतावाद की आलोचना करते हुए सामुदायिक और खुल प्रयासों की उपयोगिता को रेखांकित किया वहीं रतलामी ने आईफोन, एंड्रायड और विंडोज फोन से उदाहरण देते हुए फ़्यूल की अनिवार्यता बताई। अमनदीप ने कनाडा में विभिन्न भाषा-भाषी लोगों के लिए किए गए सरकारी उपायों को बताया और कहा कि कैसे भारत भाषाई एक्सेसिबिलीटी के मामले में पीछे है और इसके कारण यहाँ के लोगों को कितनी समस्याओं का सामना करना पड़ता है। इटली निवासी इटालो ने ओपन डॉक्यूमेंट फॉर्मेट पर चर्चा की और विकास ने हमारा लिनक्स की गतिविधि पर प्रकाश डाला। भाषाई तकनीक विशेषज्ञ बिराज कर्माकर, प्रवीण ए, शुभाशीष पाणिग्रही, वीथिका मिश्रा, प्रवीण सतपुते, चंदन कुमार, राजू विंदाने सहित कई लोगों ने अपना वक्तव्य दिया।

मोज़िला के एक्सेल हेच्ट, पेइंग मो और आर्की के दिशा-निर्देश में अंतिम दो दिन विभिन्न भाषाओं में काम करने वाले लोगों ने व्यापक परिचर्चा के दौरान कई विषयों पर बातें की और उपस्थित लोगों ने मोज़िला की स्वयंसेवी गतिविधियों के भविष्य की कार्ययोजना बनाई।

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/news/92d93e93793e908-91590292a94d92f94291f93f902917-915947-92e93e928915-92c92893e928947-915947-93293f90f-91a94792894d928908-92e947902-939941906-92494093893093e-92b94d92f942932-91c93f93294d200d91f

Dr. Pavanaja Featured in Vijayavani

praskrishna — 2015-12-15T07:49:55Z

Dr. U.B. Pavanaja was invited to the office of Vijayavani, Kannada daily. Vijayavani runs a programme in which a celebrity will be invited to their office and have informal discussions with them. Later a lead article based on that discussions will be generated. The article which featured Dr. Pavanaja was published on November 16, 2015.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/news/dr-pavanaja-featured-in-vijayavani

Tulu Wikipedia Tutorial

praskrishna — 2015-12-15T07:50:52Z

Dr. U.B. Pavanaja trained the people involved in the creation of the videos.

Tutorial video on starting with Tulu Wikipedia which is in incubation:

Tutorial video explaining how to start with Tulu Wikipedia which is in incubator:

Tutorial video explaining how to add new article to Tulu Wikipedia:

Tutorial video explaining how to type in Tulu Wikipedia:

Tutorial video explaining how to format articles in Tulu Wikipedia:

The people behind these videos:

Prof. Vishwanatha Badikana for Script
Lasya Shetty for Voice
Abhishek Shetty, Saarang Community radio at St Aloysius College Mangaluru for Audio Recording
Soundarya Shetty for Mixing and Editing
Dr. U.B. Pavanaja for Conception, Direction, Mixing and Editing

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/news/tulu-wikipedia-tutorial

India - Europe Conference on Building a Sustainable IPR - ICT Ecosystem for Promoting Innovation

praskrishna — 2015-12-22T02:48:04Z

Centre for Development of Advanced Computing (C-DAC), Pune organized a one-day conference in Bangalore on November 20, 2015. Rohini Lakshané attended this event.

Intellectual property is at the core of business ventures and critical to successfully compete internationally. However, skills to commercialize technological innovations remain a crucial impediment to innovative entrepreneurs and innovators aspiring to become world leaders in global ICTE markets. A robust IPR-ICT ecosystem can help capitalize on the growth-enhancing effects of innovation vis-à-vis ICTE. In order to fulfill the aspiration of its stakeholders, the IPR-ICT ecosystem has to be global in geographic scope, spearhead shaping appropriate framework conditions for innovation and assist in charting out policy roadmaps for sustainable and inclusive growth.

With this in mind Deity and EPO is working together in developing a close cooperation to promote IPR in ICTE domain, especially with respect to sharing of best practices and procedures for filing and processing ICTE patents in India and Europe by Indian and European firms.

The one day conference on “India-Europe Conference on Building a Sustainable IPR-ICT Ecosystem for Promoting Innovation” organised by Centre for Development of Advanced Computing (C-DAC), a premier R&D organisation, aims to address the challenges in building a sustainable global IPR-ICT ecosystem, discuss IP policy issues relevant to Indian and European ICTE industries and concord on various nuances of patenting technology and activities with an ICTE perspective.

Sessions

Parallel 1

11.00 - 13.00: Challenges and Opportunities in Building a Sustainable Global IPR Ecosystem for Promotion of Innovation in ICTE Sector
14.00 - 15.30: IPR Policy Perspective for Promoting Innovation -India and Europe

Parallel 2

14.00 - 15.30: Standard Essential Patent Issues and Perspective with regard to ICTE
15.45 - 17.15: Patent Information and Analysis: A Tool for Building Business Strategies

For more information and brochure of the event, visit this website.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/india-europe-conference-on-building-a-sustainable-ipr-ict-ecosystem-for-promoting-innovation

Guerrilla GLAMː An alternate way of doing GLAM in indie-way

subha — 2015-12-16T03:09:47Z

I have been working on a concept called the Guerrilla GLAM. Here is a very quick summary about the concept that was published in the GLAM-wiki newsletter for November.

GLAM stands for cultural institutions like Galleries, Libraries, Archives and Museums. It is a globally acclaimed free knowledge movement for opening up cultural data using various free software platforms as a tool. GLAM activities include collaboration with cultural institutions, data mining, meta data and other documentation of institutional collections, digitization of published works, records and artifacts, and publishing the collected information in both human and machine readable forms with open standards. Building partnership with GLAM institutions is a great way of funneling the cultural content acquisition and bringing open access to such valuable data. But it is not that easy given the complications each country have in terms of formal agreement, organizational framework, and dissemination of information. "Guerrilla GLAM" techniques are based on the learning curve of institutional partnership building for large scale GLAM projects and leveraging personal contacts in small scale GLAM projects. It bring in several frugal strategies for cutting cost implication and operating in flexible modes. Guerrilla GLAM's range of work aims to accommodate people of different core expertise and it targets small to large orgaizations.

Guerrilla GLAM appeared first as a public presentation during Wikimania which I presented this year. It later interested many GLAM practitioners of New Zealand who organized a webinar which provided a great platform to add many interesting ideas to my existing set of ideas. Guerrilla GLAM is still a budding concept that aims for being implemented by many cultural enthusiasts especially those who would like to document much about the artifacts, digitize old text from archives and manuscripts, and create meta data for institutional collections. Guerrilla GLAM operates with zero or with some informal institutional partnership with the institution and carried on the shoulders of the Wikimedians. The Wikimedians seek out for support from local communities, leverage the permissible access to institutional property and to some extent the personal relations with the institutions keeping the legal restrictions in mind, and do their best to acquire as much data as possible. Often times, near to zero cost Guerrilla GLAM projects with detailed planning with right kind of people on-board could yield more or less the same like any conventional GLAM project.

Click to read the original published on Wikimedia Blog on November 25, 2015.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/guerrilla-glam-an-alternate-way-of-doing-glam-in-indie-way

तीसरा फ्यूल जिल्ट कॉन्फ्रेंस और मोज़िला हैकाथन चेन्नई में संपन्न

praskrishna — 2015-12-15T07:51:39Z

तीसरा फ्यूल जिल्ट कॉन्फ्रेंस 2015 आज चेन्नई में संपन्न हुआ. भाषाई कंप्यूटिंग के लिए मानक भाषाई संसाधन और औज़ार बनाने में पिछले सात सालों से जुटी फ्यूल परियोजना के द्वारा 2013 में आरंभ किए गए इस सम्मेलन के प्रायोजक और आयोजक दुनिया की जानी-मानी कंपनियां मोज़िला, सी-डैक और रेड हैट हैं.

तीन दिवसीय यह सम्मेलन 20 नवंबर को चेन्नई के अन्ना विश्वविद्यालय के टैग ऑडिटोरियम में आरंभ हुआ. इसके उद्घाटन सत्र को मोज़िला के लोकलाइजेशन ड्राइवर एक्सेल हेच्ट, आईआईटी मद्रास की प्रोफ़ेसर हेमा मूर्ति, आईआईटी मद्रास के ही हेमचंद्रण कराह और सीडैक के सहायक निदेशक जसजीत सिंह ने संबोधित किया. पहले दिन के शाम के पैनल डिसक्शन में मोज़िला की पेइंग मो और आर्की तथा अवाया के जी. करूणाकर और फ्यूल प्रोजेक्ट के संस्थापक राजेश रंजन के मॉडरेशन में खुली परिचर्चा हुई. पहले दिन के कार्यक्रम में भाषाई कंप्यूटिंग पर काम करने वाले कई जाने-माने विद्वानों ने हिस्सा लिया.

तमिलनाडु के स्थानीय भाषाई तकनीक विशेषज्ञों के अलावा इस सम्मेलन में भारत और नेपाल के विभिन्न भाषा-भाषाई करीब पचास से अधिक लोग उपस्थित हुए. तीन दिवसीय इस सम्मेलन का पहला दिन सभी लोगों के लिए खुला था जबकि अगला दो दिन मोज़िला लोकलाइजेशन हैकाथन का कार्यक्रम चला जिसके लिए सहभागी ख़ास तौर पर आमंत्रित किए गए थे.

लोकलाइजेशन स्रोत भाषा से स्थानीय भाषा में किसी उत्पाद को बदलने की पूरी तकनीकी प्रक्रिया को कहा जाता है. इसके अंतर्गत मोज़िला के विभिन्न उत्पादों के लोकलाइजेशन यानी स्थानीयकरण की प्रक्रिया, उसमें सुधार और भविष्य की कार्ययोजना पर विस्तार से चर्चा हुई. पूरे कार्यक्रम का संचालन सी-डैक के तकनीकी अधिकारी चंद्रकांत धूताडमल ने किया.

उद्घाटन सत्र का आरंभ करते हुए फ़्यूल प्रोजेक्ट के संस्थापक राजेश रंजन ने फ़्यूल प्रोजेक्ट के बारे में उपस्थित श्रोताओं को बताया. उन्होंने बताया कि महज सामुदायिक योगदान और कुछ संगठनों की मदद के बदौलत भाषाई संसाधन का यह प्रोजेक्ट दुनिया की भाषाई संसाधन जैसे तकनीकी शब्दावली, स्टाइल गाइड आदि की सबसे बड़ी खुली परियोजना बन गई है. मानक तकनीकी शब्दावली, स्टाइल गाइड, ट्रांसलेशन एसेसमेंट मैट्रिक्स सहित कई महत्वपूर्ण संसाधनों से लैस यह प्रोजेक्ट विश्वव्यापी भाषाई संदर्भ का बड़ा अभिलेख बन गया है.

गौरतलब है कि दुनिया की क़रीब 60 भाषाओं के भाषा समुदाय अभी इस परिजोयना से जुड़ी हुई है. मोज़िला के एक्सेल हेच्ट ने भारत में बढ़ रहे इंटरनेट उपयोगकर्ताओं के महत्व को रेखांकित करते हुए बताया कि मोज़िला और इसके खुले मूल्यों की उपस्थिति कितनी इनके लिए कितनी महत्वपूर्ण है. हेमा मूर्ति ने कहा कि अभी भी भाषाई कंप्यूटिंग की स्थिति काफी अच्छी नहीं हुई है और इस क्षेत्र में काफी काम होना बाकी हैं. जसजीत सिंह ने कहा कि कुछ और बड़ी कंपनियों के साथ फ़्यूल का जुड़ाव होना जरूरी है और उन कंपनियों को सामुदायिक रूप से तैयार किए गए संसाधन के महत्व को समझना चाहिए. ‘समानता के चिह्न और डिजिटल मानविकी का विकास’ विषय पर हेमचंद्रण का वक्तव्य बेहद उम्दा रहा. उन्होंने कहा कि डिजिटल मानविकी ने पारंपरिक मानविकी को हैक कर लिया है. उन्होंने कहा कि हमें महज इंटरफेस स्तरीय लोकलाइजेशन से ऊपर उठना चाहिए.

कार्यक्रम में लिब्रेऑफिस के इटालो विग्नोली, हमारा लिनक्स के विकास तारा, इतिहासकार रविकांत और जाने-माने ब्लॉगर रवि रतलामी ने भी अपना वक्तव्य दिया. भाषाई तकनीक विशेषज्ञ बिराज कर्माकर, प्रवीण ए, शुभाशीष पाणिग्रही, वीथिका मिश्रा, प्रवीण सतपुते, चंदन कुमार, राजू विंदाने सहित कई लोगों ने अपना वक्तव्य दिया. मोज़िला के एक्सेल हेच्ट, पेइंग मो और आर्की के दिशा-निर्देश में अंतिम दो दिन विभिन्न भाषाओं में काम करने वाले लोगों ने व्यापक परिचर्चा के दौरान कई विषयों पर बातें की और उपस्थित लोगों ने मोज़िला की स्वयंसेवी गतिविधियों के भविष्य की कार्ययोजना बनाई.

Read the original published by Aaj Tak on November 24, 2015.

और भी... http://aajtak.intoday.in/story/third-fuel-conference-completed-in-chennai-1-843428.html

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/news/92494093893093e-92b94d92f942932-91c93f93294d91f-91594992894d92b94d930947902938-914930-92e94b91c93c93f93293e-93994891593e925928-91a94792894d928908-92e947902-93890292a92894d928

तीसरा फ्यूल कॉन्फ्रेंस और मोज़िला हैकाथन संपन्न

praskrishna — 2015-12-15T08:00:16Z

तीसरा फ़्यूल ज़िल्ट कॉन्फ्रेंस 2015, 22 नवंबर को चेन्नई में संपन्न हुआ. भाषाई कंप्यूटिंग के लिए मानक संसाधन बनाने में पिछले सात सालों से जुटी फ़्यूल परियोजना के द्वारा 2013 में आरंभ किए गए इस सम्मेलन के प्रायोजक और आयोजक दुनिया की जानी-मानी कंपनिया मोज़िला, सी-डैक और रेड हैट हैं.

The article was published by Surkhiyan on November 23, 2015.

तीन दिवसीय यह सम्मेलन 20 नवंबर को आरंभ हुआ. इसके उद्घाटन सत्र को मोज़िला के लोकलाइजेशन ड्राइवर एक्सेल हेच्ट, आईआईटी मद्रास की प्रोफ़ेसर हेमा मूर्ति, आईआईटी मद्रास के ही हेमचंद्रण कराह और सीडैक के सहायक निदेशक जसजीत सिंह ने संबोधित किया.

पहले दिन के शाम के पैनल डिसक्शन में मोज़िला की पेइंग मो और आर्की तथा अवाया के जी. करूणाकर और फ्यूल प्रोजेक्ट के संस्थापक राजेश रंजन के मॉडरेशन में खुली परिचर्चा हुई. पहले दिन के कार्यक्रम में कई जाने-माने भाषाई कंप्यूटिंग पर काम करने वाले विद्वानों ने हिस्सा लिया.

तमिलनाडु के स्थानीय भाषाई तकनीक विशेषज्ञों के अलावा इस सम्मेलन में भारत और नेपाल के विभिन्न भाषा-भाषाई हिस्से के करीब पचास से अधिक लोग उपस्थित हुए. तीन दिवसीय इस सम्मेलन का पहला दिन सभी लोगों के लिए खुला था जबकि अगला दो दिन मोज़िला लोकलाइजेशन हैकाथन का कार्यक्रम चला जिसके लिए सहभागी ख़ास तौर पर आमंत्रित किए गए थे.

लोकलाइजेशन किसी स्रोत भाषा से स्थानीय भाषा में किसी उत्पाद को बदलने की पूरी प्रक्रिया को कहा जाता है. इसके अंतर्गत मोज़िला के विभिन्न उत्पादों के लोकलाइजेशन यानी स्थानीयकरण की प्रक्रिया, उसमें सुधार और भविष्य की कार्ययोजना पर विस्तार से चर्चा हुई. पूरे कार्यक्रम का संचालन सी-डैक के तकनीकी अधिकारी चंद्रकांत धूताडमल ने किया.

उद्घाटन सत्र का आरंभ करते हुए फ़्यूल प्रोजेक्ट के संस्थापक राजेश रंजन ने फ़्यूल प्रोजेक्ट के बारे में उपस्थित श्रोताओं को बताया. उन्होंने बताया कि महज सामुदायिक योगदान और कुछ संगठनों की मदद के बदौलत भाषाई संसाधन का यह प्रोजेक्ट दुनिया का सबसे बड़ी खुली परियोजना बन गई है. मानक तकनीकी शब्दावली, स्टाइल गाइड, ट्रांसलेशन एसेसमेंट मैट्रिक्स सहित कई महत्वपूर्ण संसाधनों से लैस यह प्रोजेक्ट विश्वव्यापी भाषाई संदर्भ का बड़ा अभिलेख बन गया है.

गौरतलब है कि दुनिया की क़रीब 60 भाषाओं के भाषा समुदाय अभी इस परिजोयना से जुड़ी हुई है. मोज़िला के एक्सेल ने भारत में बढ़ रहे इंटरनेट उपयोगकर्ताओं के महत्व को रेखांकित करते हुए बताया कि मोज़िला और इसके खुले मूल्यों की उपस्थिति कितनी महत्वपूर्ण है. हेमा मू्र्ति ने कहा कि अभी भी भाषाई कंप्यूटिंग की स्थिति काफी अच्छी नहीं हुई है और इस क्षेत्र में काफी काम किए जाने बाकी हैं.

जसजीत सिंह ने कहा कि कुछ और बड़ी कंपनियों के साथ फ़्यूल का जुड़ाव होना जरूरी है और उन कंपनियों को सामुदायिक रूप से तैयार किए गए संसाधन के महत्व को समझना चाहिए. समानता के चिह्न और डिजिटल मानविकी का विकास पर हेमचंद्रण का वक्तव्य बेहद उम्दा रहा. उन्होंने कहा कि डिजिटल मानविकी ने पारंपरिक मानविकी को हैक कर लिया है. उन्होंने कहा कि हमें महज इंटरफेस स्तरीय लोकलाइजेशन से ऊपर उठना चाहिए.

कार्यक्रम में लिब्रेऑफिस के इटालो विग्नोली, हमारा लिनक्स के विकास तारा, इतिहासकार रविकांत और जाने-माने ब्लॉगर रवि रतलामी ने भी अपना वक्तव्य दिया. भाषाई तकनीक विशेषज्ञ बिराज कर्माकर, प्रवीण ए, शुभाशीष पाणिग्रही, वीथिका मिश्रा, प्रवीण सतपुते, चंदन कुमार, राजू विंदाने सहित कई लोगों ने अपना वक्तव्य दिया.

मोज़िला के एक्सेल हेच्ट, पेइंग मो और आर्की के दिशा-निर्देश में अंतिम दो दिनों तक विभिन्न भाषाओं में काम करने वाले लोगों ने व्यापक परिचर्चा के दौरान कई विषयों पर बातें की और उपस्थित लोगों ने मोज़िला की स्वयंसेवी गतिविधियों के भविष्य की कार्ययोजना बनाई.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/news/surkhiyan-november-23-2015-fuel-gilt-conference

तेसर फ्यूल कॉन्फरेंस आओर मोज़िला हैकाथन संपन्न

praskrishna — 2015-12-15T07:59:47Z

तेसरा फ़्यूल ज़िल्ट कॉन्फरेंस 2015 23 तारिख कए चेन्नई मे संपन्न भेल ।

The article was published by esamaad on November 19, 2015.

भाषाई कंप्यूटिंगक लेल मानक संसाधन बनेबा मे पिछला सात साल स लागल फ़्यूल परियोजना दिस स 2013 मे शुरू करल गेल एहि सम्मेलन क प्रायोजक आओर आयोजक दुनिया क जानल-मानल कंपनी मोज़िला, सी-डैक आओर रेड हैट छल। तीन दिवसीय इ सम्मेलन 20 नवंबर कए आरंभ भेल। एकर उद्घाटन सत्र कए मोज़िला क लोकलाइजेशन ड्राइवर एक्सेल हेच्ट, आईआईटी मद्रास क प्रोफ़ेसर हेमा मूर्ति, आईआईटी मद्रासे क हेमचंद्रण कराह आओर सीडैक क सहायक निदेशक जसजीत सिंह संबोधित केलथि‍। पहि‍ल दिन क सांझक पैनल डिसक्शन मे मोज़िला क पेइंग मो आओर आर्की आ अवाया क जी. करूणाकर आओर फ्यूल प्रोजेक्ट क संस्थापक राजेश रंजन क मॉडरेशन मे खुजल परिचर्चा भेल। पहि‍ल दिन क कार्यक्रम मे कैकटा जानल-मानल भाषाई कंप्यूटिंग पर काज करय बला विद्वान हिस्सा लेलथि‍ ।

तमिलनाडु क स्थानीय भाषाई तकनीकी विशेषज्ञ क अलावा एहि सम्मेलन मे भारत आओर नेपाल क विभिन्न भाषा-भाषाई हिस्सा क करीब पचास स बेसी लोग उपस्थित छलाह। तीन दिवसीय एहि सम्मेलन क पहि‍ल दिन सभ लेल खुलल छल जखनकि अगि‍ला दू दिन मोज़िला लोकलाइजेशन हैकाथन क कार्यक्रम चलल जेकरा लेल सहभागी ख़ास तौर पर आमंत्रित कैल गेल छलाह। लोकलाइजेशन कोनो स्रोत भाषा से स्थानीय भाषा मे कोनो उत्पाद कए बदलबा क पूरा प्रक्रिया कए कहल जाएत छल। एहिक अंतर्गत मोज़िलाक विभिन्न उत्पाद क लोकलाइजेशन यानी स्थानीयकरण क प्रक्रिया, ओहि मे सुधार आओर भविष्य क कार्ययोजना पर विस्तार स चर्चा भेल। पूरा कार्यक्रम क संचालन सी-डैक क तकनीकी अधिकारी चंद्रकांत धूताडमल केलथि‍।

उद्घाटन सत्र क आरंभ करैत फ़्यूल प्रोजेक्ट क संस्थापक राजेश रंजन फ़्यूल प्रोजेक्ट क बारे मे उपस्थित श्रोता क बतेलथि‍ – ओ बतेलथि‍ कि खालि सामुदायिक योगदान आओर कि‍छु संगठनक मदति क बदौलत भाषाई संसाधन क इ प्रोजेक्ट दुनिया क सबसे पैघ खुलल परियोजना बनि‍ गेल छल। मानक तकनीकी शब्दावली, स्टाइल गाइड, ट्रांसलेशन एसेसमेंट मैट्रिक्स सहित कैकटा महत्वपूर्ण संसाधन स लैस इ प्रोजेक्ट विश्वव्यापी भाषाई संदर्भ क बड़का अभिलेख बनि‍ गेल छल। गौरतलब अछि कि दुनिया क क़रीब 60 भाषा क भाषा समुदाय अखैन एहि परिजोयना स जुड़ल छल। मोज़िला क एक्सेल भारत मे बढ़ि‍ रहल इंटरनेट उपयोगकर्ताओं क महत्व कए रेखांकित करैत बतेलथि‍ कि मोज़िला आओर एकर खुलल मूल्य क उपस्थिति कतेक महत्वपूर्ण अछि। हेमा मू्र्ति क‍हलथि‍ कि अखनो भाषाई कंप्यूटिंग क स्थिति बेसी नीक नहि भेल है आओर एहि क्षेत्र मे आरो काज केनाय बाकी अछि। जसजीत सिंह कहलथि‍ कि कि‍छु आओर पैघ कंपनी क संग फ़्यूल क जुड़ाव भेनाय जरूरी अछि आओर उ कंपनी सब कए सामुदायिक रूप से तैयार कैल गेल संसाधन क महत्व कए बुझनाय चाही। समानता क चिह्न आओर डिजिटल मानविकी क विकास पर हेमचंद्रण क वक्तव्य बहुत उम्दा छल। ओ कहलथि‍ कि डिजिटल मानविकी पारंपरिक मानविकी कए हैक कए लेने अछि । ओ कहलथि‍ कि हमरा खाली इंटरफेस स्तरीय लोकलाइजेशन स ऊपर उठबा चाही।

कार्यक्रम मे लिब्रेऑफिस क इटालो विग्नोली, हमारा लिनक्स क विकास तारा, इतिहासकार रविकांत आओर जानल-मानल ब्लॉगर रवि रतलामी सेहो अपन वक्तव्य देलथि‍। भाषाई तकनीक विशेषज्ञ बिराज कर्माकर, प्रवीण ए, शुभाशीष पाणिग्रही, वीथिका मिश्रा, प्रवीण सतपुते, चंदन कुमार, राजू विंदाने सहित कैकटा लोग सेहो अपन वक्तव्य देलथि‍।

मोज़िलाक एक्सेल हेच्ट, पेइंग मो आओर आर्की क दिशा-निर्देश मे अंतिम दू दिन तक विभिन्न भाषा मे काज करय बला लोगक व्यापक परिचर्चा क दौरान कैकटा विषय पर बात भेल आओर उपस्थित लोग मोज़िला क स्वयंसेवी गतिविधियों क भविष्यक कार्ययोजना बनेलथ‍ि।

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/news/esamaad-november-19-2015-third-fuel-conference-completed-in-chennai

ଅନ୍‌ଲାଇନରେ ପଢ଼ିହେବ ଜଗନ୍ନାଥ ପ୍ରସାଦ ଦାସଙ୍କ ୩୦ଟି ବହି

praskrishna — 2015-12-15T08:03:34Z

Noted Odia-language author and art historian Dr Jagannath Prasad Das has donated 30 volumes of his books under CC-by-SA 4.0 so that the books could now be digitised in Odia Wikisource.

Earlier Bhubaneswar based non-profit Srujanika had donated over 700 books. Two hundred and nineteen books including entire Odia Bhagabata and many other classics have already been digitised on Odia Wikisource. The collection is growing slowly with more books being digitised by volunteer Wikisourcers.

Read the original published by Sambad epaper on November 19, 2015.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/news/dr-jagannath-prasad-das-donates-30-volumes-of-his-books-under-cc-by-sa-4.0

National IPR Policy: Mapping the Stakeholders’ Response

Akshath Mithal — 2015-11-24T15:02:17Z

The first draft of the National IPR Policy was released last December. Following that, a plethora of comments and suggestions was submitted to the DIPP on the same. In this post, I will focus on the comments that were available online and analyse the trends that I was able to find in the same and also highlight the many suggestions put forth by the stakeholders.

Nehaa Chaudhari provided inputs and feedback and also edited this post.

I. Introduction

On 24^th December 2014, the IPR Think Tank constituted by the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) officially released the first draft of the National IPR Policy. Following this, in a press release dated 30^th December, 2014, the DIPP called for comments and suggestions on the draft from all stakeholders. CIS, through an RTI, asked the DIPP to disclose all the comments received by it. However, the DIPP’s reply, rather vague, stated that it is not in the position to provide the same. (Further details here).

II. Research Methodology

In this post, I have compiled and compared the various submissions that I was able to find online in a SpicyIP post and will provide an analysis of the same.

The spreadsheet that I have created contains a compilation of the many issues that were raised by 15 stakeholders of various affiliations (organisations/scholars/unions). This spreadsheet was put together after reading each submission carefully, and summarizing the same. After dividing the contents of the submissions into the various issues, they were put under certain heads in this sheet. Though there were a few ideas covered by certain submissions that have not been tabulated, all the major and important ones have been covered, in my opinion.

On the basis of this spreadsheet, the following observations have been made on the feedback of the many stakeholders on the various aspects of the draft.

III. Stakeholders - A Statistical Analyis

A total of 15 submissions were taken into consideration for the purpose of this post, and all of them applauded the government for recognizing of the need for a comprehensive policy on IP and the DIPP’s efforts to give the public a chance to play a role in the process of formation of a policy that would affect the country and its economy significantly. However, each submission had its own set of criticisms and suggestions to the various aspects dealt with by the policy. In my analysis there are three broad categories that the stakeholders can be divided into:

Research organisations/NGOs.
Industrial representative bodies/Political organisations.
Scholars/Academia.

A representation of the stakeholders and the categories that they belong to has been produced below.

Categories	Stakeholders
Research organisations/NGOs	Centre for Internet and Society (CIS); Consumer Unity & Trust Society (CUTS); Software Freedom Law Centre (SFLC); Centre for Law & Policy Research (CLPR).
Industrial representative bodies/Political organisations	Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO); National Association of Manufacturers (NAM); International Trademark Association (INTA); IP Federation – UK; ICC’s Business Action to Stop Counterfeiting and Piracy (BASCAP); Swadeshi Jagaran Manch (SJM); American Chamber of Commerce (AmCham – India).
Scholars/Academia	Centre for Intellectual Property and Technology Law – O.P. Jindal Global University (CIPTEL); S. Ragavan, B. Baker, S. Flynn; Adv. Ravindra Chingale – NLU Delhi; Prof. N.S. Gopalakrishnan & Dr T.G. Agitha – CUSAT.

Out of the comments studied, the largest chunk of stakeholders (46.67%) belonged to the industrial/manufacturing sector, with the other two categories comprising only 26.67% each. This could be attributed to the fact that a country’s IPR policy has a very vital role to play in influencing an industrial firm’s strategy and an unsatisfactory policy could have a serious and adverse effect on the profit-making abilities of an industry.

IV. IP - Innovation / Growth Nexus

There are a total of 13 themes that have been identified in the spreadsheet, and out of these 13, the one that the largest number of stakeholders has commented on is the question of there being nexus between intellectual property, innovation and growth. Eleven out of the fifteen stakeholders have given their opinion on this issue.

The opinion on this theme is not very uniform. Some organisations are of the opinion that there is a strong correlation between robust IPR protection mechanisms and innovation in a country, and thus there is a resultant benefit to the economy of the country. For example, the IP Federation of UK claimed that with a strong IPR regime, there is a greater inflow of FDI and R&D expenditure in countries, thus benefitting the country’s economy. On the other hand, there are some stakeholders who believe that there is no nexus and that the underlying assumption made by the draft policy is not backed by any research or evidence. The Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), for example, even cites evidence in its submission to oppose this assumption. The smallest chunk of stakeholders suggests to the Think Tank that in the current draft, there is not enough authority cited by them, and thus, there should be some research that must be done in order to give this assumption some backing. CIPTEL, a research centre based in OP Jindal Global University, stated that there should be a transparent survey conducted on this issue by a neutral agency.

The figure below would give the reader a comparative analysis of the responses from the stakeholders on this particular theme.

All the research organisations/NGOs that presented their views on this assumption are in opposition to the same and have proposed to the Think Tank that it should amend the contents of the policy after taking this incorrectly-made assumption out of the mix.

A majority of the industrial bodies have supported the existence of a nexus and have stated that by enforcing stronger IPR protection laws, the innovative/inventive environment of a country develops and this in turn encourages investors, which culminates into a rise in the growth of the economy.

Scholars and academia have a difference of opinion amongst themselves and there is no uniform pattern that can be seen in their responses to this issue.

The only political organisation in this analysis, the Swadeshi Jagaran Manch opposes the assumption and states that the policy has turned a blind eye to the development of the country and that there is no analysis on whether there is any effect of the proposed strengthening of IP protection on the various sectors of the economy.

V. International Treaties

The policy, in its introduction states the following stance on negotiation of international treaties and agreements – “In future negotiations in international forums and with other countries, India shall continue to give precedence to its national development priorities whilst adhering to its international commitments and avoiding TRIPS plus provisions.”

On this general theme, 9 out of 15 stakeholders have submitted their comments to the Think Tank. Out of these 9, the category-wise division of the stakeholders is represented by the diagram below.

The opinion of the stakeholders on this issue varied and there were broadly 3 kinds of responses that were found in the analysis. More than half of these responses (56%) suggested that all negotiations of treaties must be done transparently, with proper consultation of all stakeholders. CUTS, for example, recommended that to increase the confidence of the people in the country’s IP regime, the negotiations must be done with the opinion of all stakeholders being taken into consideration. They also cautioned the government to make sure that any future agreements do not contain any TRIPS-plus provisions. The second category applauded the policy’s pro-global stance towards IPR developments, and has recommended certain treaties that India must sign in order to strengthen its regime (details in spreadsheet). Only one stakeholder, the National Association of Manufacturers of the USA suggested that India’s stance of avoiding TRIPS-plus agreements is in contravention to its objective of keeping up with global IP developments. This point of view is clearly in favour of the USA as TRIPS-plus provisions have always been more beneficial to developed countries than developing countries like India.

Thus, it can be said that almost 90% of stakeholders, from across categories, are satisfied with India’s pro-international stance, and only want the government to be cautious and consult the public before signing treaties on IPR.

VI. Utility Models

A provision to legalise utility model protection was also a part of the draft policy. Utility models or petty patents are suggested by the policy in order to protect parties like MSMEs and their many innovations which may not satisfy the requirements of regular patent protection and thus losing out from IPR protection, leading to benefits not being reaped properly from these inventions.

This provision was commented on by eight of the 15 stakeholders, making it a little above half of the total. A category-wise division can be found below.

The opinion on utility models was majorly negative across categories, with 75% of the stakeholders believing that utility model protection must be given a second thought and many drawbacks were pointed out such as frivolous litigation, uncertainty in the market, and a drop in the quality of innovation registered in the country. A review of how effective utility model laws are in other countries was suggested before making any final decision. Only 2 out of the 8 stakeholders supported the provision for petty patents and stated that this would give a good means of protection to ‘jugaad’ innovations that are very popular in India and thus believed that such laws would help increase the innovation levels in the country.

VII. Public Funded Research Labs and Universities

Only four stakeholders had a say on the issue of grants to Government labs and universities, these organisations being Indian research organisations and academia. The opinion varied from party to party and the Centre for Internet and Society argued that if there was a rise in IP protection for government funded research, it would be against the vision of free and open access to research funded by taxpayers’ money.

The other three stakeholders, namely CIPTEL, CUTS and Adv. Ravindra Chingale emphasised on the importance of merit-based funding instead of funding on the basis of whether an organisation is Government-owned or not. Two of these also suggested that there must be a system of contact between industry and academia to incentivise and utilize innovation properly.

VIII. Limitations and Flexibilities

A very important aspect of any IPR regime is the presence of limitations, exceptions and flexibilities on the rights protected by IP laws, as it allows for the appropriate amount of information being shared for free or at reasonable costs, for furtherance of public interest.

On this vital issue, most stakeholders had a say and the trends of the feedback on the limitations and flexibilities on IP protection were as expected. There were two broad sets of opinions that could be gathered from the analysis, and while there was a majority (62.5%) of organisations and people who believed that the government must keep up its efforts of providing a good framework for exceptions to IPR protection with measures like compulsory licensing being put in place in order to protect broader interests of the country such as access to reasonably priced medicines and other necessities. The only recommendation that they had was that these measures should be decided after a careful analysis of what the economy really needed in order to develop further.

The opposition, quite understandably came from international industrial bodies representing manufacturers and intellectual property owners who argued that the policy of limitations to IPR protection is discouraging those who want to invest in the country and that it hurts the business of foreign-based companies that operate in India or want to do so in the near future as their intellectual property may not be protected adequately with such a policy in place.

The figure above clearly points out that none of those against limitations being placed on IP protection had an Indian background and all those in favour of the same were primarily Indian-based organisations and academics, with the exception of the American scholars – S. Ragavan, B. Baker, and S. Flynn.

IX. Trademarks

Only a single stakeholder, the International Trademark Association, was interested in the issue of trademarks. This can be attributed to the fact that this is the only association out of all the stakeholders having a direct interest in trademark law and policy. The organisation suggested that there should be a greater amount of clarity in the trademark examination process and also suggested that there should be an increase in the number of examiners to make the process of trademark registration quicker.

X. Trade Secrets

In objective 3 of the draft policy, the Think Tank suggests that to strengthen the IP framework of the country, trade secret protection must be introduced as a formal law. India, today, does not have a law to protect sensitive trading information and there needs to be a formalised contract for there to be any relief for leaking of such information.

The stakeholders supporting the enactment of trade secret legislation were interestingly all industrial bodies representing international companies and firms. Only 2 parties expressed their worries about such a law, and argued that there must be more backing to make this recommendation more convincing. A graphical representation of the stakeholders is given below to provide a clearer picture of the responses.

This chart portrays clearly that international bodies are insistent on the enactment of a trade secret law as this would help incentivise knowledge sharing in the country. In many countries, trade secret protection is formalised legally and these stakeholders argue that for foreign multinationals to feel confident while sharing sensitive information with others in India, the government must follow in the footsteps of such countries and legislate on this matter soon.

XI. On Specialised Courts

A common suggestion found across 5 of the 15 stakeholder responses was for the creation of a specialised IP judiciary that would be formed by widening the patent bench that was proposed in the draft policy. Such a court would deal only with issues of intellectual property and would consist of judges having special knowledge in the various branches of IP law.

XII. Conclusion

The draft policy was released almost a year ago, and since then, much discussion has taken place on the same, with many contradictory opinions and suggestions on the various aspects of the policy. It can be observed from this compilation that industrial bodies have been insistent on stronger IP protection and more incentives to multinationals to invest in India in the form of trade secret legislations, keeping limitations such as compulsory licensing to a minimum, et al.

On the other hand, a trend could be seen of research organisations and academia having a view that was more in the interest of the public and with the Indian scenario taken into consideration, with the criticism of utility models, TRIPS-plus agreements, and by raising the question of whether the assumption underlying the draft of there being a link between IP protection and a rise in innovation had any basis whatsoever. This post, however, is only a glimpse of the stakeholders’ responses owing to the fact that the DIPP has not officially released the submissions made to it and only the ones that were available online have been taken into consideration.

It is only a matter of time that the Think Tank releases the final policy and one shall hope that this tedious process of seeking comments and suggestions will bear any fruit with the policy being a balanced one and being aimed ultimately towards the benefit of the country as a whole.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/national-ipr-policy-mapping-the-stakeholders2019-response

The Procedure of CCI in cases of Anti-Competitive Agreements and Abuse of Dominant Position: A Flow-Chart

Sarthak Sood — 2015-11-24T13:59:11Z

The Competition Act, 2002 defines and prohibits two things- Anti-Competitive Agreements, and Abuse of Dominant Position. The cases under the Competition Act are adjudicated upon by a special tribunal called the Competition Commission of India. As with any judicial or quasi-judicial authority, the Commission is bound by certain procedures to give effect to its duties. The following flow-chart, then, explains such procedures as followed by the CCI in adjudicating upon matters concerning anti-competitive agreements and abuse of dominant position.

Nehaa Chaudhari provided feedback, inputs and edits to this post.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/the-procedure-of-cci-in-cases-of-anti-competitive-agreements-and-abuse-of-dominant-position-a-flow-chart

Summary Report Internet Governance Forum 2015

jyoti — 2015-11-30T10:47:13Z

Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), India participated in the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) held at Poeta Ronaldo Cunha Lima Conference Center, Joao Pessoa in Brazil from 10 November 2015 to 13 November 2015. The theme of IGF 2015 was ‘Evolution of Internet Governance: Empowering Sustainable Development’. Sunil Abraham, Pranesh Prakash & Jyoti Panday from CIS actively engaged and made substantive contributions to several key issues affecting internet governance at the IGF 2015. The issue-wise detail of their engagement is set out below.

INTERNET GOVERNANCE

I. The Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group to the IGF organised a discussion on Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and Internet Economy at the Main Meeting Hall from 9:00 am to 12:30 pm on 11 November, 2015. The discussions at this session focused on the importance of Internet Economy enabling policies and eco-system for the fulfilment of different SDGs. Several concerns relating to internet entrepreneurship, effective ICT capacity building, protection of intellectual property within and across borders were availability of local applications and content were addressed. The panel also discussed the need to identify SDGs where internet based technologies could make the most effective contribution. Sunil Abraham contributed to the panel discussions by addressing the issue of development and promotion of local content and applications. List of speakers included:

Lenni Montiel, Assistant-Secretary-General for Development, United Nations
Helani Galpaya, CEO LIRNEasia
Sergio Quiroga da Cunha, Head of Latin America, Ericsson
Raúl L. Katz, Adjunct Professor, Division of Finance and Economics, Columbia Institute of Tele-information
Jimson Olufuye, Chairman, Africa ICT Alliance (AfICTA)
Lydia Brito, Director of the Office in Montevideo, UNESCO
H.E. Rudiantara, Minister of Communication & Information Technology, Indonesia
Daniel Sepulveda, Deputy Assistant Secretary, U.S. Coordinator for International and Communications Policy at the U.S. Department of State
Deputy Minister Department of Telecommunications and Postal Services for the republic of South Africa
Sunil Abraham, Executive Director, Centre for Internet and Society, India
H.E. Junaid Ahmed Palak, Information and Communication Technology Minister of Bangladesh
Jari Arkko, Chairman, IETF
Silvia Rabello, President, Rio Film Trade Association
Gary Fowlie, Head of Member State Relations & Intergovernmental Organizations, ITU

Detailed description of the workshop is available here http ://www .intgovforum .org /cms /igf 2015-main -sessions

Transcript of the workshop is available here http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/187-igf-2015/transcripts-igf-2015/2327-2015-11-11-internet-economy-and-sustainable-development-main-meeting-room

Video link Internet economy and Sustainable Development here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6obkLehVE8

II. Public Knowledge organised a workshop on The Benefits and Challenges of the Free Flow of Data at Workshop Room 5 from 11:00 am to 12:00 pm on 12 November, 2015. The discussions in the workshop focused on the benefits and challenges of the free flow of data and also the concerns relating to data flow restrictions including ways to address them. Sunil Abraham contributed to the panel discussions by addressing the issue of jurisdiction of data on the internet. The panel for the workshop included the following.

Vint Cerf, Google
Lawrence Strickling, U.S. Department of Commerce, NTIA
Richard Leaning, European Cyber Crime Centre (EC3), Europol
Marietje Schaake, European Parliament
Nasser Kettani, Microsoft
Sunil Abraham, CIS India

Detailed description of the workshop is available here http ://www .intgovforum .org /cms /workshops /list -of -published -workshop -proposals

Transcript of the workshop is available here http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/187-igf-2015/transcripts-igf-2015/2467-2015-11-12-ws65-the-benefits-and-challenges-of-the-free-flow-of-data-workshop-room-5

Video link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtjnHkOn7EQ

III. Article 19 and Privacy International organised a workshop on Encryption and Anonymity: Rights and Risks at Workshop Room 1 from 11:00 am to 12:30 pm on 12 November, 2015. The workshop fostered a discussion about the latest challenges to protection of anonymity and encryption and ways in which law enforcement demands could be met while ensuring that individuals still enjoyed strong encryption and unfettered access to anonymity tools. Pranesh Prakash contributed to the panel discussions by addressing concerns about existing south Asian regulatory framework on encryption and anonymity and emphasizing the need for pervasive encryption. The panel for this workshop included the following.

David Kaye, UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression
Juan Diego Castañeda, Fundación Karisma, Colombia
Edison Lanza, Organisation of American States Special Rapporteur
Pranesh Prakash, CIS India
Ted Hardie, Google
Elvana Thaci, Council of Europe
Professor Chris Marsden, Oxford Internet Institute
Alexandrine Pirlot de Corbion, Privacy International

Detailed description of the workshop is available here http ://www .intgovforum .org /cms /worksh o ps /list -of -published -workshop -proposals

Transcript of the workshop is available here http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/187-igf-2015/transcripts-igf-2015/2407-2015-11-12-ws-155-encryption-and-anonymity-rights-and-risks-workshop-room-1

Video link available here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUrBP4PsfJo

IV. Chalmers & Associates organised a session on A Dialogue on Zero Rating and Network Neutrality at the Main Meeting Hall from 2:00 pm to 4:00 pm on 12 November, 2015. The Dialogue provided access to expert insight on zero-rating and a full spectrum of diverse views on this issue. The Dialogue also explored alternative approaches to zero rating such as use of community networks. Pranesh Prakash provided a detailed explanation of harms and benefits related to different approaches to zero-rating. The panellists for this session were the following.

Jochai Ben-Avie, Senior Global Policy Manager, Mozilla, USA
Igor Vilas Boas de Freitas, Commissioner, ANATEL, Brazil
Dušan Caf, Chairman, Electronic Communications Council, Republic of Slovenia
Silvia Elaluf-Calderwood, Research Fellow, London School of Economics, UK/Peru
Belinda Exelby, Director, Institutional Relations, GSMA, UK
Helani Galpaya, CEO, LIRNEasia, Sri Lanka
Anka Kovacs, Director, Internet Democracy Project, India
Kevin Martin, VP, Mobile and Global Access Policy, Facebook, USA
Pranesh Prakash, Policy Director, CIS India
Steve Song, Founder, Village Telco, South Africa/Canada
Dhanaraj Thakur, Research Manager, Alliance for Affordable Internet, USA/West Indies
Christopher Yoo, Professor of Law, Communication, and Computer & Information Science, University of Pennsylvania, USA

Detailed description of the workshop is available here http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/igf2015-main-sessions

Transcript of the workshop is available here http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/187-igf-2015/transcripts-igf-2015/2457-2015-11-12-a-dialogue-on-zero-rating-and-network-neutrality-main-meeting-hall-2

V. The Internet & Jurisdiction Project organised a workshop on Transnational Due Process: A Case Study in MS Cooperation at Workshop Room 4 from 11:00 am to 12:00 pm on 13 November, 2015. The workshop discussion focused on the challenges in developing an enforcement framework for the internet that guarantees transnational due process and legal interoperability. The discussion also focused on innovative approaches to multi-stakeholder cooperation such as issue-based networks, inter-sessional work methods and transnational policy standards. The panellists for this discussion were the following.

Anne Carblanc Head of Division, Directorate for Science, Technology and Industry, OECD
Eileen Donahoe Director Global Affairs, Human Rights Watch
Byron Holland President and CEO, CIRA (Canadian ccTLD)
Christopher Painter Coordinator for Cyber Issues, US Department of State
Sunil Abraham Executive Director, CIS India
Alice Munyua Lead dotAfrica Initiative and GAC representative, African Union Commission
Will Hudsen Senior Advisor for International Policy, Google
Dunja Mijatovic Representative on Freedom of the Media, OSCE
Thomas Fitschen Director for the United Nations, for International Cooperation against Terrorism and for Cyber Foreign Policy, German Federal Foreign Office
Hartmut Glaser Executive Secretary, Brazilian Internet Steering Committee
Matt Perault, Head of Policy Development Facebook

Detailed description of the workshop is available here http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals

Transcript of the workshop is available here http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/187-igf-2015/transcripts-igf-2015/2475-2015-11-13-ws-132-transnational-due-process-a-case-study-in-ms-cooperation-workshop-room-4

Video link Transnational Due Process: A Case Study in MS Cooperation available here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9jVovhQhd0

VI. The Internet Governance Project organised a meeting of the Dynamic Coalition on Accountability of Internet Governance Venues at Workshop Room 2 from 14:00 – 15:30 on 12 November, 2015. The coalition brought together panelists to highlight the challenges in developing an accountability framework for internet governance venues that include setting up standards and developing a set of concrete criteria. Jyoti Panday provided the perspective of civil society on why acountability is necessary in internet governance processes and organizations. The panelists for this workshop included the following.

Robin Gross, IP Justice
Jeanette Hofmann, Director Alexander von Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society
Farzaneh Badiei, Internet Governance Project
Erika Mann, Managing Director Public PolicyPolicy Facebook and Board of Directors ICANN
Paul Wilson, APNIC
Izumi Okutani, Japan Network Information Center (JPNIC)
Keith Drazek , Verisign
Jyoti Panday, CIS
Jorge Cancio, GAC representative

Detailed description of the workshop is available here http://igf2015.sched.org/event/4c23/dynamic-coalition-on-accountability-of-internet-governance-venues?iframe=no&w=&sidebar=yes&bg=no

Video link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIxyGhnch7w

VII. Digital Infrastructure Netherlands Foundation organized an open forum at Workshop Room 3 from 11:00 – 12:00 on 10 November, 2015. The open forum discussed the increase in government engagement with “the internet” to protect their citizens against crime and abuse and to protect economic interests and critical infrastructures. It brought together panelists topresent ideas about an agenda for the international protection of ‘the public core of the internet’ and to collect and discuss ideas for the formulation of norms and principles and for the identification of practical steps towards that goal. Pranesh Prakash participated in the e open forum. Other speakers included

Bastiaan Goslings AMS-IX, NL
Pranesh Prakash CIS, India
Marilia Maciel (FGV, Brasil
Dennis Broeders (NL Scientific Council for Government Policy)

Detailed description of the open forum is available here http://schd.ws/hosted_files/igf2015/3d/DINL_IGF_Open%20Forum_The_public_core_of_the_internet.pdf

Video link available here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joPQaMQasDQ

VIII. UNESCO, Council of Europe, Oxford University, Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights, Google, Internet Society organised a workshop on hate speech and youth radicalisation at Room 9 on Thursday, November 12. UNESCO shared the initial outcome from its commissioned research on online hate speech including practical recommendations on combating against online hate speech through understanding the challenges, mobilizing civil society, lobbying private sectors and intermediaries and educating individuals with media and information literacy. The workshop also discussed how to help empower youth to address online radicalization and extremism, and realize their aspirations to contribute to a more peaceful and sustainable world. Sunil Abraham provided his inputs. Other speakers include

1. Chaired by Ms Lidia Brito, Director for UNESCO Office in Montevideo

2.Frank La Rue, Former Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression

3. Lillian Nalwoga, President ISOC Uganda and rep CIPESA, Technical community

4. Bridget O’Loughlin, CoE, IGO

5. Gabrielle Guillemin, Article 19

6. Iyad Kallas, Radio Souriali

7. Sunil Abraham executive director of Center for Internet and Society, Bangalore, India

8. Eve Salomon, global Chairman of the Regulatory Board of RICS

9. Javier Lesaca Esquiroz, University of Navarra

10. Representative GNI

11. Remote Moderator: Xianhong Hu, UNESCO

12. Rapporteur: Guilherme Canela De Souza Godoi, UNESCO

Detailed description of the workshop is available here http://igf2015.sched.org/event/4c1X/ws-128-mitigate-online-hate-speech-and-youth-radicalisation?iframe=no&w=&sidebar=yes&bg=no

Video link to the panel is available here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIO1z4EjRG0

INTERMEDIARY LIABILITY

IX. Electronic Frontier Foundation, Centre for Internet Society India, Open Net Korea and Article 19 collaborated to organize a workshop on the Manila Principles on Intermediary Liability at Workshop Room 9 from 11:00 am to 12:00 pm on 13 November 2015. The workshop elaborated on the Manila Principles, a high level principle framework of best practices and safeguards for content restriction practices and addressing liability for intermediaries for third party content. The workshop saw particpants engaged in over lapping projects considering restriction practices coming togetehr to give feedback and highlight recent developments across liability regimes. Jyoti Panday laid down the key details of the Manila Principles framework in this session. The panelists for this workshop included the following.

Kelly Kim Open Net Korea,
Jyoti Panday, CIS India,
Gabrielle Guillemin, Article 19,
Rebecca McKinnon on behalf of UNESCO
Giancarlo Frosio, Center for Internet and Society, Stanford Law School
Nicolo Zingales, Tilburg University
Will Hudson, Google

Detailed description of the workshop is available here http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals

Transcript of the workshop is available here http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/187-igf-2015/transcripts-igf-2015/2423-2015-11-13-ws-242-the-manila-principles-on-intermediary-liability-workshop-room-9

Video link available here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFLmzxXodjs

ACCESSIBILITY

X. Dynamic Coalition on Accessibility and Disability and Global Initiative for Inclusive ICTs organised a workshop on Empowering the Next Billion by Improving Accessibility at Workshop Room 6 from 9:00 am to 10:30 am on 13 November, 2015. The discussion focused on the need and ways to remove accessibility barriers which prevent over one billion potential users to benefit from the Internet, including for essential services. Sunil Abraham specifically spoke about the lack of compliance of existing ICT infrastructure with well established accessibility standards specifically relating to accessibility barriers in the disaster management process. He discussed the barriers faced by persons with physical or psychosocial disabilities. The panelists for this discussion were the following.

Francesca Cesa Bianchi, G3ICT
Cid Torquato, Government of Brazil
Carlos Lauria, Microsoft Brazil
Sunil Abraham, CIS India
Derrick L. Cogburn, Institute on Disability and Public Policy (IDPP) for the ASEAN(Association of Southeast Asian Nations) Region
Fernando H. F. Botelho, F123 Consulting
Gunela Astbrink, GSA InfoComm

Detailed description of the workshop is available here http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals

Transcript of the workshop is available here http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/187-igf-2015/transcripts-igf-2015/2438-2015-11-13-ws-253-empowering-the-next-billion-by-improving-accessibility-workshop-room-3

Video Link Empowering the next billion by improving accessibility https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RZlWvJAXxs

OPENNESS

XI. A workshop on FOSS & a Free, Open Internet: Synergies for Development was organized at Workshop Room 7 from 2:00 pm to 3:30 pm on 13 November, 2015. The discussion was focused on the increasing risk to openness of the internet and the ability of present & future generations to use technology to improve their lives. The panel shred different perspectives about the future co-development of FOSS and a free, open Internet; the threats that are emerging; and ways for communities to surmount these. Sunil Abraham emphasised the importance of free software, open standards, open access and access to knowledge and the lack of this mandate in the draft outcome document for upcoming WSIS+10 review and called for inclusion of the same. Pranesh Prakash further contributed to the discussion by emphasizing the need for free open source software with end‑to‑end encryption and traffic level encryption based on open standards which are decentralized and work through federated networks. The panellists for this discussion were the following.

Satish Babu, Technical Community, Chair, ISOC-TRV, Kerala, India
Judy Okite, Civil Society, FOSS Foundation for Africa
Mishi Choudhary, Private Sector, Software Freedom Law Centre, New York
Fernando Botelho, Private Sector, heads F123 Systems, Brazil
Sunil Abraham, CIS India
Pranesh Prakash, CIS India
Nnenna Nwakanma- WWW.Foundation
Yves MIEZAN EZO, Open Source strategy consultant
Corinto Meffe, Advisor to the President and Directors, SERPRO, Brazil
Frank Coelho de Alcantara, Professor, Universidade Positivo, Brazil
Caroline Burle, Institutional and International Relations, W3C Brazil Office and Center of Studies on Web Technologies

Detailed description of the workshop is available here http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals

Transcript of the workshop is available here http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/187-igf-2015/transcripts-igf-2015/2468-2015-11-13-ws10-foss-and-a-free-open-internet-synergies-for-development-workshop-room-7

Video link available here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwUq0LTLnDs

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/summary-report-internet-governance-forum-2015

A Study of J. Sai Deepak's Comments on Competition Law in India

Aarushi Bansal — 2015-11-21T06:18:42Z

In his blog, 'The Demanding Mistress', J. Sai Deepak has commented on the competition law in India, using provisions of different acts, case judgments and amendments to these acts. He has also included a comment on India’s patent law. This review studies his comments to the Competition Act, 2002 (“Competition Act”) and the Patents Act, 1970 (“Patents Act”).

Read J. Sai Deepak - The Demanding Mistress[1]. Nehaa Chaudhari provided inputs and edited this blog post.

The Nexus Between the Competition Act and the Patents Act

Sai Deepak explains the nexus between the Competition Act and the Patents Act[2] using two positions. Firstly, by using two situations to explain which of these two acts will apply under different circumstances. Secondly, by explaining the overlap that is apparent in cases of abuse of power.

Under the first issue, the two situations are thus. In a case where a patentee's patent over a technology allows him to acquire a position of dominance, Competition Act will be applied if he abuses this dominance. In case a patentee imposes a high license fee on his product, many players cannot afford it and get ejected from the market. Here, both the acts would apply, thereby indicating an overlap.

Under the second issue, it is stated that abuse of power could also happen if a patentee sets an "unfair price". Therefore, Sai Deepak argues that for ensuring fair or affordable price, there should be harmony between Competition Act and Patents Act. He has derived harmonized interpretations of "unfair price" under the Competition Act and "reasonably affordable price" under the Patents Act. He explains that the price under each law is measured according to the price for the licensee and not the price demanded or the value of the licensed technology. He further, argues that such a harmonization is possible since "price" under these two acts is essentially used in the same context. It is necessary to harmonize the two acts since the overriding effect of Section 60 of the Competition Act can be effective only when an inconsistency is proved with the other provisions or laws.

Patents and Competition "Arrangements"

An arrangement[3] or collusion may exist between two market players if their activities can be foreseeably linked, even if there is no express act or formal arrangement between these parties. This has been explained through an example.

A sells a patented drug in the market. B sells another patented drug which is similar to the drug sold by A. A also has some share in B's company. When C introduces a similar drug at a much cheaper price, B is forced to reduce his the price of his drug. A follows suit.

It may be noted that since there were similarities between the drugs being sold by A and B, and, therefore the patent, it may have been possible for B to challenge A’s patent on prior art and eject A from the market, thereby reducing competition.

Since he did not challenge A's patent which was closest to that of B in terms of prior art, there may be an arrangement between A and B. This shows that A and B decided to divide the market and not encroach upon each other's trading space. In addition to this, the fact that A was a shareholder in B's company, points in the direction of a collusive activity.

Legality of Pay-for-Delay Settlement Payments

This post, as written by Amshula Prakash, refers to J. Sai Deepak's comments on the topic. She has described a Pay-For-Delay settlement [4] as a patent settlement wherein the patentee pharmaceutical company pays the generic manufacturer to remain ejected from the market for a certain period of time.

She justifies these agreements by relying on the case of Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis [5],which upheld that such agreements are lawful as long as their anti-competitive activities are covered under the exclusive patent granted to them. She opines that entering late into the market is better than not entering at all, and such a deal would anyway not go beyond the life of the patent. She concludes by reiterating J. Sai Deepak's statement that the exact impact of the agreement cannot be ascertained, as no such cases of Pay-For-Delay agreements have arisen in the Indian market yet.

Collective Bargaining

J Sai Deepak has addressed two issues under this post. Firstly, the relation between collective bargaining and cartel-like conduct. Secondly, whether any defense under S.3(3) [6] of the Competition Act is available against cartel-like conduct.

In first issue, [7] J. Sai Deepak suggests that collective bargaining is a joint venture as it increases efficiency of entities in providing services. Similarly, an agreement to reduce such efficiency is also a joint venture, since it may ensure competitiveness in the market and control over prices. He specifies grounds to determine the purpose of a collective act which helps ascertain whether it will be covered under "collective bargaining". These include the nature of business, parity between parties, past negotiations etc. He has relied on foreign sources to justify cartel-like behavior of smaller entities, like Australia's Dawson Committee and Taiwan's efforts to integrate smaller enterprises into the mainstream market to increase efficiency and competitiveness. Hence he suggests that an amendment should be made in law to permit small businesses to make an exception to cartel-like conduct and collective bargaining.

Under the second issue, [9] he opines that a strict assumption of the presence of any anticompetitive nature or agreement is counter productive to the intention of the law. The available defenses under S.3(3) for parties accused of cartel-like conduct can be justified using the proviso[10] under this section. He explains that collective bargaining may be seen as a "joint venture" under the proviso of S.3 if it is not anti-competitive. He has further supported this argument by relying on FICCI - Multiplex Association of India v. United Producers/ Distributors Forum, [11] where "collective bargaining" was accepted as a valid defense to cartel-like behavior.

Power of Competition Commission with Respect to Abuse of Powers

J. Sai Deepak has explained the powers of the Competition Commission of India (CCI),[12] firstly, with respect to abuse of powers and secondly, in terms of imposing liability.

With Respect to Abuse of Powers

With respect to abuse of powers, he refers to Section 4 of the Competition Act. It refers to a situation wherein a dominant player in the market sets a discriminatory (including predatory price) or unfair price in the sale of his good. Predatory pricing is explained in this section and not discriminatory or unfair price. J. Sai Deepak argues that since they are capable of having different meanings, there might be different forms of abuse which a dominant entity can exercise.

He relies on a test laid down in a case on unfair price, namely United Brands Company v. Commission of the European Communities.[13] A question arising under this test was whether the regulator is expected to fix prices if they are found to be unfair. To show that the CCI has the power to fix prices, S.27 and 28 of the Act have been compared. Section 27(d) empowers the CCI to direct that agreements which are in contravention of Section. Furthermore, Section 27 (g) allows the CCI to pass orders 'it may deem fit'. Section 28(2)(a) empowers the CCI to vest property rights, which creates licenses for third parties. The CCI can set future commercial terms in agreements remove complexities of the market in the interest of equity and justice. This shows the abundant powers the Competition Commission of India has to set prices.

In Terms of Imposing Liability

To answer whether these decisions of the CCI are in rem [14], he explains that the CCI can regulate market transactions and the finding of an abusive practice would be applied to other enterprises with similar practices. This shows that CCI lays down rules prescribing acceptable practices in the market.

Review of the Competition Amendment Bill, 2012

This post discusses the proposed amendments in the Bill [15] regarding three issues. Firstly, in regards to joint dominance, i.e. position of dominance enjoyed by one or more enterprises, J. Sai Deepak argues that the Bill recognizes an oligopolistic market's collusive activities, thereby providing a legal method of identifying it. He argues that it is not yet time to introduce it into the Indian industrial arena, since S.3 which regards anti-competitive agreements, is too rigorous to harmonize the concept of joint dominance with it.

Secondly, another proposed change is to render the decision taken under S.21[16] appeal-able under S.53A of the Act. He criticizes this by saying that an appeal on S.21 while adjudicating on S.53A may lead to a multiplicity of legislations and jurisdiction issues.

Lastly, the amendment of S.5A, empowers the government to specify the values of any assets or turnovers based on the class of enterprises. The government may consult the CCI, but the consultation is not binding or of mandatory assent, which shows that the CCI might turn into a tool which furthers the powers of the executive.

Conclusion

On reading J. Sai Deepak's comments on the competition law in India, I have concluded that several provisions under legislations regulating competition in Indian markets might still not be comprehensive. This may be because many scenarios for which these provisions have been made have not yet arisen in India. Hence a few outcomes of these legislations remain to be mere speculations and as several developments in the market are still underway, laws like the Competition Act should adopt to these if and when they arise.

[1]. http://thedemandingmistress.blogspot.in/

[2]. http://thedemandingmistress.blogspot.in/2013/09/the-overlap-between-patents-and.html#links

[3]. http://thedemandingmistress.blogspot.in/2011/10/patents-and-competition-need-for.html#links

[4]. http://thedemandingmistress.blogspot.in/2013/06/legality-of-pay-for-delay-settlement.html#links

[5]. 570 U. S. ____ (2013)

[6]. Defines the type of agreements which would qualify as anti-competitive

[7]. http://thedemandingmistress.blogspot.in/2012/01/collective-bargaining-and-cartel-like.html#links

[8]. Committee of Inquiry for the Review of the Trade Practices Act of the Australian Parliament

[9]. http://thedemandingmistress.blogspot.in/2012/01/competition-act-is-collective.html#links

[10]. Refers to “any agreement entered into by way of joint ventures”.

[11]. Case No. 01 Of 2009

[12]. http://thedemandingmistress.blogspot.in/2015_01_01_archive.html

[13]. C-27/76 [1978]

[14]. http://thedemandingmistress.blogspot.in/2014/07/are-decisions-of-competition-commission.html#links

[15]. http://thedemandingmistress.blogspot.in/2015/03/a-review-of-competition-amendment-bill.html#links

[16]. Reference by Commission to statutory authority in case of contravention with the Act

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/a-study-of-j-sai-deepaks-comments-on-competition-law-in-india

Ministry Clearances for the Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest 2015

Swaraj Barooah — 2015-11-21T07:16:32Z

This is to declare and share the clearances received from the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Ministry of External Affairs for the organisation of the fourth Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest during December 15-17 in Delhi.

Global Congress 2015 - Clearance Letter - Ministry of Home Affairs: Download (PDF).
Global Congress 2015 - Clearance Letter - Ministry of External Affairs: Download (PDF).

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/ministry-clearances-global-congress-2015