The Centre for Internet and Society
https://cis-india.org
These are the search results for the query, showing results 1 to 15.
ICANN Workstream 2 Recommendations on Accountability
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/icann-work-stream-2-recommendations-on-accountability
<b>One of the most significant initiatives to improve the accountability of the Internet Corporation of Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) commenced in 2014, when the Cross Community Working Group on Accountability was created. Its role was to develop a set of proposed enhancements to ICANN’s accountability to the global Internet community. This resulted in the first Work Stream (WS1) recommendations, which were eventually approved and incorporated into the bylaws of ICANN in 2016. These included a provision expressing the need for a second WS since the first one, done on a tight deadline,did not cover all the requisite issues. Instead WS1 only focused on issues that were needed to complete the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority(IANA) transition. </b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">At the ICANN meeting in March of 2017 in Finland, the second Work Stream (WS2) was launched. The Cross Community Working Group submitted their final report at the end of June 2018 and the purpose of this blog is to look at the main recommendations given and the steps ahead to its implementation.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The new Workstream was structured into the following 8 independent sub groups as per the topics laid down in the WS1 final report, each headed by a Rapporteur:</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">1. Diversity</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">2. Guidelines for Standards of Conduct Presumed to be in Good Faith Associated with Exercising Removal of Individual ICANN Board Directors. (Guidelines for Good Faith)</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">3. Human Rights Framework of Interpretation (HR-FOI)</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">4. Jurisdiction</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">5. Office of the Ombuds</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">6. Supporting Organization/ Advisory Committee Accountability</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">7. Staff Accountability</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">8. ICANN Transparency</p>
<p> </p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>1. </b><b><span>DIVERSITY Recommendations </span></b><b> </b></p>
<p>The sub-group on Diversity suggested ways by which ICANN can define, measure, report, support and promote diversity. They proposed 7 key factors to guide all diversity considerations: Language, Gender, Age, Physical Disability, Diverse skills, Geographical representation and stakeholder group. Each charting organization within ICANN is asked to undertake an exercise whereby they publish their diversity obligations on their website, for each level of employment including leadership either under their own charter or ICANN Bylaws. This should be followed by a diversity assessment of their existing structures and consequently used to formulate their diversity objectives/criteria and steps on how to achieve the same along with the timeline to do so. These diversity assessments should be conducted annually and at the very least, every 3 years. ICANN staff has been tasked with developing a mechanism for dealing with complaints arising out of diversity and related issues. Eventually, it is envisioned that ICANN will create a Diversity section on their website where an Annual Diversity Report will be published. All information regarding Diversity should also be published in their Annual Report.</p>
<p>The recommendations leave much upto the organization without establishing specific recruitment policies for equal opportunities. In their 7 parameters, race was left out as a criteria for diversity. The criteria of ‘diverse skills’ is also ambiguous; and within stakeholder group, it would have been more useful to highlight the priority for diversity of opinions within the same stakeholder group. So for example, to have two civil society organizations (CSOs) advocating for contrasting stances as opposed to having many CSO’s supporting one stance. However, these steps should be a good starting point to improve the diversity of an organization which in our earlier research we have found to be <a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/global-multistakeholder-community-neither-global-nor-multistakeholder">neither global nor multistakeholder</a>. In fact, our <a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/icann-diversity-analysis">recent diversity analysis </a>has shown concerns such as the vast number of the end users participating and as an extension, influencing ICANN work are male. The mailing list where the majority of discussions take place are dominated by individuals from industry bodies. This coupled with the relative minority presence of the other stakeholders, especially geographically (14.7% participation from Asian countries), creates an environment where concerns emanating from other sections of the society could be overshadowed. Moreover, when we have questioned ICANN’s existing diversity of employees based on their race and citizenship, they <a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-31-diversity-of-employees-at-icann">did not give us</a> the figures citing either lack of information or confidentiality.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>2. </b><b><span>HUMAN RIGHTS FRAMEWORK OF INTERPRETATION (HR-FOI)</span></b><b> </b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">A Framework of Interpretation was developed by the WS2 for ICANN Bylaws relating to Human Rights which clarified that Human Rights are not a Commitment for the organization but is a Core Value. The former being an obligation while the latter are <i>“<span>not necessarily intended to apply consistently and comprehensively to ICANN’s activities</span></i><span>”.</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">To summarize the FOI, if the applicable law i.e. the law practiced in the jurisdiction where ICANN is operating, does not mandate certain human rights then they do not raise issues under the core value. As such, there can be no enforcement of human rights obligations by ICANN or any other party against any other party. Thus, contingent on the seat of the operations the law can vary though by in large ICANN recognizes and can be guided by significant internationally respected human rights such as those enumerated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The United Nations Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights was recognized as useful in the process of applying the core value in operations since it discusses corporate responsibility to respect human rights. Building on this, Human Right Impact Assessments (HRIA) with respect to ICANN policy development processes are currently being formulated by the Cross Community Working Group on Human Rights. Complementing this, ICANN is also undertaking an internal HRIA of the organization’s operations. It is important to remember that the international human rights instruments that are relevant here are those required by the applicable law.</p>
<p>Apart from its legal responsibility to uphold the HR laws of an area, the framework is worded negatively in that it says ICANN should in general avoid violating human rights. It is also said that they should take into account HR when making policies but these fall short from saying that HR considerations should be given prominent weightage and since there are many core values, at any point one of the others can be used to sidestep human rights. One core value in particular says that ICANN should duly consider the public policy advice of governments and other authorities when arriving at a decision. Thus, if governments want to promote a decision to further national interests at the expense of citizen’s human rights then that would be very much possible within this FOI.</p>
<p><b>3. </b><b><span>JURISDICTION</span></b><b> </b></p>
<p>A highly contentious issue in WS2 was that of Jurisdiction, and the recommendations formed to tackle it were quite disappointing. Despite initial discussion by the group on ICANN’s location, they did not address the elephant in the room in their report. Even after the transition, ICANN’s new by-laws state that it is subject to California Law since it was incorporated there. This is partly the fault of the first Workstream because when enumerating the issues for WS2 with respect to jurisdiction, they left it ambiguous by stating: :</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i>“At this point in the CCWG Accountability’s work, the main issues that need within Work Stream 2 relate to the influence that ICANN ́s existing jurisdiction may have on the actual operation of policies and accountability mechanisms. This refers primarily to the process for the settlement of disputes within ICANN, involving the choice of jurisdiction and of the applicable laws, <b><span>but not necessarily the location where ICANN is incorporated.”</span></b></i></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Jurisdiction can often play a significant role in the laws that ICANN will have to abide by in terms of financial reporting, consumer protection, competition and labour laws, legal challenges to ICANN’s actions and finally, in resolving contractual disputes. In its present state, the operations of ICANN could, if such a situation arises, see interference from US authorities by way of legislature, tribunals, enforcement agencies and regulatory bodies.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">CIS has, in the past, discussed the concept of “<a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/jurisdiction-the-taboo-topic-at-icann">jurisdictional resilience”</a>, which calls for:</p>
<ul type="disc">
<li>Legal immunity for core technical operators of Internet functions (as opposed to policymaking venues) from legal sanctions or orders from the state in which they are legally situated.</li>
<li>Division of core Internet operators among multiple jurisdictions</li>
<li>Jurisdictional division of policymaking functions from technical implementation functions</li>
</ul>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Proposing to change ICANN’s seat of headquarters or at the very least, suggest ways for ICANN to gain partial immunity for its policy development processes under the US law would have gone a long way in making ICANN truly a global body. It would have also ensured that as an organization, ICANN would have been equally accountable to all its stakeholders as opposed to now, where by virtue of its incorporation, it has higher legal and possible political, obligations to the United States. This was (initially?) expressed by Brazil who dissented from the majority conclusions of the sub-group and drafted their own minority report, which was supported by countries like Russia. They were unhappy that all countries are still not at an equal footing in the participation of management of Internet resources, which goes against the fundamentals of the multi-stakeholder system approach.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Recommendations:</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The recommendations passed were in two categories:</p>
<ol type="1">
<li style="text-align: justify; ">Office of Foreign Asset Control (OFAC)</li>
</ol>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">OFAC is an office of the US Treasury administering and enforcing economic and trade sanctions based on the American foreign policy and national security objectives. It is pertinent because, for ICANN to enter into a Registration Accreditation Agreement (RAA) with an applicant from a sanctioned country, it will need an OFAC license. What happens right now is that ICANN is under no obligation to request for this license and in either case, OFAC can refuse to provide it. The sub group recommended that the terms of the RAA be modified so that ICANN is required to apply for and put their best efforts in securing the license if the applicant is qualified to be a registrar and not individually subject to sanctions. While the licensing process is underway they should also be helpful and transparent, and maintain on-going communication with the applicant. The same recommendation was made for applicants to the new gTLD program, from sanctioned countries. Other general licenses are needed from OFAC for certain ICANN transactions and hence it was proposed that ICANN pursue the same.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">2. Choice of law and Choice of Venue Provisions in ICANN Agreements</p>
<p>In ICANN’S Registry Agreements (RA) and Registration Accreditation Agreement (RAA) the absence of a choice of law provision means that the governing law of these contracts is undetermined until later decided by a judge or arbitrator or an agreement between the parties. It was collectively seen that increased freedom of choice for the parties in the agreement could help in customizing the agreements and make it easier for registries and such to contractually engage with ICANN. Out of various options, the group decided that a Menu approach would be best whereby a host of options(decided by ICANN) can be provided and the party in case choose the most appropriate from them such as the jurisdiction of their incorporation.In RAs, the choice of venue was pre determined as Los Angeles, California but the group recommended that instead of imposing this choice on the party it would be better to offer a list of possible venues for arbitration. The registry can then choose amongst these options when entering into the contract. There were other issues discussed which did not reach fruition due to lack of unanimity such as discussions on immunity of ICANN from US jurisdiction.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>4. </b><b><span>OFFICE OF THE OMBUDS</span></b><b> </b></p>
<p>Subsequent to the external evaluation of the ICANN Office of the Ombuds (IOO), there were a couple of recommendations to strengthen the office. They were divided into procedural aspects that the office should carry out to improve their complaint mechanism such as differentiating between categories of complaints and explaining how each type would be handled with. The issues that would not invoke actions from the IOO should also be established clearly and if and where these could be transferred to any other channel. The response from all the relevant parties of ICANN to a formal request or report from the IOO should take place within 90 days, and 120 at the maximum if an explanation for the same can be provided. An internal timeline will be defined by the office for handling of complaints and document a report on these every quarter or annually. A recommendation for the IOO to be formally trained in mediation and have such experience within its ranks was further given. Reiterating the importance of diversity, even this sub group emphasized on the IOO bearing a diverse group in terms of gender and other parameters. This ensures that a complainant has a choice in who to approach in the office making them more comfortable. To enhance the independence of the Ombuds, their employment contract should have a 5 year fixed term which only allows for one extension of maximum 3 years. An Ombuds Advisory Panel is to be constituted by ICANN comprising five members to act as advisers, supporters and counsel for the IOO with at least 2 members having Ombudsman experience and the remaining possessing extensive ICANN experience. They would be responsible for selecting the new Ombuds and conducting the IOO’s evaluation every 5 years amongst others. Lastly, the IOO should proactively document their work by publishing reports on activity, collecting and publicizing statistics, user satisfaction information a well any improvements to the process.</p>
<p>These proposals still do not address the opacity of how the Office of the Ombuds resolve these cases since it does not call for; a) a compilation of all the cases that have been decided by the office in the history of the organization b) the details of the parties that are involved if the parties have allowed that to be revealed and if not at the very least, the non sensitive data such as their nationality and stakeholder affiliation and c) a description of the proceedings of the case and who won in each of them. When CIS <a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-5-the-ombudsman-and-icanns-misleading-response-to-our-request-1">asked</a> for the above in 2015, the information was denied on ground of confidentiality. Yet, it is vital to know these details since the Ombuds hear complaints against the Board, Staff and other constituent bodies and by not reporting on this, ICANN is rendering the process much less accountable and transparent. This conflict resolution process and its efficacy is even more essential in a multi-stakeholder environment so as to give parties the faith to engage in the process, knowing that the redressal mechanisms are strong. It is also problematic that sexual harassments complaints are dealt by the Ombuds and that ICANN does not have a specific Anti-Sexual Harassment Committee. The committee should be neutral and approachable and while it is useful for the Office of the Ombuds to be trained in sexual harassment cases, it is by no means a comprehensive and ideal approach to deal with complaints of this nature. Despite ICANN facing a sexual harassment claim i<a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis-statement-on-sexual-harrasment-at-icann55">n 2016</a>, the recommendations do not specifically address the approach the Ombuds should take in tackling sexual harassment.</p>
<p> </p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>5. </b><b><span>SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION/ ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACCOUNTABILITY</span></b><b> </b></p>
<p>The sub group presented the outcomes under the main heads of Accountability, Transparency, Participation, Outreach and Updates to policies and procedures. They suggested these as good practices that can be followed by the organizations and did not recommend that implementation of the same be required. The accountability aspect had suggestions of better documentation of procedures and decision-making. Proposals of listing members of such organizations publicly, making their meetings open to public observation including minutes and transcripts along with disclosing their correspondence with ICANN were aimed at making these entities more transparent. In the same vein, rules of membership and eligibility criteria, the process of application and a process of appeal should be well defined. Newsletters should be published by the SO/AC to help non-members understand the benefit and the process of becoming a member. Policies were asked to be reviewed at regular intervals and these internal reviews should not extend beyond a year.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>6. </b><b><span>STAFF ACCOUNTABILITY</span></b><b> </b></p>
<p>Improving the ICANN staff’s Accountability was the job of a different group who assessed it at the service delivery, departmental or organizational level not at an individual or personnel level. They did this by analysing the roles and responsibilities of the Board, staff and community members and the nexus between them. Their observations culminated in the understanding that ICANN needs to take steps such as make visible their performance management system and process, their vision for the departmental goals and how they tie in to the organization’s strategic goals and objectives. They note that several new mechanisms have already been established yet have not been used enough to ascertain their efficacy and thus, propose a regular information acquisition mechanism. Most importantly, they have asked ICANN to standardize and publish guidelines for suitable timeframes for acknowledging and responding to requests from the community.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "> </p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>7. </b><b><span>ICANN TRANSPARENCY</span></b><b> </b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The last group of the WS2 was one specifically looking at the transparency of the organization.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i>a. <span>The Documentary Information Disclosure Policy (DIDP)</span></i></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Currently the DIDP process only applies to ICANN’s “operational activities”, it was recommended to delete this caveat to cover a wider breadth of the organization’s activities. As CIS has experienced, request for information is often met with an answer that such information is not documented and to remedy the same, a documentation policy was proposed where if significant elements of a decision making process are taking place orally then the participants will be required to document the substance of the conversation. Many a times DIDP requests are refused because one aspect of the information sought is subject to confidentiality. hus one of the changes is to introduce a severability clause so that in such cases, information can still be disclosed with the sensitive aspect redacted or severed. In scenarios of redaction, the rationale should be provided citing one of the given DIDP exceptions along with the process for appeal. ICANN’s contracts should be under the purview of the DIDP except when subject to a non-disclosure agreement and further, the burden is on the other party to convince ICANN that it has a legitimate commercial reason for requested the NDA. No longer would any information pertaining to the security and stability of the Internet be outside the ambit of the DIDP but only if it is harmful to the security and stability. Finally, ICANN should review the DIDP every five years to see how it can be improved.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i>b. <span>Documenting and Reporting on ICANN’s Interactions with the Government</span></i></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In a prominent step towards being more transparent with their expenditure and lobbying, the group recommended that ICANN begins disclosing publicly on at least an annual basis, sums of $20,000 per year devoted to “political activities” both in the US and abroad. All expenditures should be done on an itemized basis by ICANN for both outside contractors and internal personnel along with the identities of the persons engaging in such activities and the type of engagement used for such activities amongst others.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i>cc. <span>Transparency of Board Deliberations</span></i></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i> </i>The bylaws were recommended to be revised so that material may be removed from the minutes of the Board if subject to a DIDP exception. The exception for deliberative processes should not apply to any factual information, technical report or reports on the performance or effectiveness of a particular body or strategy. When any information is removed from the minutes of the Board meeting, they should be disclosed after a particular period of time as and when the window of harm has passed.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i>d. <span>ICANN’s Anonymous Hotline (Whistle-blower Protection)</span></i></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">To begin with, ICANN was recommended to devise a way such that when anyone searches their website for the term “whistle-blower”, it should redirect to their Hotline policy since people are unlikely to be aware that in ICANN parlance it is referred to as the Hotline policy. Instead of only “serious crimes” that are currently reported, all issues and concerns that violate local laws should be. Complaints should not be classified as ‘urgent’ and ‘non-urgent’ but all reports should be a priority and receive a formal acknowledgment within 48 hours at the maximum. ICANN should make it clear that any retaliation against the reporter will be taken and investigated as seriously as the original alleged wrongdoing. Employees should be provided with data about the use of the Hotline, including the types of incidents reported. Few member of this group came out with a Minority Statement expressing their disapproval with one particular aspect of the recommendations that they felt was not developed enough, the one pertaining to ICANN’s attorney-client privilege. The recommendation did not delve into specifics but merely stated that ICANN should expand transparency in their legal processes including clarifying how attorney-client privilege is invoked. The dissidents thought ICANN should go farther and enumerate principles where the privilege would be waived in the interests of transparency and account for voluntary disclosure as well.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The transparency recommendations did not focus on the financial reporting aspects of ICANN which <a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/analysis-of-icann-financials-from-2012-2016">we have found ambiguities</a> with before. Some examples are; the Registries and Registrars are the main sources of revenue though there is ambiguity as to the classifications provided by ICANN such as the difference between RYG and RYN. The mode of contribution of sponsors isn’t clear either so we do not know if this was done through travel, money, media partnerships etc. Several entities have been listed from different places in different years, sometimes depending on the role they have played such as whether they are a sponsor or registry. Moreover, the Regional Internet Registries are clubbed under one heading and as a consequence it is not possible to determine individual RIR contribution like how much did APNIC pay for the Asia and Pacific region. Thus, there is a lot more scope for ICANN to be transparent which goes beyond the proposals in the report.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>It is worth noting that whereas the mandate of the WS1 included the implementation of the recommendations, this is not the case for WS2 and thus, by creating a report itself the mission of the group is concluded. This difference can be attributed to the fact that during the first WS, there was a need to see it through since the IANA transition would not happen otherwise. The change in circumstances and the corresponding lack of urgency render the process less powerful, the second time round. The final recommendations are now being discussed in the relevant charting organizations within ICANN such as the Government Advisory Council (GAC) and subsequent to their approval,, it will be sent to the Board who will decide to adopt them or not. If adopted, ICANN and its sub organizations will have to see how they can implement these recommendations. The co-chairs of the group will be the point of reference for the chartering organizations and an implementation oversight team has been formed, consisting of the Rapporteurs of the sub teams and the co-chairs. A Feasibility Assessment Report will be made public in due time which will describe the resources that would take to implement the recommendations. Since it would be a huge undertaking for ICANN to implement the above, the compliance process is expected to take a few years. .</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "> </p>
<p>The link to report can be found<a href="https://community.icann.org/display/WEIA/WS2+-+Enhancing+ICANN+Accountability+Home?preview=/59640761/88575033/FULL%20WS2%20REPORT%20WITH%20ANNEXES.pdf"> here.</a></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/icann-work-stream-2-recommendations-on-accountability'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/icann-work-stream-2-recommendations-on-accountability</a>
</p>
No publisherakritiICANNInternet GovernanceAccountability2018-11-23T14:56:20ZBlog EntryWhy Presumption of Renewal is Unsuitable for the Current Registry Market Structure
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/why-presumption-of-renewal-is-unsuitable-for-the-current-registry-market-structure
<b>With the recent and much protested renewal of the .net legacy Top-Level-Domain (TLD), the question of the appropriate method of renewal has again come to the forefront. While this seems relatively uncontroversial to most, Padma Venkataraman, a law student and intern at CIS looks at presumptive renewal through a critical lens. </b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">With the recent renewal of the .net legacy Top-Level-Domain (TLD), the question of the appropriate method of renewal is worth reconsidering. When we talk about presumption of renewal for registry agreements, it means that the agreement has a reasonable renewal expectancy at the end of its contractual term. According to the current base registry agreement, it shall be renewed for 10-year periods, upon expiry of the initial (and successive) term, unless the operator commits a fundamental and material breach of the operator’s covenants or breach of its payment obligations to ICANN.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a class="external-link" href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/files/why-presumption-of-renewal-is-unsuitable-for-the-current-registry-market-structure">Download the entire blog post here</a></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/why-presumption-of-renewal-is-unsuitable-for-the-current-registry-market-structure'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/why-presumption-of-renewal-is-unsuitable-for-the-current-registry-market-structure</a>
</p>
No publisherPadma VenkataramanICANNTransparencyInternet GovernanceAccountability2017-10-31T02:53:26ZBlog EntryCIS’ Efforts Towards Greater Financial Disclosure by ICANN
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis2019-efforts-towards-greater-financial-disclosure-by-icann
<b>CIS has been working towards enhancing transparency and accountability at ICANN since 2014. While initial efforts have resulted in ICANN revealing its sources of income in a granular fashion in 2015, we are yet to see this level of transparency become a default approach within ICANN. Here, Padma Venkataraman chronologically maps CIS’ efforts at enhancing financial transparency and accountability at ICANN, while providing an outline of what remains to be done. </b>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>With the $135 million sale of .web,<a href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1"><sup><span>[1]</span></sup></a> the much protested renewal of the .net agreement<a href="#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2"><sup><span>[2]</span></sup></a> and the continued annual increase in domain name registrations,<a href="#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3"><sup><span>[3]</span></sup></a> among other things, it is no surprise that there are still transparency and accountability concerns within the ICANN Community. CIS, as part of its efforts to examine the functioning of ICANN’s accountability mechanisms, has filed many DIDP requests till date, in a bid for greater transparency of the organisation’s sources of revenues.</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b><span>1.Efforts towards disclosure of revenue break-up by ICANN</span></b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b><span>- 2014</span></b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b><span>- 2015</span></b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b><span>- 2017</span></b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b><span>2.The need for granularity regarding historical revenues</span></b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>-----</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b><span>1.Efforts towards disclosure of revenue break-up by ICANN</span></b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b><span>- 2014</span></b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>In 2014, CIS’ Sunil Abraham demanded greater financial transparency of ICANN at both the Asia Pacific IGF and the ICANN Open Forum at the IGF. Later that year, CIS was provided with a list of ICANN’s sources of revenue for the financial year 2014, including payments from registries, registrars, sponsors, among others, by ICANN India Head Mr. Samiran Gupta.<a href="#_ftn4" name="_ftnref4"><sup><span>[4]</span></sup></a> This was a big step for CIS and the Internet community, as before this, no details on granular income had ever been publicly divulged by ICANN on request.</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>However, as no details of historical revenue had been provided, CIS filed a DIDP request in December 2014, seeking financial disclosure of revenues for the years 1999 to 2014, in a detailed manner - similar to the 2014 report that had been provided.<a href="#_ftn5" name="_ftnref5"><sup><span>[5]</span></sup></a> It sought a list of individuals and entities who had contributed to ICANN’s revenues over the mentioned time period.</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>In its response, ICANN stated that it possessed no documents in the format that CIS had requested, that is, it had no reports that broke down domain name income and revenue received by each legal entity and individual.<a href="#_ftn6" name="_ftnref6"><sup><span>[6]</span></sup></a> It stated that as the data for years preceding 2012 were on a different system, compiling reports of the raw data for these years would be time-consuming and overly burdensome. ICANN denied the request citing this specific provision for non-disclosure of information under the DIDP.<a href="#_ftn7" name="_ftnref7"><sup><span>[7]</span></sup></a></span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b><span>- 2015</span></b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>In July 2015, CIS filed a request for disclosure of raw data regarding granular income for the years 1999 to 2014.<a href="#_ftn8" name="_ftnref8"><sup><span>[8]</span></sup></a> ICANN again said that it would be a huge burden ‘to access and review all the raw data for the years 1999 to 2014 in order to identify the raw data applicable to the request’.<a href="#_ftn9" name="_ftnref9"><sup><span>[9]</span></sup></a> However, it mentioned its commitment to preparing detailed reports on a go-forward basis - all of which would be uploaded on its Financials page.<a href="#_ftn10" name="_ftnref10"><sup><span>[10]</span></sup></a></span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b><span>- 2017</span></b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>To follow up on ICANN’s commitment to granularity, CIS sought a detailed report on historical data for income and revenue contributions from domain names for FY 2015 and FY 2016 in June 2017.<a href="#_ftn11" name="_ftnref11"><sup><span>[11]</span></sup></a> In its reply, ICANN stated that the Revenue Detail by Source reports for the last two years would be out by end July and that the report for FY 2012 would be out by end September.<a href="#_ftn12" name="_ftnref12"><sup><span>[12]</span></sup></a> </span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b><span>2.The need for granularity regarding historical revenues</span></b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>In 2014, CIS asked for disclosure of a list of ICANN’s sources of revenue and detailed granular income for the years 1999 to 2014. ICANN published the first but cited difficulty in preparing reports of the second. In 2015, CIS again sought detailed reports of historical granular revenue for the same period, and ICANN again denied disclosure claiming that it was burdensome to handle the raw data for those years. However, as ICANN agreed to publish detailed reports for future years, CIS recently asked for publication of reports for the FYs 2012, 2015 and 2016. Reports for these three years were uploaded according to the timeline provided by ICANN.</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>CIS appreciates ICANN’s cooperation with its requests and is grateful for their efforts to make the reports for FYs 2012 to 2016 available (and on a continued basis). However, it is important that detailed information of historical revenue and income from domain names for the years 1999 to 2014 be made publicly available. It is also crucial that consistent accounting and disclosure practices are adopted and made known to the Community, in order to avoid omissions of statements such as Detail Revenue by Source and Lobbying Disclosures, among many others, in the annual reports - as has evidently happened for the years preceding 2012. This is necessary to maintain financial transparency and accountability, as an organisation’s sources of revenues can inform the dependant Community about why it functions the way it does. </span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>It will also allow more informed discussions about problems that the Community has faced in the past and continues to struggle with. For example, while examining problems such as ineffective market competition or biased screening processes for TLD applicants, among others, this data can be useful in assessing the long-term interests, motives and influences of different parties involved.</span></p>
<hr />
<p> </p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1"><sup><span>[1]</span></sup></a> <a href="https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2016-07-28-en"><span>https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2016-07-28-en</span></a></p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2"><sup><span>[2]</span></sup></a><span> Report of Public Comment Proceeding on the .net Renewal. </span><a href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-comments-net-renewal-13jun17-en.pdf"><span>https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-comments-net-renewal-13jun17-en.pdf</span></a></p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref3" name="_ftn3"><sup><span>[3]</span></sup></a> <a href="https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/cct-metrics-domain-name-registration-2016-06-27-en"><span>https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/cct-metrics-domain-name-registration-2016-06-27-en</span></a></p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref4" name="_ftn4"><sup><span>[4]</span></sup></a> <a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis-receives-information-on-icanns-revenues-from-domain-names-fy-2014"><span>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis-receives-information-on-icanns-revenues-from-domain-names-fy-2014</span></a></p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref5" name="_ftn5"><sup><span>[5]</span></sup></a><span> DIDP <span>Request no - 20141222-1, </span>22 December 2014. </span><a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-2"><span>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-2</span></a></p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref6" name="_ftn6"><sup><span>[6]</span></sup></a> <a href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cis-response-21jan15-en.pdf"><span>https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cis-response-21jan15-en.pdf</span></a></p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref7" name="_ftn7"><sup><span>[7]</span></sup></a><span> Defined Conditions for Non-Disclosure - <span>Information requests: (i) which are not reasonable; (ii) which are excessive or overly burdensome; (iii) complying with which is not feasible; or (iv) are made with an abusive or vexatious purpose or by a vexatious or querulous individual.</span></span></p>
<p><a href="https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/didp-2012-02-25-en"><span>https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/didp-2012-02-25-en</span></a></p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref8" name="_ftn8"><sup><span>[8]</span></sup></a><span> DIDP <span>Request no - 20150722-2, 22 July 2015. </span></span><a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-12-revenues"><span>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-12-revenues</span></a></p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref9" name="_ftn9"><sup><span>[9]</span></sup></a> <a href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-response-20150722-2-21aug15-en.pdf"><span>https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-response-20150722-2-21aug15-en.pdf</span></a></p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref10" name="_ftn10"><sup><span>[10]</span></sup></a> <a href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-response-20150722-2-21aug15-en.pdf"><span>https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-response-20150722-2-21aug15-en.pdf</span></a><span>; </span><a href="https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/financials-en"><span>https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/financials-en</span></a></p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref11" name="_ftn11"><sup><span>[11]</span></sup></a><span> DIDP Request No. 20170613-1, 14 June 2017. </span></p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref12" name="_ftn12"><sup><span>[12]</span></sup></a> <a href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-20170613-1-marda-obo-cis-response-13jul17-en.pdf"><span>https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-20170613-1-marda-obo-cis-response-13jul17-en.pdf</span></a></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis2019-efforts-towards-greater-financial-disclosure-by-icann'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis2019-efforts-towards-greater-financial-disclosure-by-icann</a>
</p>
No publisherPadma VenkataramanICANNTransparencyInternet GovernanceAccountability2017-10-31T02:10:11ZBlog EntryICANN’s Problems with Accountability and the .WEB Controversy
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/icann2019s-problems-with-accountability-and-the-web-controversy
<b>The Post-Transition IANA promised enhanced transparency and accountability to the global multistakeholder community. The series of events surrounding the .WEB auction earlier this year has stirred up issues relating to the lack of transparency and accountability of ICANN. This post examines the .WEB auction as a case study to better understand exact gaps in accountability.</b>
<h2>Chronological Background of the .WEB Auction</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>In June 2012, ICANN launched a new phase for the creation and operation of Generic Top-Level Domains (gTLDs). After confirming the eligibility of seven applicants for the rights of the .WEB domain name, ICANN placed them in a string contention set (a group of applications with similar or identical applied for gTLDs).<a href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1"><sup><span>[1]</span></sup></a></span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>[<i>Quick Note</i>: ICANN procedure encourages the resolving of this contention set by voluntary settlement amongst the contending applicants (also referred to as a private auction), wherein individual participation fees of US $185,000 go to ICANN and the auction proceeds are distributed among the bidders. If a private auction fails, the provision for a last resort auction conducted by ICANN is invoked - here the total auction proceeds go to ICANN along with the participation fees.<a href="#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2"><sup><span>[2]</span></sup></a>]</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>In June 2016, NuDotCo LLC, a bidder that had previously participated in nine private auctions without any objection, withdrew its consent to the voluntary settlement. Ruby Glen LLC, another bidder, contacted NDC to ask if it would reconsider its withdrawal, and was made aware of changes in NDC’s Board membership, financial position, management and a potential change in ownership, by NDC’s Chief Financial Officer.<a href="#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3"><sup><span>[3]</span></sup></a> Concerned about the transparency of the auction process, Ruby Glen requested ICANN to postpone the auction on June 22, in order to investigate the discrepancies between NDC’s official application and its representation to Ruby Glen.<a href="#_ftn4" name="_ftnref4"><sup><span>[4]</span></sup></a> The Vice President of ICANN’s gTLD Operations and the independent ICANN Ombudsman led separate investigations, both of which were limited to few e-mails seeking NDC’s confirmation of status quo. On the basis of NDC’s denial of any material changes, ICANN announced that the auction would proceed as planned, as no grounds had been found for its postponement.<a href="#_ftn5" name="_ftnref5"><sup><span>[5]</span></sup></a></span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>On July 27, NDC’s winning bid – USD 135 million – beat the previous record by $90 million, <i>doubling ICANN’s total net proceeds</i> from the past fifteen auctions it had conducted.<a href="#_ftn6" name="_ftnref6"><sup><span>[6]</span></sup></a> Soon after NDC’s win, Verisign, Inc., the market giant that owns the .com and .net domain names, issued a public statement that it had used NDC as a front for the auction, and that it had been involved in its funding from the very beginning. Verisign agreed to transfer USD 130 million to NDC, allowing the latter to retain a $5 million stake in .WEB.<a href="#_ftn7" name="_ftnref7"><sup><span>[7]</span></sup></a></span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>Ruby Glen LLC filed for an injunction against the transfer of .WEB rights to NDC, and sought expedited discovery<a href="#_ftn8" name="_ftnref8"><sup><span>[8]</span></sup></a> against ICANN and NDC in order to gather evidentiary support for the temporary restraining order.<a href="#_ftn9" name="_ftnref9"><sup><span>[9]</span></sup></a> Donuts Inc., the parent company of Ruby Glen, simultaneously filed for recovery of economic loss due to negligence, fraud and breach of bylaws among other grounds, and Affilias, the second highest bidder, demanded that the .WEB rights be handed over by ICANN.<a href="#_ftn10" name="_ftnref10"><sup><span>[10]</span></sup></a> Furthermore, at ICANN57, Affilias publicly brought up the issue in front of ICANN’s Board, and Verisign followed with a rebuttal. However, ICANN’s Board refused to comment on the issue at that point as the matter was still engaged in ongoing litigation.<a href="#_ftn11" name="_ftnref11"><sup><span>[11]</span></sup></a></span></p>
<h2>Issues Regarding ICANN’s Assurance of Accountability</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>The Post-Transition IANA promised enhanced transparency and accountability to the global multistakeholder community. The series of events surrounding the .WEB auction has stirred up issues relating to the lack of transparency and accountability of ICANN. ICANN’s arbitrary enforcement of policies that should have been mandatory, with regard to internal accountability mechanisms, fiduciary responsibilities and the promotion of competition, has violated Bylaws that obligate it to operate ‘consistently, neutrally, objectively, and fairly, without singling out any particular party for discriminatory treatment’.<a href="#_ftn12" name="_ftnref12"><sup><span>[12]</span></sup></a> </span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>Though the US court ruled in favour of ICANN, the discrepancies that were made visible with regard to ICANN’s differing emphasis on procedural and substantive compliance with its rules and regulations, have forced the community to acknowledge that corporate strategies, latent interests and financial advantages undermine ICANN’s commitment to accountability. The approval of NDC’s ridiculously high bid with minimal investigation or hesitation, even after Verisign’s takeover, signifies pressing concerns that stand in the way of a convincing commitment to accountability, such as:</span></p>
<ol style="text-align: justify; ">
<li style="text-align: justify; "><span>The Lack of Substantive Fairness and Accountability at ICANN (A Superficial Investigation)</span></li>
<li style="text-align: justify; "><span>ICANN’s Sketchy Tryst with Legal Conformity</span></li>
<li style="text-align: justify; "><span>The Financial Accountability of ICANN’s Auction Proceeds</span></li>
</ol> <ol style="text-align: justify; ">
<li style="text-align: justify; "><span><span>The Lack of Substantive Fairness and Accountability in its Screening Processes: </span></span></li>
</ol>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>Ruby Glen’s claim that ICANN conducted a cursory investigation of NDC’s misleading and unethical behaviour brought to light the ease and arbitrariness with which applications are deemed valid and eligible. </span></p>
<ul style="text-align: justify; ">
<li style="text-align: justify; "><i><span><span>Disclosure of Significant Details Unique to Applicant Profiles:</span></span></i> <span>In the initial stage, applications for the gTLD auctions require disclosure of background information such as proof of legal establishment, financial statements, primary and secondary contacts to represent the company, officers, directors, partners, major shareholders, etc. At this stage, TAS User Registration IDs, which require VAT/tax/business IDs, principal business address, phone, fax, etc. of the applicants, are created to build unique profiles for different parties in an auction.<a href="#_ftn13" name="_ftnref13"><sup><span>[13]</span></sup></a> Any important change in an applicant’s details would thus significantly alter the unique profile, leading to uncertainty regarding the parties involved and the validity of transactions undertaken. NDC’s application clearly didn’t meet the requirements here, as its financial statements, secondary contact, board members and ownership all changed at some point before the auction took place (either prior to or post submission of the application).<a href="#_ftn14" name="_ftnref14"><sup><span>[14]</span></sup></a></span></li>
</ul>
<ul style="text-align: justify; ">
<li style="text-align: justify; "><i><span><span>Mandatory Declaration of Third Party Funding:</span></span></i><span> Applications presupposing a future joint venture or any organisational unpredictability are not deemed eligible by ICANN, and if any third party is involved in the funding of the applicant, the latter is to provide evidence of such commitment to funding at the time of submission of its financial documents.<a href="#_ftn15" name="_ftnref15"><sup><span>[15]</span></sup></a> Verisign’s public announcement that it was involved in NDC’s funding from the very beginning (well before the auction) and its management later, proves that NDC’s failure to notify ICANN made its application ineligible, or irregular at the very least.<a href="#_ftn16" name="_ftnref16"><sup><span>[16]</span></sup></a></span></li>
</ul>
<ul style="text-align: justify; ">
<li style="text-align: justify; "><i><span><span>Vague Consequences of Failure to Notify ICANN of Changes:</span></span></i><span> If in any situation, certain material changes occur in the composition of the management, ownership or financial position of the applicant, ICANN is liable to be notified of the changes by the submission of updated documents. Here, however, the applicant may be subjected to re-evaluation if a <i>material change</i> is concerned, <i>at ICANN’s will</i> (there is no mention of what a material change might be). In the event of failure to notify ICANN of changes that would lead the previous information submitted to be false or misleading, ICANN <i>may</i> reject or deny the application concerned.<a href="#_ftn17" name="_ftnref17"><sup><span>[17]</span></sup></a> NDC’s absolute and repeated denial of any changes, during the extremely brief e-mail ‘investigation’ conducted by ICANN and the Ombudsman, show that at no point was NDC planning on revealing its intimacy with Verisign. No extended evaluation was conducted by ICANN at any point.<a href="#_ftn18" name="_ftnref18"><sup><span>[18]</span></sup></a> Note: The arbitrary power allowed here and the vague use of the term ‘material’ obstruct any real accountability on ICANN’s part to ensure that checks are carried out to discourage dishonest behaviour, at all stages.</span></li>
</ul>
<ul style="text-align: justify; ">
<li style="text-align: justify; "><i><span><span>Arbitrary Enforcement of Background Checks:</span></span></i><span> In order to confirm the eligibility of all applicants, ICANN conducts background screening during its initial evaluation process to verify the information disclosed, at the individual and entity levels.<a href="#_ftn19" name="_ftnref19"><sup><span>[19]</span></sup></a> The applicants may be asked to produce any and all documents/evidence to help ICANN complete this successfully, and any relevant information received from ‘any source’ may be taken into account here. However, this screening is conducted only with regard to two criteria: general business diligence and criminal history, and any record of cybersquatting behaviour.<a href="#_ftn20" name="_ftnref20"><sup><span>[20]</span></sup></a> In this case, ICANN’s background screening was clearly not thorough, in light of Verisign’s confirmed involvement since the beginning, and at no point was NDC asked to submit any extra documents (apart from the exchange of e-mails between NDC and ICANN and its Ombudsman) to enable ICANN’s inquiry into its business diligence.<a href="#_ftn21" name="_ftnref21"><sup><span>[21]</span></sup></a> Further, ICANN also said that it was not <i>required</i> to conduct background checks or a screening process, as the provisions only mention that ICANN is <i>allowed</i> to do so, when it feels the need.<a href="#_ftn22" name="_ftnref22"><sup><span>[22]</span></sup></a> This ludicrous loophole hinders transparency efforts by giving ICANN the authority to ignore any questionable details in applications it desires to deem eligible, based on its own strategic leanings, advantageous circumstances or any other beneficial interests.</span></li>
</ul>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>ICANN’s deliberate avoidance of discussing or investigating the ‘allegations’ against NDC (that were eventually proved true), as well as a visible compromise in fairness and equity of the application process point to the conclusion it desired. </span></p>
<h3><span><span>ICANN’s Sketchy Tryst with Legal Conformity:</span></span></h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>ICANN’s lack of <i>substantive compliance</i>, with California’s laws and its own rules and regulations, leave us with the realisation that efforts towards transparency, enforcement and compliance (even with emphasis on the IANA Stewardship and Accountability Process) barely meet the procedural minimum. </span></p>
<ul style="text-align: justify; ">
<li style="text-align: justify; "><i><span><span>Rejection of Request for Postponement of Auction:</span></span></i><span> ICANN’s intent to ‘initiate the Auction process once the composition of the set is stabilised’ implies that there must be no pending accountability mechanisms with regard to any applicant.<a href="#_ftn23" name="_ftnref23"><sup><span>[23]</span></sup></a> When ICANN itself determines the opening and closing of investigations or reviews concerning applicants, arbitrariness on ICANN’s part in deciding <i>on which date</i> the mechanisms are to be deemed as <i>pending</i>, may affect an applicant’s claim about procedural irregularity. In this case, ICANN had already scheduled the auction for July 27, 2016, before Ruby Glen sent in a request for postponement of the auction and inquiry into NDC’s eligibility on June 22, 2016.<a href="#_ftn24" name="_ftnref24"><sup><span>[24]</span></sup></a> Even though the ongoing accountability mechanisms had begun after initiation of the auction process, ICANN confirmed the continuance of the process without assurance about the stability of the contention set as required by procedure. Ruby Glen’s claim about this violation in auction rules was dismissed by ICANN on the basis that there must be no pending accountability mechanisms at the <i>time of scheduling</i> of the auction.<a href="#_ftn25" name="_ftnref25"><sup><span>[25]</span></sup></a> This means that if any objection is raised or any dispute resolution or accountability mechanism is initiated with regard to an applicant, at any point after fixing the date of the auction, the auction process continues even though the contention set may not be stabilised. This line of defence made by ICANN is not in conformity with the purpose behind the wording of its auction procedure as discussed above.</span></li>
</ul>
<ul style="text-align: justify; ">
<li style="text-align: justify; "><i><span><span>Lack of Adequate Participation in the Discovery Planning Process:</span></span></i><span> In order to gather evidentiary support and start the discovery process for the passing of the injunction, ICANN was required to engage with Ruby Glen in a conference, under Federal law. However, due to a disagreement as to the <i>extent</i> of participation required from both parties involved in the process, ICANN recorded only a single appearance at court, after which it refused to engage with Ruby Glen.<a href="#_ftn26" name="_ftnref26"><sup><span>[26]</span></sup></a> ICANN should have conducted a thorough investigation, based on both NDC’s and Verisign’s public statements, and engaged more cooperatively in the conference, to comply substantively with its internal procedure as well jurisdictional obligations. Under ICANN’s Bylaws, it is to ensure that an applicant <i>does not assign</i> its rights or obligations in connection with the application to another party, as NDC did, in order to promote a competitive market and ensure certainty in transactions.<a href="#_ftn27" name="_ftnref27"><sup><span>[27]</span></sup></a> However, due to its lack of substantive compliance with due procedure, such bylaws have been rendered weak.</span></li>
</ul>
<ul style="text-align: justify; ">
<li style="text-align: justify; "><i><span><span>Demand to Dismiss Ruby Glen’s Complaint:</span></span></i><span> ICANN demanded the dismissal of Ruby Glen’s complaint on the basis that the complaint was vague and unsubstantiated.<a href="#_ftn28" name="_ftnref28"><sup><span>[28]</span></sup></a> After the auction, Ruby Glen’s allegations and suspicions about NDC’s dishonest behaviour were confirmed publicly by Verisign, making the above demand for dismissal of the complaint ridiculous.</span></li>
</ul>
<ul style="text-align: justify; ">
<li style="text-align: justify; "><i><span><span>Inapplicability of ICANN’s Bylaws to its Contractual Relationships:</span></span></i><span> ICANN maintained that its bylaws are not part of application documents or contracts with applicants (as it is a not-for-profit public benefit corporation), and that ICANN’s liability, with respect to a breach of ICANN’s foundational documents, extends only to officers, directors, members, etc.<a href="#_ftn29" name="_ftnref29"><sup><span>[29]</span></sup></a> In addition, it said that Ruby Glen had not included any facts that suggested a duty of care arose from the contractual relationship with Ruby Glen and Donuts Inc.<a href="#_ftn30" name="_ftnref30"><sup><span>[30]</span></sup></a> Its dismissal of and considerable disregard for fiduciary obligations like duty of care and duty of inquiry in contractual relationships, prove the contravention of promised commitments and core values (integral to its entire accountability process), which are to ‘apply in the broadest possible range of circumstances’.<a href="#_ftn31" name="_ftnref31"><sup><span>[31]</span></sup></a></span></li>
</ul>
<ul style="text-align: justify; ">
<li style="text-align: justify; "><i><span><span>ICANN’s Legal Waiver and Public Policy:</span></span></i><span> Ruby Glen had submitted that, under the California Civil Code 1668, a covenant not to sue was against policy, and that the legal waiver all applicants were made to sign in the application was unenforceable.<a href="#_ftn32" name="_ftnref32"><sup><span>[32]</span></sup></a> This waiver releases ICANN from ‘any claims arising out of, or related to, any action or failure to act’, and the complaint claimed that such an agreement ‘not to challenge ICANN in court, irrevocably waiving the right to sue on basis of any legal claim’ was unconscionable.<a href="#_ftn33" name="_ftnref33"><sup><span>[33]</span></sup></a> However, ICANN defended the enforceability of the legal waiver, saying that only a covenant not to sue that is <i>specifically designed</i> to avoid responsibility for own fraud or willful injury is invalidated under the provisions of the California Civil Code.<a href="#_ftn34" name="_ftnref34"><sup><span>[34]</span></sup></a> A waiver, incorporating the availability of accountability mechanisms ‘<i>within ICANN’s bylaws</i> to challenge any final decision of ICANN’s with respect to an application’, was argued as completely valid under California’s laws. It must be kept in mind that challenges to ICANN’s final decisions can make headway <i>only</i> through its own accountability mechanisms (including the Reconsideration Requests Process, the Independent Review Panel and the Ombudsman), which are mostly conducted by, accountable to and applicable at the discretion of the Board.<a href="#_ftn35" name="_ftnref35"><sup><span>[35]</span></sup></a> This means that the only recourse for dissatisfied applicants is through processes managed by ICANN, leaving no scope for independence and impartiality in the review or inquiry concerned, as the .WEB case has shown.</span></li>
</ul>
<ul style="text-align: justify; ">
<li style="text-align: justify; "><i><span><span>Note</span></span></i><span>: ICANN has also previously argued that its waivers are not restricted by S. 1668 because the parties involved are sophisticated - without an element of oppression, and that these transactions don’t involve public interest as ICANN doesn’t provide necessary services such as health, transportation, etc.<a href="#_ftn36" name="_ftnref36"><sup><span>[36]</span></sup></a> Such line of argument shows its continuous refusal to acknowledge responsibility for ensuring access to an essential good, in a diverse community, justifying concerns about ICANN’s commitment to accessibility and human rights.</span></li>
</ul>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>Required to remain accountable to the stakeholders of the community through <i>mechanisms listed in its Bylaws</i>, ICANN’s repeated difficulty in ensuring these mechanisms adhere to the purpose behind jurisdictional regulations confirm hindrances to impartiality, independence and effectiveness.</span></p>
<h3><span><span>The Financial Accountability of ICANN’s Auction Proceeds:</span></span></h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>The use and distribution of significant auction proceeds accruing to ICANN have been identified by the internet community as issues central to financial transparency, especially in a future of increasing instances of contention sets. </span></p>
<ul style="text-align: justify; ">
<li style="text-align: justify; "><i><span><span>Private Inurement Prohibition and Legal Requirements of Tax-Exempted Organisations:</span></span></i> <span>Subject to California’s state laws as well as federal laws, tax exemptions and tax-deductible charitable donations (available to not-for-profit public benefit corporations) are dependent on the fulfillment of jurisdictional obligations by ICANN, including avoiding contracts that may result in excessive economic benefit to a party involved, or lead to any deviation from purely charitable and scientific purposes.<a href="#_ftn37" name="_ftnref37"><sup><span>[37]</span></sup></a> ICANN’s Articles require that it ‘<i>shall</i> pursue the charitable and public purposes of lessening the burdens of government and promoting the global public interest in the operational stability of the Internet’.<a href="#_ftn38" name="_ftnref38"><sup><span>[38]</span></sup></a> Due to this, ICANN’s accumulation of around USD 60 million (the total net proceeds from over 14 contention sets) since 2014 has been treated with unease, making it impossible to ignore the exponential increase in the same after the .WEB controversy.<a href="#_ftn39" name="_ftnref39"><sup><span>[39]</span></sup></a> With its dedication to a bottom-up, multi-stakeholder policy development process, the use of a single and ambiguous footnote, in ICANN’s Guidebook, to tackle the complications involving significant funds that accrue from last resort auctions (without even mentioning the arbiters of their ‘appropriate’ use) is grossly insufficient.<a href="#_ftn40" name="_ftnref40"><sup><span>[40]</span></sup></a> </span></li>
</ul>
<ul style="text-align: justify; ">
<li style="text-align: justify; "><i><span><span>Need for Careful and Inclusive Deliberation Over the Use of Auction Proceeds:</span></span></i><span> At the end of the fiscal year 2016, ICANN’s balance sheet showed a total of USD 399.6 million. However, the .WEB sale amount was not included in this figure, as the auction happened after the last date (June 30, 2016).<a href="#_ftn41" name="_ftnref41"><sup><span>[41]</span></sup></a> Around seven times the average winning bid, a USD 135 million hike in ICANN’s accounts shows the need for greater scrutiny on ICANN’s process of allocation and distribution of these auction proceeds.<a href="#_ftn42" name="_ftnref42"><sup><span>[42]</span></sup></a> While finding an ‘appropriate purpose’ for these funds, it is important that ICANN’s legal nature under US jurisdiction as well as its vision, mission and commitments be adhered to, in order to help increase public confidence and financial transparency.</span></li>
</ul>
<ul style="text-align: justify; ">
<li style="text-align: justify; "><i><span><span>The CCWG Charter on New gTLD Auction Proceeds:</span></span></i><span> ICANN has always maintained that it recognised the concern of ‘significant funds accruing as a result of several auctions’ at the outset.<a href="#_ftn43" name="_ftnref43"><sup><span>[43]</span></sup></a> In March 2015, the GNSO brought up issues relating to the distribution of auction proceeds at ICANN52, to address growing concerns of the community.<a href="#_ftn44" name="_ftnref44"><sup><span>[44]</span></sup></a> A Charter was then drafted, proposing the formation of a Cross-Community Working Group on New gTLD Auction Proceeds, to help ICANN’s Board in allocating these funds.<a href="#_ftn45" name="_ftnref45"><sup><span>[45]</span></sup></a> After being discussed in detail at ICANN56, the draft charter was forwarded to the various supporting organisations for comments.<a href="#_ftn46" name="_ftnref46"><sup><span>[46]</span></sup></a> The Charter received no objections from 2 organisations and was adopted by the ALAC, ASO, ccNSO and GNSO, following which members and co-chairs were identified from the organisations to constitute the CCWG.<a href="#_ftn47" name="_ftnref47"><sup><span>[47]</span></sup></a> It was decided that while ICANN’s Board will have final responsibility in disbursement of the proceeds, the CCWG will be responsible for the submission of proposals regarding the mechanism for the allocation of funds, keeping ICANN’s fiduciary and legal obligations in mind.<a href="#_ftn48" name="_ftnref48"><sup><span>[48]</span></sup></a> While creating proposals, the CCWG must recommend how to avoid possible conflicts of interest, maintain ICANN’s tax-exempt status, and ensure diversity and inclusivity in the entire process.<a href="#_ftn49" name="_ftnref49"><sup><span>[49]</span></sup></a> It is important to note that the CCWG cannot make recommendations ‘regarding which organisations are to be funded or not’, but is to merely submit a <i>proposal</i> for the <i>process</i> by which allocation is undertaken.<a href="#_ftn50" name="_ftnref50"><sup><span>[50]</span></sup></a> ICANN’s Guidebook mentions possible uses for proceeds, such as ‘<i><span>grants to support new gTLD applications or registry operators from communities’</span></i><span>, the creation of a fund for ‘<i>specific projects for the benefit of the Internet community’, </i>the ‘<i>establishment of a security fund to expand use of secure protocols’</i>, among others, to be decided by the Board.<a href="#_ftn51" name="_ftnref51"><sup><span>[51]</span></sup></a></span></span></li>
</ul>
<ul style="text-align: justify; ">
<li style="text-align: justify; "><i><span><span>A Slow Process and the Need for More Official Updates:</span></span></i><span> The lack of sufficient communication/updates about any allocation or the process behind such, in light of ICANN’s current total net auction proceeds of USD 233,455,563, speaks of an urgent need for a decision by the Board (based on a recommendation by CCWG), regarding a <i>timeframe</i> for the allocation of such proceeds.<a href="#_ftn52" name="_ftnref52"><sup><span>[52]</span></sup></a> However, the entire process has been very slow, with the <i>first</i> CCWG meeting on auction proceeds scheduled for 26 January 2016, and the lists of members and observers being made public only recently.<a href="#_ftn53" name="_ftnref53"><sup><span>[53]</span></sup></a> Here, even parties interested in applying for the same funds at a later stage are allowed to participate in meetings, as long as they include such information in a Statement of Interest and Declaration of Intention, to satisfy CCWG’s efforts towards transparency and accountability.<a href="#_ftn54" name="_ftnref54"><sup><span>[54]</span></sup></a> </span></li>
</ul>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>The worrying consequences of ICANN’s lack of financial as well as legal accountability (especially in light of its controversies), reminds us of the need for constant reassessment of its commitment to substantive transparency, enforcement and compliance with its rules and regulations. Its current obsessive courtship with only <i>procedural</i> regularity must not be mistaken for a greater commitment to accountability, as assured by the post-transition IANA.</span></p>
<hr style="text-align: justify; " />
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span> </span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1"><sup><span>[1]</span></sup></a> <span>DECLARATION OF CHRISTINE WILLETT IN SUPPORT OF ICANN’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S <i>EX PARTE </i>APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, 2. (</span><a href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/litigation-ruby-glen-declaration-willett-25jul16-en.pdf"><span>https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/litigation-ruby-glen-declaration-willett-25jul16-en.p</span></a><a href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/litigation-ruby-glen-declaration-willett-25jul16-en.pdf"><span>df</span></a><span>)</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2"><sup><span>[2]</span></sup></a> <span>4.3, gTLD Applicant Guidebook ICANN, 4-19. (</span><a href="https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb"><span>https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb</span></a><span>)</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="#_ftnref3" name="_ftn3"><sup><span>[3]</span></sup></a> <span>NOTICE OF AND EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF, 15. (</span><a href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/litigation-ruby-glen-ex-parte-application-tro-memo-points-authorities-22jul16-en.pdf"><span>https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/litigation-ruby-glen-ex-parte-application-tro-memo-points-authorities-22jul16-en.pdf</span></a><span>)</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="#_ftnref4" name="_ftn4"><sup><span>[4]</span></sup></a> <span>NOTICE OF AND EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF, 15. (</span><a href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/litigation-ruby-glen-ex-parte-application-tro-memo-points-authorities-22jul16-en.pdf"><span>https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/litigation-ruby-glen-ex-parte-application-tro-memo-points-authorities-22jul16-en.pdf</span></a><span>)</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="#_ftnref5" name="_ftn5"><sup><span>[5]</span></sup></a> <span>DECLARATION OF CHRISTINE WILLETT IN SUPPORT OF ICANN’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S <i>EX PARTE </i>APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, 4-7. (</span><a href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/litigation-ruby-glen-declaration-willett-25jul16-en.pdf"><span>https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/litigation-ruby-glen-declaration-willett-25jul16-en.pdf</span></a><span>)</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="#_ftnref6" name="_ftn6"><sup><span>[6]</span></sup></a><span> PLAINTIFF RUBY GLEN, LLC’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO TAKE THIRD PARTY DISCOVERY OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION FOR THE COURT TO ISSUE A SCHEDULING ORDER, 3.</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>(</span><a href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/litigation-ruby-glen-motion-court-issue-scheduling-order-26oct16-en.pdf"><span>https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/litigation-ruby-glen-motion-court-issue-scheduling-order-26oct16-en.pdf</span></a><span>)</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="#_ftnref7" name="_ftn7"><sup><span>[7]</span></sup></a><span>(</span><a href="https://www.verisign.com/en_US/internet-technology-news/verisign-press-releases/articles/index.xhtml?artLink=aHR0cDovL3ZlcmlzaWduLm5ld3NocS5idXNpbmVzc3dpcmUuY29tL3ByZXNzLXJlbGVhc2UvdmVyaXNpZ24tc3RhdGVtZW50LXJlZ2FyZGluZy13ZWItYXVjdGlvbi1yZXN1bHRz"><span>https://www.verisign.com/en_US/internet-technology-news/verisign-press-releases/articles/index.xhtml?artLink=aHR0cDovL3ZlcmlzaWduLm5ld3NocS5idXNpbmVzc3dpcmUuY29tL3ByZXNzLXJlbGVhc2UvdmVyaXNpZ24tc3RhdGVtZW50LXJlZ2FyZGluZy13ZWItYXVjdGlvbi1yZXN1bHRz</span></a><span>)</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="#_ftnref8" name="_ftn8"><sup><span>[8]</span></sup></a> <span>An expedited discovery request can provide the required evidentiary support needed to meet the Plaintiff’s burden to obtain a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order. (</span><a href="http://apps.americanbar.org/litigation/committees/businesstorts/articles/winter2014-0227-using-expedited-discovery-with-preliminary-injunction-motions.html"><span>http://apps.americanbar.org/litigation/committees/businesstorts/articles/winter2014-0227-using-expedited-discovery-with-preliminary-injunction-motions.html</span></a><span>)</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="#_ftnref9" name="_ftn9"><sup><span>[9]</span></sup></a> <span>NOTICE OF AND EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF, 2. (</span><a href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/litigation-ruby-glen-ex-parte-application-tro-memo-points-authorities-22jul16-en.pdf"><span>https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/litigation-ruby-glen-ex-parte-application-tro-memo-points-authorities-22jul16-en.pdf</span></a><span>)</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="#_ftnref10" name="_ftn10"><sup><span>[10]</span></sup></a> <span>(</span><a href="http://domainincite.com/20789-donuts-files-10-million-lawsuit-to-stop-web-auction"><span>http://domainincite.com/20789-donuts-files-10-million-lawsuit-to-stop-web-auction</span></a><span>); (</span><a href="https://www.thedomains.com/2016/08/15/afilias-asks-icann-to-disqualify-nu-dot-cos-135-million-winning-bid-for-web/"><span>https://www.thedomains.com/2016/08/15/afilias-asks-icann-to-disqualify-nu-dot-cos-135-million-winning-bid-for-web/</span></a><span>)</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span> </span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span> </span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="#_ftnref11" name="_ftn11"><sup><span>[11]</span></sup></a><span> (</span><a href="http://www.domainmondo.com/2016/11/news-review-icann57-hyderabad-india.html"><span>http://www.domainmondo.com/2016/11/news-review-icann57-hyderabad-india.html</span></a><span>)</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="#_ftnref12" name="_ftn12"><sup><span>[12]</span></sup></a> <span>Art III, Bylaws of Public Technical Identifiers, ICANN. (</span><a href="https://pti.icann.org/bylaws"><span>https://pti.icann.org/bylaws</span></a><span>)</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="#_ftnref13" name="_ftn13"><sup><span>[13]</span></sup></a> <span>1.4.1.1, gTLD Applicant Guidebook ICANN, 1-39.(</span><a href="https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb"><span>https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb</span></a><span>)</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="#_ftnref14" name="_ftn14"><sup><span>[14]</span></sup></a> <span>NOTICE OF AND EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF, 15. (</span><a href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/litigation-ruby-glen-ex-parte-application-tro-memo-points-authorities-22jul16-en.pdf"><span>https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/litigation-ruby-glen-ex-parte-application-tro-memo-points-authorities-22jul16-en.pdf</span></a><span>)</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="#_ftnref15" name="_ftn15"><sup><span>[15]</span></sup></a> <span>1.2.1; 1.2.2, gTLD Applicant Guidebook ICANN, 1-21. (</span><a href="https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb"><span>https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb</span></a><span>)</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="#_ftnref16" name="_ftn16"><sup><span>[16]</span></sup></a><span>(</span><a href="https://www.verisign.com/en_US/internet-technology-news/verisign-press-releases/articles/index.xhtml?artLink=aHR0cDovL3ZlcmlzaWduLm5ld3NocS5idXNpbmVzc3dpcmUuY29tL3ByZXNzLXJlbGVhc2UvdmVyaXNpZ24tc3RhdGVtZW50LXJlZ2FyZGluZy13ZWItYXVjdGlvbi1yZXN1bHRz"><span>https://www.verisign.com/en_US/internet-technology-news/verisign-press-releases/articles/index.xhtml?artLink=aHR0cDovL3ZlcmlzaWduLm5ld3NocS5idXNpbmVzc3dpcmUuY29tL3ByZXNzLXJlbGVhc2UvdmVyaXNpZ24tc3RhdGVtZW50LXJlZ2FyZGluZy13ZWItYXVjdGlvbi1yZXN1bHRz</span></a><span>)</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="#_ftnref17" name="_ftn17"><sup><span>[17]</span></sup></a> <span>1.2.7, gTLD Applicant Guidebook ICANN, 1-30. (</span><a href="https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb"><span>https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb</span></a><span>)</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="#_ftnref18" name="_ftn18"><sup><span>[18]</span></sup></a> <span>DECLARATION OF CHRISTINE WILLETT IN SUPPORT OF ICANN’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S <i>EX PARTE </i>APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, 4. (</span><a href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/litigation-ruby-glen-declaration-willett-25jul16-en.pdf"><span>https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/litigation-ruby-glen-declaration-willett-25jul16-en.pdf</span></a><span>)</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="#_ftnref19" name="_ftn19"><sup><span>[19]</span></sup></a> <span>1.1.2.5, gTLD Applicant Guidebook ICANN, 1-8. (</span><a href="https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb"><span>https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb</span></a><span>)</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="#_ftnref20" name="_ftn20"><sup><span>[20]</span></sup></a> <span>1.2.1, gTLD Applicant Guidebook ICANN, 1-21. (</span><a href="https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb"><span>https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb</span></a><span>)</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="#_ftnref21" name="_ftn21"><sup><span>[21]</span></sup></a> <span>DECLARATION OF CHRISTINE WILLETT IN SUPPORT OF ICANN’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S <i>EX PARTE </i>APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, 7. (</span><a href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/litigation-ruby-glen-declaration-willett-25jul16-en.pdf"><span>https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/litigation-ruby-glen-declaration-willett-25jul16-en.pdf</span></a><span>)</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="#_ftnref22" name="_ftn22"><sup><span>[22]</span></sup></a> <span>6.8; 6.11, gTLD Applicant Guidebook ICANN, 6-5 (</span><a href="https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb"><span>https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb</span></a><span>);</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span> DEFENDANT INTERNET CORPORATION FOR ASSIGNED NAMES AND NUMBERS’ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT, 10. (</span><a href="http://domainnamewire.com/wp-content/icann-donuts-motion.pdf"><span>http://domainnamewire.com/wp-content/icann-donuts-motion.pdf</span></a><span>)</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="#_ftnref23" name="_ftn23"><sup><span>[23]</span></sup></a> <span>1.1.2.10, gTLD Applicant Guidebook ICANN. (</span><a href="https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb"><span>https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb</span></a><span>)</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="#_ftnref24" name="_ftn24"><sup><span>[24]</span></sup></a> <span>NOTICE OF AND EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF, 15. (</span><a href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/litigation-ruby-glen-ex-parte-application-tro-memo-points-authorities-22jul16-en.pdf"><span>https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/litigation-ruby-glen-ex-parte-application-tro-memo-points-authorities-22jul16-en.pdf</span></a><span>)</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="#_ftnref25" name="_ftn25"><sup><span>[25]</span></sup></a><span> DEFENDANT INTERNET CORPORATION FOR ASSIGNED NAMES AND NUMBERS’ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT, 8. (</span><a href="http://domainnamewire.com/wp-content/icann-donuts-motion.pdf"><span>http://domainnamewire.com/wp-content/icann-donuts-motion.pdf</span></a><span>)</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="#_ftnref26" name="_ftn26"><sup><span>[26]</span></sup></a> <span>26(f); 65, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (</span><a href="https://www.federalrulesofcivilprocedure.org/frcp/title-viii-provisional-and-final-remedies/rule-65-injunctions-and-restraining-orders/"><span>https://www.federalrulesofcivilprocedure.org/frcp/title-viii-provisional-and-final-remedies/rule-65-injunctions-and-restraining-orders/</span></a><span>); (</span><a href="https://www.federalrulesofcivilprocedure.org/frcp/title-v-disclosures-and-discovery/rule-26-duty-to-disclose-general-provisions-governing-discovery/"><span>https://www.federalrulesofcivilprocedure.org/frcp/title-v-disclosures-and-discovery/rule-26-duty-to-disclose-general-provisions-governing-discovery/</span></a><span>)</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="#_ftnref27" name="_ftn27"><sup><span>[27]</span></sup></a> <span>6.10, gTLD Applicant Guidebook ICANN, 6-6. (</span><a href="https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb"><span>https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb</span></a><span>); (</span><a href="https://www.icann.org/resources/reviews/specific-reviews/cct"><span>https://www.icann.org/resources/reviews/specific-reviews/cct</span></a><span>)</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="#_ftnref28" name="_ftn28"><sup><span>[28]</span></sup></a><span> 12(b)(6), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; DEFENDANT INTERNET CORPORATION FOR ASSIGNED NAMES AND NUMBERS’ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT, 6. (</span><a href="http://domainnamewire.com/wp-content/icann-donuts-motion.pdf"><span>http://domainnamewire.com/wp-content/icann-donuts-motion.pdf</span></a><span>) </span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="#_ftnref29" name="_ftn29"><sup><span>[29]</span></sup></a> <span>DEFENDANT INTERNET CORPORATION FOR ASSIGNED NAMES AND NUMBERS’ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT, 8. (</span><a href="http://domainnamewire.com/wp-content/icann-donuts-motion.pdf"><span>http://domainnamewire.com/wp-content/icann-donuts-motion.pdf</span></a><span>)</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="#_ftnref30" name="_ftn30"><sup><span>[30]</span></sup></a> <span>PLAINTIFF RUBY GLEN, LLC’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT INTERNET CORPORATION FOR ASSIGNED NAMES AND NUMBERS’ MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES, 12.</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>(</span><a href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/litigation-ruby-glen-opposition-motion-dismiss-first-amended-complaint-07nov16-en.pdf"><span>https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/litigation-ruby-glen-opposition-motion-dismiss-first-amended-complaint-07nov16-en.pdf</span></a><span>)</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="#_ftnref31" name="_ftn31"><sup><span>[31]</span></sup></a> <span>(</span><a href="https://archive.icann.org/en/accountability/frameworks-principles/legal-corporate.htm"><span>https://archive.icann.org/en/accountability/frameworks-principles/legal-corporate.htm</span></a><span>); Art. 1(c), Bylaws for ICANN. (</span><a href="https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en"><span>https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en</span></a><span>)</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="#_ftnref32" name="_ftn32"><sup><span>[32]</span></sup></a> <span>(</span><a href="http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=CIV&sectionNum=1668"><span>http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=CIV&sectionNum=1668</span></a><span>); NOTICE OF AND EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER: MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF, 24. (</span><a href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/litigation-ruby-glen-ex-parte-application-tro-memo-points-authorities-22jul16-en.pdf"><span>https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/litigation-ruby-glen-ex-parte-application-tro-memo-points-authorities-22jul16-en.pdf</span></a><span>)</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="#_ftnref33" name="_ftn33"><sup><span>[33]</span></sup></a><span> 6.6, gTLD Applicant Guidebook ICANN, 6-4. (</span><a href="https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb"><span>https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb</span></a><span>)</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="#_ftnref34" name="_ftn34"><sup><span>[34]</span></sup></a> <span>DEFENDANT INTERNET CORPORATION FOR ASSIGNED NAMES AND NUMBERS’ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT, 18. (</span><a href="http://domainnamewire.com/wp-content/icann-donuts-motion.pdf"><span>http://domainnamewire.com/wp-content/icann-donuts-motion.pdf</span></a><span>)</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="#_ftnref35" name="_ftn35"><sup><span>[35]</span></sup></a> <span>(</span><a href="https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/mechanisms-2014-03-20-en"><span>https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/mechanisms-2014-03-20-en</span></a><span>)</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="#_ftnref36" name="_ftn36"><sup><span>[36]</span></sup></a> <span>AMENDED REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF ICANN’S MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT, 4. (</span><a href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/litigation-dca-reply-memo-support-icann-motion-dismiss-first-amended-complaint-14apr16-en.pdf"><span>https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/litigation-dca-reply-memo-support-icann-motion-dismiss-first-amended-complaint-14apr16-en.pdf</span></a><span>)</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="#_ftnref37" name="_ftn37"><sup><span>[37]</span></sup></a><span> 501(c)(3), Internal Revenue Code, USA. (</span><a href="https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organizations/exemption-requirements-section-501-c-3-organizations"><span>https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organizations/exemption-requirements-section-501-c-3-organizations</span></a><span>)</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="#_ftnref38" name="_ftn38"><sup><span>[38]</span></sup></a> <span>Art. II, Public Technical Identifiers, Articles of Incorporation, ICANN. (</span><a href="https://pti.icann.org/articles-of-incorporation"><span>https://pti.icann.org/articles-of-incorporation</span></a><span>)</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="#_ftnref39" name="_ftn39"><sup><span>[39]</span></sup></a><span>(</span><a href="https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+New+gTLD+Auction+Proceeds+Discussion+Paper+Workspace"><span>https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+New+gTLD+Auction+Proceeds+Discussion+Paper+Workspace</span></a><span>)</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="#_ftnref40" name="_ftn40"><sup><span>[40]</span></sup></a> <span>(</span><a href="https://www.icann.org/policy"><span>https://www.icann.org/policy</span></a><span>); 4.3, gTLD Applicant Guidebook ICANN, 4-19. (</span><a href="https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb"><span>https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb</span></a><span>)</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="#_ftnref41" name="_ftn41"><sup><span>[41]</span></sup></a><span>5, Internet Corporation for ASsigned Names and Numbers, Fiscal Statements As of and for the Years Ended June 30, 2016 and 2015. (</span><a href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/financial-report-fye-30jun16-en.pdf"><span>https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/financial-report-fye-30jun16-en.pdf</span></a><span>);</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>(</span><a href="http://domainincite.com/21204-icann-has-400m-in-the-bank?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+DomainIncite+%28DomainIncite.com%29"><span>http://domainincite.com/21204-icann-has-400m-in-the-bank?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+DomainIncite+%28DomainIncite.com%29</span></a><span>)</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="#_ftnref42" name="_ftn42"><sup><span>[42]</span></sup></a><span> (</span><a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/07/28/someone_paid_135m_for_dot_web"><span>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/07/28/someone_paid_135m_for_dot_web</span></a><span>)</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="#_ftnref43" name="_ftn43"><sup><span>[43]</span></sup></a><span>(</span><a href="https://community.icann.org/display/CWGONGAP/Cross-Community+Working+Group+on+new+gTLD+Auction+Proceeds+Home"><span>https://community.icann.org/display/CWGONGAP/Cross-Community+Working+Group+on+new+gTLD+Auction+Proceeds+Home</span></a><span>)</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="#_ftnref44" name="_ftn44"><sup><span>[44]</span></sup></a><span> (</span><a href="https://www.icann.org/public-comments/new-gtld-auction-proceeds-2015-09-08-en"><span>https://www.icann.org/public-comments/new-gtld-auction-proceeds-2015-09-08-en</span></a><span>)</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="#_ftnref45" name="_ftn45"><sup><span>[45]</span></sup></a><span> (</span><a href="https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2016-12-13-en"><span>https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2016-12-13-en</span></a><span>)</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="#_ftnref46" name="_ftn46"><sup><span>[46]</span></sup></a> <span>(</span><a href="https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2016-12-13-en"><span>https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2016-12-13-en</span></a><span>)</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="#_ftnref47" name="_ftn47"><sup><span>[47]</span></sup></a><span>(</span><a href="https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2016-12-13-en"><span>https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2016-12-13-en</span></a><span>); </span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>(</span><a href="https://community.icann.org/display/CWGONGAP/Cross-Community+Working+Group+on+new+gTLD+Auction+Proceeds+Home"><span>https://community.icann.org/display/CWGONGAP/Cross-Community+Working+Group+on+new+gTLD+Auction+Proceeds+Home</span></a><span>)</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="#_ftnref48" name="_ftn48"><sup><span>[48]</span></sup></a><span> (</span><a href="https://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/ccwg-charter-07nov16-en.pdf"><span>https://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/ccwg-charter-07nov16-en.pdf</span></a><span>); (</span><a href="https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2016-12-13-en"><span>https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2016-12-13-en</span></a><span>)</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="#_ftnref49" name="_ftn49"><sup><span>[49]</span></sup></a><span> (</span><a href="https://www.icann.org/public-comments/new-gtld-auction-proceeds-2015-09-08-en"><span>https://www.icann.org/public-comments/new-gtld-auction-proceeds-2015-09-08-en</span></a><span>)</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="#_ftnref50" name="_ftn50"><sup><span>[50]</span></sup></a> <span>(</span><a href="https://community.icann.org/display/CWGONGAP/CCWG+Charter"><span>https://community.icann.org/display/CWGONGAP/CCWG+Charter</span></a><span>)</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="#_ftnref51" name="_ftn51"><sup><span>[51]</span></sup></a><span> 4.3, gTLD Applicant Guidebook ICANN, 4-19. (</span><a href="https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb"><span>https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb</span></a><span>)</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="#_ftnref52" name="_ftn52"><sup><span>[52]</span></sup></a><span> (</span><a href="https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/auctions/proceeds"><span>https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/auctions/proceeds</span></a><span>)</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="#_ftnref53" name="_ftn53"><sup><span>[53]</span></sup></a><span> (</span><a href="https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=63150102"><span>https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=63150102</span></a><span>)</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="#_ftnref54" name="_ftn54"><sup><span>[54]</span></sup></a> <span>(</span><a href="https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2016-12-13-en"><span>https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2016-12-13-en</span></a><span>)</span></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/icann2019s-problems-with-accountability-and-the-web-controversy'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/icann2019s-problems-with-accountability-and-the-web-controversy</a>
</p>
No publisherPadma VenkataramanICANNTransparencyInternet GovernanceAccountability2017-10-28T15:49:38ZBlog EntryReport of the Global Accessibility Awareness Day 2017
https://cis-india.org/accessibility/blog/report-gaad-2017
<b>Aditya Tejas attended the Global Accessibility Awareness Day event organized at NIMHANS Convention Centre in Bengaluru. The event had multiple panels and presentations, including a talk on coding for accessibility, a panel on why accessibility is necessary and how India is lagging behind in implementing it, and a presentation on how accessibility principles are integrated into the product life cycle at Cisco.</b>
<p><strong>Logo of Shuttleworth Foundation below: </strong></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><img src="https://cis-india.org/home-images/ShuttleworthFunded.jpg/@@images/a7ad882b-1f69-4576-a25a-bffe5f942c79.jpeg" alt="null" class="image-inline" title="Shuttleworth" /></p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify;">Global Accessibility Awareness Day is celebrated across the world on May 3 every year. The objective of the event is to get everyone talking, thinking and learning about digital access/inclusion and people with different disabilities.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">This year the Global Accessibility Awareness Day 2017 (GAAD 2017) organized by Prakat Solutions and co-hosted by CIS and Mitra Jyoti, was held on May 18 at NIMHANS Convention Centre in Bengaluru. The event was designed to raise awareness around digital accessibility issues for persons with disabilities. The Shuttleworth Foundation also supported this event. Approximately 250 people were in attendance. The URL for the event is <a href="http://gaad.in/">here</a>. A detailed agenda can be found <a href="http://gaad.in/Agenda.html">here</a>. Video recordings of the event will be made available shortly.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">The event ran from 2:30-7:30 PM and featured various discussions and events, including dance ceremonies, skits, and talks by various figures.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">The first event was an extended presentation on coding for accessibility by Nawaz Khan of PayPal, in which he discussed how developers can integrate accessibility principles into their software from the design phase, and how persons with disabilities can productively make their issues known to developers. He encouraged developers to adopt international standards such as WAI-ARIA, and also encouraged developers to use accessible open source libraries and testing tools. He took questions about standards for other types of disabilities beyond visual impairment, joining the global conversation around accessibility standards, and accessibility design for mobile platforms.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">The main event was a panel on the awareness of accessibility issues in India and how they could be improved, both in the public and private spheres. In attendance were Abhik Biswas of Prakat Solutions, Pranay Gadodia of Deutsche Bank HR, Shalini Subramaniam of PayPal, Balachandra Shetty of Intuit, Sandeep Sabat of ZingUp Life, Kameshwari from Wipro, Mahabala Shetty from NIC, and Srinivasu from Informatica. The panel was moderated by Giri Prakash of Hindu Business Line. They discussed issues including how to promote a stronger government response to accessibility issues, initiatives that can be taken from the private or civil society sector in order to address accessibility issues, the lack of awareness around accessibility in the Indian context, and the responsibilities that developers have to make accessible apps and products. Shalini from PayPal talked about the potential for government initiatives such as Make in India could be used to further the availability of accessible consumer products and services in India.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">The second speaker, Kameshwari Visarapu from Wipro, talked about how persons with disabilities need to make their voices heard in society. She stressed that, while the laws are already in place, people do not demand their rights. Without this, the government and any community, even those with the necessary power, would not be able to make the changes. Mahabala Shetty from NIC pointed out that NIC is responsible for developing and updating various government websites. He said he understood that the inaccessibility of government websites and services is a serious problem, and pledged to make sure that all websites would be made accessible in the coming months.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">The fifth speaker was Sandeep Sabat of ZingUp Life, also a health tech company, which seeks to help people with issues not just around physical health, but also emotional, mental and spiritual health. He drew a comparison with the beginning of the mobile revolution, when people would say that web on mobile is a small, niche space, which eventually gave way to the idea of mobile-first design. Extending this analogy, he said that design must now be accessibility-first, in order to ensure that it becomes part of the culture of product development.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">The sixth speaker at the event was Balachandra Shetty from Intuit. He pointed out that design principles needed to make a product accessible and making that product easy to use for the general public are the same, and that improving the user experience for 20% of the population effectively improves it for everyone.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">The seventh speaker was Pranay Gadodia from Deutsche Bank HR, who argued that accessibility was important not just for persons with disabilities, but for everyone. He gave the example of ramps on public entrances, which make access easier for everyone. He demonstrated the use of a screen reader and tried to order food through Swiggy. When he found that the app was inaccessible, he pointed out that they had just lost a customer.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">The eighth speaker, Srinivasu from Informatica, talked about his work in the accessibility space for various NGOs and companies. He argued that inaccessibility was never built into a product by design, and that any problems were the result of ignorance. He also said that accessibility work was the only career with two major benefits – that of creating an immediate impact among the community and being the kind of work that not only takes advantage of a business opportunity but also directly benefits consumers.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">The ninth speaker, Abhik Biswas, said that he believes that accessibility is a nonissue, because if everyone wrote good code and followed best practices, all products would be accessible anyway. He said this was not always the case with software tools. He gave the example of work that Prakat did with a provider of legal software. In large corporate lawsuits, parties would usually share terabytes of data with each other, and legal e-discovery software is used to discover patterns for evidence. An inaccessible document would be useless to such software so, of course accessibility isn’t an issue only for a certain set of people. If you’re in the innovation space and trying to solve problems, he stressed, then accessibility is an issue.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">The moderator then raised the issue of the lack of progress for persons with disabilities in the past five years. He asked what progress has been made in the legal area, and whether there are any solutions that users can come up with themselves rather than waiting for government action. Shalini pointed out the inaccessibility of the Swiggy app, and added that there are automated accessibility checkers for apps, both Apple and Android. She demonstrated this for the audience.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Kameshwari said that part of the problem is that a single person may not be able or willing to make much noise. There are a lot of communities that have been formed on a corporate/state/national level, but collectively making noise is important for major changes. One process that her own company tried was creating a repository of pre-tested accessible components, which has two advantages; the developer can pick the component from a standardized repository, and the component would have been pre-tested for accessibility and responsiveness. This is another possible solution – which people collectively come up with standardized repositories of accessible components.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">She then gave the example of an accessible garden in Kerala, where persons with disabilities could visit and touch different types of plants in a guided experience to help them identify and understand them. When talking about inclusivity, she asked, why create a separate garden? Integrate these features into all gardens instead, she suggested.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">The third speaker said that the government drains enthusiasm from people, and insisted that it could only play the role of a facilitator. The need is to inspire the necessary passion in people to carry forward the issues themselves.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Sandeep said that the intent is already there, but the government was not capable of doing it alone. The social fabric of the country needs to change, along with the attitude of the society. To that end, they suggested making accessibility a non-issue, and looking for opportunities to integrate it into society at large. Instead of thinking of it through a usability standpoint, consider how to improve the overall user experience of a product through the lens of a user with disabilities.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Balachandra pointed out that while love is a strong emotion, fear too is very powerful. The laws in the Commonwealth are much stricter than those in the US, he pointed out, and yet apps built in those countries are far more accessible than those in Indonesia, India etc. So, he suggested that if a product proved to be inaccessible to a certain segment of the population, the employees responsible could face down the CEO, and fear would drive them to make their products accessible. In addition, he called for stricter laws and a possible amendment of the IT Act, drawing upon laws in the Commonwealth and France. Disability discrimination in the US carries a high penalty, and suggested that similar laws would enforce accessibility in local products.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">The moderator asked Pranay: is it possible for app developers or mobile platform providers to make accessibility mandatory for apps that are publicly released? He answered that as a tech developer he might not be the right person to answer that, however, he know that the iOS framework is much more stringent than Android in this regard. He called on users with disabilities to call out inaccessible design wherever they saw it, in order to inform developers and to create a healthy competition to make companies disability-inclusive. He also pointed out that many corporations hold events or draft policy for persons with disabilities without involving them in the decision-making process, and that this needed to change.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Srinivasu stressed that the job of making government services accessible fell on the developers within the government, who are in-house, or the vendors, who work for NIC. There are two things the government can do, he said; when asking for a vendor, they could refuse those who make inaccessible products, thus making accessibility a requirement for procurement.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">The second is to raise accessibility issues at the level of education. He gave the example of several apps like TaxiForSure and Cleartrip, all of which responded to accessibility issues raised by their users. He stressed that any user could give feedback, and not just those with disabilities, and that raising awareness is a duty for everyone. He asked the audience to share the event on WhatsApp, and to type with their non-dominant hand, as a simple way of understanding disability. The other exercise he called on the audience to do is to write a post about the event on Facebook or their blogs using only the keyboard, without touching their mouse. In this way, he drew attention to thinking about accessibility whenever one uses a website or software.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Abhik took the opportunity to add one more dimension, an area of concern for app developers in India in particular – that of linguistic accessibility. Most apps, he pointed out, are being developed in English only, and most government apps have the additional burden of considering vernacular languages, while NVDA only supports 10-12. The government can’t solve this problem by making multilingual websites, as developers also need to contribute to projects like NVDA in order to build support for other languages. Accessibility, he stressed, wasn’t anyone’s problem, but everyone’s problem.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">After this, Shekhar Naik, former captain of the Indian blind cricket team, talked about his life story. He mentioned that there are over 5c0k blind cricketers in the country. He talked about his passion for cricket, how it brought him to where he was today, and thanked the government for its increased recognition and felicitation of persons with disabilities.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">After that, the owner of Pothole Raja, Pratap Bhimasena Rao, spoke about the importance of the accessibility of built environments such as roads. He pointed out that 25% of vehicular accidents cause a disability, and stressed the need to address these issues to promote not just accessibility, but prevent disability.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">After this, Amit Balakrishna Joshi from the state government gave a brief overview of the Karnataka government’s accessibility and e-governance initiatives. He spoke about the Karnataka Mobile One app, an initiative to consolidate and digitize several state government services. As the world’s largest Mobile One platform, it would integrate about 40 departments, with the objective of bringing equality in service delivery across socioeconomic, linguistic and literacy divides.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">At 7:00, Sean Murphy from Cisco gave a talk on universal design principles. He discussed how universal design is important to maximize market access, ensuring that a company reaches 100% of its market. In Cisco, accessibility is integrated into the product lifecycle right from the design phase to testing to rollout.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">He also discussed regulatory standards such as Section 508 in the US, which he stressed were critical to securing industry-wide accessibility. The event ended at 7:30 p.m.<br /><br /></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Images:</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><img src="https://cis-india.org/copy_of_SRID6275.JPG/image_preview" alt="GAAD lamplighting" class="image-inline image-inline" title="GAAD lamplighting" /></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Participants light the lamp to commemorate the start of GAAD 2017.</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong><br /></strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong><img src="https://cis-india.org/copy_of_SRID6299.JPG/image_preview" alt="GAAD Abhik Biswas" class="image-inline image-inline" title="GAAD Abhik Biswas" /><br /></strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Prakat Solutions co-founder Abhik Biswas speaks at GAAD 2017.</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong><img src="https://cis-india.org/SRID6557.JPG/image_preview" alt="GAAD 2017 panel" class="image-inline image-inline" title="GAAD 2017 panel" /><br /></strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Panelists discuss accessibility challenges in India.</strong></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/accessibility/blog/report-gaad-2017'>https://cis-india.org/accessibility/blog/report-gaad-2017</a>
</p>
No publishernirmitaAccountability2017-06-19T15:07:28ZBlog Entry(Updated) Information Security Practices of Aadhaar (or lack thereof): A documentation of public availability of Aadhaar Numbers with sensitive personal financial information
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/information-security-practices-of-aadhaar-or-lack-thereof-a-documentation-of-public-availability-of-aadhaar-numbers-with-sensitive-personal-financial-information-1
<b>Since its inception in 2009, the Aadhaar project has been shrouded in controversy due to various questions raised about privacy, technological issues, welfare exclusion, and security concerns. In this study, we document numerous instances of publicly available Aadhaar Numbers along with other personally identifiable information (PII) of individuals on government websites. This report highlights four government projects run by various government departments that have made sensitive personal financial information and Aadhaar numbers public on the project websites.
</b>
<p> </p>
<h4>Read the updated report: <a class="external-link" href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/information-security-practices-of-aadhaar-or-lack-thereof/" target="_blank">Download</a> (pdf)</h4>
<h4>Read the first statement of clarification (May 16, 2017): <a class="external-link" href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/clarification-on-information-security-practices-of-the-aadhaar-report/" target="_blank">Download</a> (pdf)</h4>
<h4>Read the second statement of clarification (November 05, 2018): <a class="external-link" href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/clarification-on-the-information-security-practices-of-aadhaar-report" target="_blank">Link to page</a> (html)</h4>
<hr />
<p><em>We are grateful to Yesha Paul and VG Shreeram for research support.</em></p>
<hr />
<p>In the last month, there have been various reports pointing out instances of the public disclosure of Aadhaar number through various databases, accessible easily on Twitter under the hashtag #AadhaarLeaks. Most of these public disclosures reported contain personally identifiable information of beneficiaries or subjects of the non UIDAI databases containing Aadhaar numbers of individuals along with other personal identifiers. All of these public disclosures are symptomatic of a significant and potentially irreversible privacy harm, however we wanted to point out another large fallout of such events, those that create a ripe opportunity for financial fraud. For this purpose, we identified benefits disbursement schemes which would require its databases to store financial information about its subjects. During our research, we encountered numerous instances of publicly available Aadhaar Numbers along with other PII of individuals on government websites. In this paper, we highlight four government projects run by various government departments with publicly available financial data and Aadhaar numbers. Our research is focussed largely on the data published by or pertaining to where Aadhaar data is linked with banking information. We chose major government programmes using Aadhaar for payments and banking transactions. We found sensitive and personal data and information very easily accessible on these portals.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/information-security-practices-of-aadhaar-or-lack-thereof-a-documentation-of-public-availability-of-aadhaar-numbers-with-sensitive-personal-financial-information-1'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/information-security-practices-of-aadhaar-or-lack-thereof-a-documentation-of-public-availability-of-aadhaar-numbers-with-sensitive-personal-financial-information-1</a>
</p>
No publisherAmber Sinha and Srinivas KodaliDigital IDPrivacyNDSAPData ProtectionAccountabilityFeaturedData GovernanceAadhaarDigitisationHomepageInternet GovernanceData Management2019-03-13T00:29:01ZBlog EntryWorkshop on Democratic Accountability in the Digital Age (Delhi, November 14-15)
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/events/workshop-on-democratic-accountability-in-the-digital-age-delhi-november-14-15
<b>IT for Change, along with Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), Digital Empowerment Foundation (DEF), Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS) and National Campaign for People’s Right to Information (NCPRI), is organising a two day workshop on ‘Democratic Accountability in the Digital Age’. The workshop will focus on evolving a comprehensive policy approach to data based governance and digital democracy, grounded in a rights and social justice framework. It will be held at the United Service Institution of India, Delhi, during November 14-15, 2016. The CIS team to participate in the workshop includes Sumandro Chattapadhyay (speaker), Amber Sinha (speaker), Vanya Rakesh (participant), and Himadri Chatterjee (participant).</b>
<p> </p>
<p>The workshop aims to:</p>
<ul><li>
<p>Discuss the institutional norms, rules and practices appropriate to the rise of ‘governance by networks’ and ‘rule by data’ that can guarantee democratic accountability and citizen participation, and</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Articulate the steps to claim the civic-public value of digital technologies so that data and the new possibilities for networking are harnessed for a vibrant grassroots democracy.</p>
</li></ul>
<p>We hope the workshop can create a civil society coalition that can build effective strategies for legal and policy reform to further participatory democracy in the digital age. On the first day, the workshop will set the context through knowledge sharing and thematic presentations and discussions. On the second day, we aim to concretize strategies for collective action to further democratic accountability in the digital age.</p>
<hr />
<h4><a href="http://itforchange.net/mavc/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Workshop-Agenda-Democratic-accountability-in-the-digital-age-14-to-15-Nov-2016-2.pdf">Workshop Agenda</a> (PDF)</h4>
<h4><a href="http://itforchange.net/mavc/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Background-note-for-workshop-on-Democracy-in-Digital-Age-Sep21.odt">Background Note</a> (ODT)</h4>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/events/workshop-on-democratic-accountability-in-the-digital-age-delhi-november-14-15'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/events/workshop-on-democratic-accountability-in-the-digital-age-delhi-november-14-15</a>
</p>
No publishersumandroDigital IDDigital GovernancePrivacyUIDInternet GovernanceAccountabilityDigital IndiaAadhaarWelfare GovernanceE-GovernanceDigital Rights2016-12-15T09:27:22ZEventSummary Report Internet Governance Forum 2015
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/summary-report-internet-governance-forum-2015
<b>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. </b>
<p align="center" style="text-align: left;"><strong>INTERNET
GOVERNANCE</strong></p>
<p align="justify">
I. The
Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group to the IGF organised a discussion on
<em><strong>Sustainable
Development Goals (SDGs) and Internet Economy</strong></em><em>
</em>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:</p>
<ol>
<li>
<p align="justify">
Lenni
Montiel, Assistant-Secretary-General for Development, United Nations</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Helani
Galpaya, CEO LIRNEasia</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Sergio
Quiroga da Cunha, Head of Latin America, Ericsson</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Raúl
L. Katz, Adjunct Professor, Division of Finance and Economics,
Columbia Institute of Tele-information</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Jimson
Olufuye, Chairman, Africa ICT Alliance (AfICTA)</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Lydia
Brito, Director of the Office in Montevideo, UNESCO</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
H.E.
Rudiantara, Minister of Communication & Information Technology,
Indonesia</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Daniel
Sepulveda, Deputy Assistant Secretary, U.S. Coordinator for
International and Communications Policy at the U.S. Department of
State </p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Deputy
Minister Department of Telecommunications and Postal Services for
the republic of South Africa</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Sunil
Abraham, Executive Director, Centre for Internet and Society, India</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
H.E.
Junaid Ahmed Palak, Information and Communication Technology
Minister of Bangladesh</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Jari
Arkko, Chairman, IETF</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Silvia
Rabello, President, Rio Film Trade Association</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Gary
Fowlie, Head of Member State Relations & Intergovernmental
Organizations, ITU</p>
</li></ol>
<p align="justify">
Detailed
description of the workshop is available here
<a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/igf2015-main-sessions" target="_top">http</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/igf2015-main-sessions" target="_top">://</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/igf2015-main-sessions" target="_top">www</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/igf2015-main-sessions" target="_top">.</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/igf2015-main-sessions" target="_top">intgovforum</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/igf2015-main-sessions" target="_top">.</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/igf2015-main-sessions" target="_top">org</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/igf2015-main-sessions" target="_top">/</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/igf2015-main-sessions" target="_top">cms</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/igf2015-main-sessions" target="_top">/</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/igf2015-main-sessions" target="_top">igf</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/igf2015-main-sessions" target="_top">2015-</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/igf2015-main-sessions" target="_top">main</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/igf2015-main-sessions" target="_top">-</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/igf2015-main-sessions" target="_top">sessions</a><u>
</u></p>
<p align="justify">
Transcript
of the workshop is available here
<u><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/187-igf-2015/transcripts-igf-2015/2327-2015-11-11-internet-economy-and-sustainable-development-main-meeting-room">http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/187-igf-2015/transcripts-igf-2015/2327-2015-11-11-internet-economy-and-sustainable-development-main-meeting-room</a></u></p>
<p align="justify">
Video
link Internet
economy and Sustainable Development here
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6obkLehVE8">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6obkLehVE8</a></p>
<p align="justify"> II.
Public
Knowledge organised a workshop on <em><strong>The
Benefits and Challenges of the Free Flow of Data </strong></em>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.</p>
<ol>
<li>
<p align="justify">
Vint
Cerf, Google</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Lawrence
Strickling, U.S. Department of Commerce, NTIA</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Richard
Leaning, European Cyber Crime Centre (EC3), Europol</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Marietje
Schaake, European Parliament</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Nasser
Kettani, Microsoft</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Sunil
Abraham, CIS
India</p>
</li></ol>
<p align="justify">
Detailed
description of the workshop is available here
<a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals" target="_top">http</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals" target="_top">://</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals" target="_top">www</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals" target="_top">.</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals" target="_top">intgovforum</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals" target="_top">.</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals" target="_top">org</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals" target="_top">/</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals" target="_top">cms</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals" target="_top">/</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals" target="_top">workshops</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals" target="_top">/</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals" target="_top">list</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals" target="_top">-</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals" target="_top">of</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals" target="_top">-</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals" target="_top">published</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals" target="_top">-</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals" target="_top">workshop</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals" target="_top">-</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals" target="_top">proposals</a><u>
</u></p>
<p align="justify">
Transcript
of the workshop is available here
<a href="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">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</a></p>
<p align="justify">
Video link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtjnHkOn7EQ</p>
<p align="justify"> III.
Article
19 and
Privacy International organised a workshop on <em><strong>Encryption
and Anonymity: Rights and Risks</strong></em>
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.</p>
<ol>
<li>
<p align="justify">
David
Kaye, UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Juan
Diego Castañeda, Fundación Karisma, Colombia</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Edison
Lanza, Organisation of American States Special Rapporteur</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Pranesh
Prakash, CIS India</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Ted
Hardie, Google</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Elvana
Thaci, Council of Europe</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Professor
Chris Marsden, Oxford Internet Institute</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Alexandrine
Pirlot de Corbion, Privacy International</p>
</li></ol>
<p align="justify"><a name="_Hlt435412531"></a>
Detailed
description of the workshop is available here
<a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals" target="_top">http</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals" target="_top">://</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals" target="_top">www</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals" target="_top">.</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals" target="_top">intgovforum</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals" target="_top">.</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals" target="_top">org</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals" target="_top">/</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals" target="_top">cms</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals" target="_top">/</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals" target="_top">worksh</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals" target="_top">o</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals" target="_top">ps</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals" target="_top">/</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals" target="_top">list</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals" target="_top">-</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals" target="_top">of</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals" target="_top">-</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals" target="_top">published</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals" target="_top">-</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals" target="_top">workshop</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals" target="_top">-</a><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals" target="_top">proposals</a><u>
</u></p>
<p align="justify">
Transcript
of the workshop is available here
<a href="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">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</a></p>
<p align="justify">
Video link available here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUrBP4PsfJo</p>
<p align="justify"> IV.
Chalmers
& Associates organised a session on <em><strong>A
Dialogue on Zero Rating and Network Neutrality</strong></em>
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.</p>
<ol>
<li>
<p align="justify">
Jochai
Ben-Avie, Senior Global Policy Manager, Mozilla, USA</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Igor
Vilas Boas de Freitas, Commissioner, ANATEL, Brazil</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Dušan
Caf, Chairman, Electronic Communications Council, Republic of
Slovenia</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Silvia
Elaluf-Calderwood, Research Fellow, London School of Economics,
UK/Peru</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Belinda
Exelby, Director, Institutional Relations, GSMA, UK</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Helani
Galpaya, CEO, LIRNEasia, Sri Lanka</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Anka
Kovacs, Director, Internet Democracy Project, India</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Kevin
Martin, VP, Mobile and Global Access Policy, Facebook, USA</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Pranesh
Prakash, Policy Director, CIS India</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Steve
Song, Founder, Village Telco, South Africa/Canada</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Dhanaraj
Thakur, Research Manager, Alliance for Affordable Internet, USA/West
Indies</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Christopher
Yoo, Professor of Law, Communication, and Computer & Information
Science, University of Pennsylvania, USA</p>
</li></ol>
<p align="justify">
Detailed
description of the workshop is available here
<a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/igf2015-main-sessions" target="_top">http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/igf2015-main-sessions</a></p>
<p align="justify">
Transcript
of the workshop is available here
<a href="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">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</a></p>
<p align="justify"> V.
The
Internet & Jurisdiction Project organised a workshop on
<em><strong>Transnational
Due Process: A Case Study in MS Cooperation</strong></em>
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.</p>
<ol>
<li>
<p align="justify">
Anne
Carblanc Head of Division, Directorate for Science, Technology and
Industry, OECD</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Eileen
Donahoe Director Global Affairs, Human Rights Watch</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Byron
Holland President and CEO, CIRA (Canadian ccTLD)</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Christopher
Painter Coordinator for Cyber Issues, US Department of State</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Sunil
Abraham Executive Director, CIS India</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Alice
Munyua Lead dotAfrica Initiative and GAC representative, African
Union Commission</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Will
Hudsen Senior Advisor for International Policy, Google</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Dunja
Mijatovic Representative on Freedom of the Media, OSCE</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Thomas
Fitschen Director for the United Nations, for International
Cooperation against Terrorism and for Cyber Foreign Policy, German
Federal Foreign Office</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Hartmut
Glaser Executive Secretary, Brazilian Internet Steering Committee</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Matt
Perault, Head of Policy Development Facebook</p>
</li></ol>
<p align="justify">
Detailed
description of the workshop is available here
<a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals">http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals</a></p>
<p align="justify">
Transcript
of the workshop is available here
<a href="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">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</a></p>
<p align="justify">
Video
link Transnational
Due Process: A Case Study in MS Cooperation available here <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9jVovhQhd0">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9jVovhQhd0</a></p>
<p align="justify"> VI.
The Internet Governance Project organised a meeting of the
<em><strong>Dynamic
Coalition on Accountability of Internet Governance Venues</strong></em>
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.</p>
<ol>
<li>
<p>
Robin
Gross, IP Justice</p>
</li><li>
<p>
Jeanette
Hofmann, Director
<a href="http://www.internetundgesellschaft.de/">Alexander
von Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society</a></p>
</li><li>
<p>
Farzaneh
Badiei,
Internet Governance Project</p>
</li><li>
<p>
Erika
Mann,
Managing
Director Public PolicyPolicy Facebook and Board of Directors
ICANN</p>
</li><li>
<p>
Paul
Wilson, APNIC</p>
</li><li>
<p>
Izumi
Okutani, Japan
Network Information Center (JPNIC)</p>
</li><li>
<p>
Keith
Drazek , Verisign</p>
</li><li>
<p>
Jyoti
Panday,
CIS</p>
</li><li>
<p>
Jorge
Cancio,
GAC representative</p>
</li></ol>
<p>
Detailed
description of the workshop is available here
<a href="http://igf2015.sched.org/event/4c23/dynamic-coalition-on-accountability-of-internet-governance-venues?iframe=no&w=&sidebar=yes&bg=no">http://igf2015.sched.org/event/4c23/dynamic-coalition-on-accountability-of-internet-governance-venues?iframe=no&w=&sidebar=yes&bg=no</a></p>
<p>
Video
link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIxyGhnch7w</p>
<p> 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</p>
<ol>
<li>
<p>
Bastiaan
Goslings AMS-IX, NL</p>
</li><li>
<p>
Pranesh
Prakash CIS, India</p>
</li><li>
<p>
Marilia
Maciel (FGV, Brasil</p>
</li><li>
<p>
Dennis
Broeders (NL Scientific Council for Government Policy)</p>
</li></ol>
<p>
Detailed
description of the open
forum is available here
<a href="http://schd.ws/hosted_files/igf2015/3d/DINL_IGF_Open%20Forum_The_public_core_of_the_internet.pdf">http://schd.ws/hosted_files/igf2015/3d/DINL_IGF_Open%20Forum_The_public_core_of_the_internet.pdf</a></p>
<p>
Video
link available here <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joPQaMQasDQ">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joPQaMQasDQ</a></p>
<p>
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</p>
<p>
1.
Chaired by Ms Lidia Brito, Director for UNESCO Office in Montevideo</p>
<p>
2.Frank
La Rue, Former Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression</p>
<p>
3.
Lillian Nalwoga, President ISOC Uganda and rep CIPESA, Technical
community</p>
<p>
4.
Bridget O’Loughlin, CoE, IGO</p>
<p>
5.
Gabrielle Guillemin, Article 19</p>
<p>
6.
Iyad Kallas, Radio Souriali</p>
<p>
7.
Sunil Abraham executive director of Center for Internet and Society,
Bangalore, India</p>
<p>
8.
Eve Salomon, global Chairman of the Regulatory Board of RICS</p>
<p>
9.
Javier Lesaca Esquiroz, University of Navarra</p>
<p>
10.
Representative GNI</p>
<p>
11.
Remote Moderator: Xianhong Hu, UNESCO</p>
<p>
12.
Rapporteur: Guilherme Canela De Souza Godoi, UNESCO</p>
<p>
Detailed
description of the workshop
is available here
<a href="http://igf2015.sched.org/event/4c1X/ws-128-mitigate-online-hate-speech-and-youth-radicalisation?iframe=no&w=&sidebar=yes&bg=no">http://igf2015.sched.org/event/4c1X/ws-128-mitigate-online-hate-speech-and-youth-radicalisation?iframe=no&w=&sidebar=yes&bg=no</a></p>
<p>
Video
link to the panel is available here
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIO1z4EjRG0">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIO1z4EjRG0</a></p>
<p> <strong>INTERMEDIARY
LIABILITY</strong></p>
<p align="justify">
IX.
Electronic
Frontier Foundation, Centre for Internet Society India, Open Net
Korea and Article 19 collaborated to organize
a workshop on the <em><strong>Manila
Principles on Intermediary Liability</strong></em>
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.</p>
<ol>
<li>
<p align="justify">
Kelly
Kim Open Net Korea,</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Jyoti
Panday, CIS India,</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Gabrielle
Guillemin, Article 19,</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Rebecca
McKinnon on behalf of UNESCO</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Giancarlo
Frosio, Center for Internet and Society, Stanford Law School</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Nicolo
Zingales, Tilburg University</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Will
Hudson, Google</p>
</li></ol>
<p align="justify">
Detailed
description of the workshop is available here
<a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals" target="_top">http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals</a></p>
<p align="justify">
Transcript
of the workshop is available here
<a href="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">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</a></p>
<p align="justify">
Video link available here <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFLmzxXodjs">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFLmzxXodjs</a></p>
<p align="justify"> <strong>ACCESSIBILITY</strong></p>
<p align="justify">
X.
Dynamic
Coalition
on Accessibility and Disability and Global Initiative for Inclusive
ICTs organised a workshop on <em><strong>Empowering
the Next Billion by Improving Accessibility</strong></em><em>
</em>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.</p>
<ol>
<li>
<p align="justify">
Francesca
Cesa Bianchi, G3ICT</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Cid
Torquato, Government of Brazil</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Carlos
Lauria, Microsoft Brazil</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Sunil
Abraham, CIS India</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Derrick
L. Cogburn, Institute on Disability and Public Policy (IDPP) for the
ASEAN(Association of Southeast Asian Nations) Region</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Fernando
H. F. Botelho, F123 Consulting</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Gunela
Astbrink, GSA InfoComm</p>
</li></ol>
<p align="justify">
Detailed
description of the workshop is available here
<u><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals" target="_top">http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals</a></u></p>
<p align="justify">
Transcript
of the workshop is available here
<u><a href="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">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</a></u></p>
<p align="justify">
Video
Link Empowering
the next billion by improving accessibility <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RZlWvJAXxs">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RZlWvJAXxs</a></p>
<p align="justify"> <strong>OPENNESS</strong></p>
<p align="justify">
XI.
A
workshop on <em><strong>FOSS
& a Free, Open Internet: Synergies for Development</strong></em>
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.</p>
<ol>
<li>
<p align="justify">
Satish
Babu, Technical Community, Chair, ISOC-TRV, Kerala, India</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Judy
Okite, Civil Society, FOSS Foundation for Africa</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Mishi
Choudhary, Private Sector, Software Freedom Law Centre, New York</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Fernando
Botelho, Private Sector, heads F123 Systems, Brazil</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Sunil
Abraham, CIS
India</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Pranesh
Prakash, CIS
India</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Nnenna
Nwakanma- WWW.Foundation</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Yves
MIEZAN EZO, Open Source strategy consultant</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Corinto
Meffe, Advisor to the President and Directors, SERPRO, Brazil</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Frank
Coelho de Alcantara, Professor, Universidade Positivo, Brazil</p>
</li><li>
<p align="justify">
Caroline
Burle, Institutional and International Relations, W3C Brazil Office
and Center of Studies on Web Technologies</p>
</li></ol>
<p align="justify">
Detailed
description of the workshop is available here
<u><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals" target="_top">http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals</a></u></p>
<p align="justify">
Transcript
of the workshop is available here
<u><a href="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" target="_top">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</a></u></p>
<p align="justify">
Video
link available here <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwUq0LTLnDs">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwUq0LTLnDs</a></p>
<p align="justify">
<br /><br /></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/summary-report-internet-governance-forum-2015'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/summary-report-internet-governance-forum-2015</a>
</p>
No publisherjyotiAccess to KnowledgeBig DataFreedom of Speech and ExpressionEncryptionInternet Governance ForumIntermediary LiabilityAccountabilityInternet GovernanceCensorshipCyber SecurityDigital GovernanceAnonymityCivil SocietyBlocking2015-11-30T10:47:13ZBlog EntryContestations of Data, ECJ Safe Harbor Ruling and Lessons for India
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/contestations-of-data-ecj-safe-harbor-ruling-and-lessons-for-india
<b>The European Court of Justice has invalidated a European Commission decision, which had previously concluded that the 'Safe Harbour Privacy Principles' provide adequate protections for European citizens’ privacy rights for the transfer of personal data between European Union and United States. The inadequacies of the framework is not news for the European Commission and action by ECJ has been a long time coming. The ruling raises important questions about how the claims of citizenship are being negotiated in the context of the internet, and how increasingly the contestations of personal data are being employed in the discourse. </b>
<p align="justify">The European Court of Justice
(ECJ) has invalidated a European Commission (EC) decision<a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote1anc" href="#sdfootnote1sym"><sup>1</sup></a>
which had previously concluded that the 'Safe Harbor Privacy
Principles'<a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote2anc" href="#sdfootnote2sym"><sup>2</sup></a>
provide adequate protections for European citizens’ privacy rights<a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote3anc" href="#sdfootnote3sym"><sup>3</sup></a>
for the transfer of personal data between European Union and United
States. This challenge stems from the claim that public law
enforcement authorities in America obtain personal data from
organisations in safe harbour for incompatible and disproportionate
purposes in violation of the Safe Harbour Privacy Principles. The
court's judgment follows the advice of the Advocate General of the
Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) who recently opined<a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote4anc" href="#sdfootnote4sym"><sup>4</sup></a>
that US practices allow for large-scale collection and transfer of
personal data belonging to EU citizens without them benefiting from
or having access to judicial protection under US privacy laws. The
inadequacies of the framework is not news for the Commission and
action by ECJ has been a long time coming. The ruling raises
important questions about how increasingly the contestations of
personal data are being employed in asserting claims of citizenship
in context of the internet.</p>
<p align="justify">
As the highest court in Europe,
the ECJ's decisions are binding on all member states. With this
ruling the ECJ has effectively restrained US firms from
indiscriminate collection and sharing of European citizens’ data on
American soil. The implications of the decision are significant,
because it shifts the onus of evaluating protections of personal data
for EU citizens from the 4,400 companies<a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote5anc" href="#sdfootnote5sym"><sup>5</sup></a>
subscribing to the system onto EU privacy watchdogs. Most
significantly, in addressing the rights of a citizen against an
established global brand, the judgement goes beyond political and
legal opinion to challenge the power imbalance that exists with
reference to US based firms.</p>
<p align="justify">
Today, the free movement of data
across borders is a critical factor in facilitating trade, financial
services, governance, manufacturing, health and development. However,
to consider the ruling as merely a clarification of transatlantic
mechanisms for data flows misstates the real issue. At the heart of
the judgment is the assessment whether US firms apply the tests of
‘necessity and proportionality’ in the collection and
surveillance of data for national security purposes. Application of
necessity and proportionality test to national security exceptions
under safe harbor has been a sticking point that has stalled the
renegotiation of the agreement that has been underway between the
Commission and the American data protection authorities.<a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote6anc" href="#sdfootnote6sym"><sup>6</sup></a></p>
<p align="justify">
For EU citizens the stake in the
case are even higher, as while their right to privacy is enshrined
under EU law, they have no administrative or judicial means of
redress, if their data is used for reasons they did not intend. In
the EU, citizens accessing and agreeing to use of US based firms are
presented with a false choice between accessing benefits and giving
up on their fundamental right to privacy. In other words, by seeking
that governments and private companies provide better data protection
for the EU citizens and in restricting collection of personal data on
a generalised basis without objective criteria, the ruling is
effectively an assertion of ‘data sovereignty’. The term ‘data
sovereignty’, while lacking a firm definition, refers to a spectrum
of approaches adopted by different states to control data generated
in or passing through national internet infrastructure.<a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote7anc" href="#sdfootnote7sym"><sup>7</sup></a>
Underlying the ruling is the growing policy divide between the US and
EU privacy and data protection standards, which may lead to what is
referred to as the balkanization<a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote8anc" href="#sdfootnote8sym"><sup>8</sup></a>
of the internet in the future.</p>
<p align="justify">
<em>US-EU Data Protection Regime </em></p>
<p align="justify">
The safe harbor pact between the
EU and US was negotiated in the late 1990s as an attempt to bridge
the different approaches to online privacy. Privacy is addressed in
the EU as a fundamental human right while in the US it is defined
under terms of consumer protection, which<em><strong>
</strong></em>allow trade-offs
and exceptions when national security seems to be under threat. In
order to address the lower standards of data protection prevalent in
the US, the pact facilitates data transfers from EU to US by
establishing certain safeguards equivalent to the requirements of the
EU data protection directive. The safe harbor provisions include
firms undertaking not to pass personal information to third parties
if the EU data protection standards are not met and giving users
right to opt out of data collection.<a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote9anc" href="#sdfootnote9sym"><sup>9</sup></a></p>
<p align="justify">
The agreement was due to be
renewed by May 2015<a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote10anc" href="#sdfootnote10sym"><sup>10</sup></a>
and while negotiations have been ongoing for two years, EU discontent
on safe harbour came to the fore following the Edward Snowden
revelations of collection and monitoring facilitated by large private
companies for the PRISM program and after the announcement of the
TransAtlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP).<a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote11anc" href="#sdfootnote11sym"><sup>11</sup></a>
EU member states have mostly stayed silent as they run their own
surveillance programs often times, in cooperation with the NSA. EU
institutions cannot intervene in matters of national security
however, they do have authority on data protection matters. European
Union officials and Members of Parliament have expressed shock and
outrage at the surveillance programs unveiled by Snowden's 2013
revelations. Most recently, following the CJEU Advocate General’s
opinion, 50 Members of European Parliament (MEP) sent a strongly
worded letter the US Congress hitting back on claims of ‘digital
protectionism’ emanating from the US<a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote12anc" href="#sdfootnote12sym"><sup>12</sup></a>.
In no uncertain terms the letter clarified that the EU has different
ideas on privacy, platforms, net neutrality, encryption, Bitcoin,
zero-days, or copyright and will seek to improve and change any
proposal from the EC in the interest of our citizens and of all
people.</p>
<p align="justify">
<em>Towards Harmonization </em></p>
<p align="justify">
In November 2013, as an attempt
to minimize the loss of trust following the Snowden revelations, the
European Commission (EC) published recommendations in its report on
'Rebuilding Trust is EU-US Data Flows'.<a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote13anc" href="#sdfootnote13sym"><sup>13</sup></a>
The recommendations revealed two critical initiatives at the EU
level—first was the revision of the EU-US safe harbor agreement<a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote14anc" href="#sdfootnote14sym"><sup>14</sup></a>
and second the adoption of the 'EU-US Umbrella Agreement<a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote15anc" href="#sdfootnote15sym"><sup>15</sup></a>'—a
framework for data transfer for the purpose of investigating,
detecting, or prosecuting a crime, including terrorism. The Umbrella
Agreement was recently initialed by EU and US negotiators and it only
addresses the exchange of personal data between law enforcement
agencies.<a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote16anc" href="#sdfootnote16sym"><sup>16</sup></a>
The Agreement has gained momentum in the wake of recent cases around
issues of territorial duties of providers, enforcement jurisdictions
and data localisation.<a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote17anc" href="#sdfootnote17sym"><sup>17</sup></a>
However, the adoption of the Umbrella Act depends on US Congress
adoption of the<em><strong>
</strong></em>Judicial Redress
Act (JRA) as law.<a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote18anc" href="#sdfootnote18sym"><sup>18</sup></a></p>
<p align="justify">
<em>Judicial Redress Act </em></p>
<p align="justify">
The JRA is a key reform that the
EC is pushing for in an attempt to address the gap between privacy
rights and remedies available to US citizens and those extended to EU
citizens, including allowing EU citizens to sue in American courts.
The JRA seeks to extend certain protections under the Privacy Act to
records shared by EU and other designated countries with US law
enforcement agencies for the purpose of investigating, detecting, or
prosecuting criminal offenses. The JRA protections would extend to
records shared under the Umbrella Agreement and while it does include
civil remedies for violation of data protection, as noted by the
Center for Democracy and Technology, the present framework does not
provide citizens of EU countries with redress that is at par with
that which US persons enjoy under the Privacy Act.<a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote19anc" href="#sdfootnote19sym"><sup>19</sup></a></p>
<p align="justify">
For example, the measures
outlined under the JRA would only be applicable to countries that
have outlined appropriate privacy protections agreements for data
sharing for investigations and ‘efficiently share’ such
information with the US. Countries that do not have agreements with
US cannot seek these protections leaving the personal data of their
citizens open for collection and misuse by US agencies. Further, the
arrangement leaves determination of 'efficiently sharing' in the
hands of US authorities and countries could lose protection if they
do not comply with information sharing requests promptly. Finally,
JRA protections do not apply to non-US persons nor to records shared
for purposes other than law enforcement such as intelligence
gathering. JRA is also weakened by allowing heads of agencies to
exercise their discretion to seek exemption from the Act and opt out
of compliance.</p>
<p align="justify">
Taken together the JRA, the
Umbrella Act and the renegotiation of the Safe Harbor Agreement need
considerable improvements. It is worth noting that EU’s acceptance
of the redundancy of existing agreements and in establishing the
independence of national data protection authorities in investigating
and enforcing national laws as demonstrated in the Schrems and in the
Weltimmo<a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote20anc" href="#sdfootnote20sym"><sup>20</sup></a>
case point to accelerated developments in the broader EU privacy
landscape.</p>
<p align="justify">
<em>Consequences </em></p>
<p align="justify">
The ECJ Safe Harbor ruling will
have far-reaching consequences for the online industry. Often, costly
government rulings solidify the market dominance of big companies. As
high regulatory costs restrict the entrance of small and medium
businesses the market, competition is gradually wiped out. Further,
complying with high standards of data protection means that US firms
handling European data will need to consider alternative legal means
of transfer of personal data. This could include evolving 'model
contracts' binding them to EU data protection standards. As Schrems
points out, “Big companies don’t only rely on safe harbour: they
also rely on binding corporate rules and standard contractual
clauses.”<a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote21anc" href="#sdfootnote21sym"><sup>21</sup></a></p>
<p align="justify">
The ruling is good news for
European consumers, who can now approach a national regulator to
investigate suspicions of data mishandling. EU data protection
regulators may be be inundated with requests from companies seeking
authorization of new contracts and with consumer complaints. Some are
concerned that the ruling puts a dent in the globalized flow of
data<a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote22anc" href="#sdfootnote22sym"><sup>22</sup></a>,
effectively requiring data localization in Europe.<a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote23anc" href="#sdfootnote23sym"><sup>23</sup></a>
Others have pointed out that it is unclear how this decision sits
with other trade treaties such as the TPP that ban data
localisation.<a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote24anc" href="#sdfootnote24sym"><sup>24</sup></a>
While the implications of the decision will take some time in playing
out, what is certain is that US companies will be have to
restructure management, storage and use of data. The ruling has
created the impetus for India to push for reforms to protect its
citizens from harms by US firms and improve trade relations with EU.</p>
<p align="justify"><em>The Opportunity for India</em></p>
<p align="justify">
Multiple data flows taking place
over the internet simultaneously and that has led to ubiquity of data
transfers o ver the Internet, exposing individuals to privacy risks.
There has also been an enhanced economic importance of data
processing as businesses collect and correlate data using analytic
tools to create new demands, establish relationships and generate
revenue for their services. The primary concern of the Schrems case
may be the protection of the rights of EU citizens but by seeking to
extend these rights and ensure compliance in other jurisdictions, the
case touches upon many underlying contestations around data and
sovereignty.</p>
<p align="justify">
Last year, Mr Ram Narain, India
Head of Delegation to the Working Group Plenary at ITU had stressed, “respecting the principle of sovereignty of information through
network functionality and global norms will go a long way in
increasing the trust and confidence in use of ICT.”<a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote25anc" href="#sdfootnote25sym"><sup>25</sup></a>
In the absence of the recognition of privacy as a right and
empowering citizens through measures or avenues to seek redressal
against misuse of data, the demand of data sovereignty rings empty.
The kind of framework which empowered an ordinary citizen in the EU
to approach the highest court seeking redressal based on presumed
overreach of a foreign government and from harms abetted by private
corporations simply does not exist in India. Securing citizen’s
data in other jurisdictions and from other governments begins with
establishing protection regimes within the country.</p>
<p align="justify">
The Indian government has also
stepped up efforts to restrict transfer of data from India including
pushing for private companies to open data centers in India.<a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote26anc" href="#sdfootnote26sym"><sup>26</sup></a>
Negotiating data localisation does not restrict the power of private
corporations from using data in a broad ways including tailoring ads
and promoting products. Also, data transfers impact any organisation
with international operations for example, global multinationals who
need to coordinate employee data and information. Companies like
Facebook, Google and Microsoft transfer and store data belonging to
Indian citizens and it is worth remembering that the National
Security Agency (NSA) would have access to this data through servers
of such private companies. With no existing measures to restrict such
indiscriminate access, the ruling purports to the need for India to
evolve strong protection mechanisms. Finally, the lack of such
measures also have an economic impact, as reported in a recent
Nasscom-Data Security Council of India (DSCI) survey<a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote27anc" href="#sdfootnote27sym"><sup>27</sup></a>
that pegs revenue losses incurred by the Indian IT-BPO industry at
$2-2.5 billion for a sample size of 15 companies. DSCI has further
estimated that outsourcing business can further grow by $50 billion
per annum once India is granted a “data secure” status by the
EU.<a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote28anc" href="#sdfootnote28sym"><sup>28</sup></a>
EU’s refusal to grant such a status is understandable given the
high standard of privacy as incorporated under the European Union
Data Protection Directive a standard to which India does not match
up, yet. The lack of this status prevents the flow of data which is
vital for Digital India vision and also affects the service industry
by restricting the flow of sensitive information to India such as
information about patient records.</p>
<p align="justify">
Data and information structures
are controlled and owned by private corporations and networks
transcend national borders, therefore the foremost emphasis needs to
be on improving national frameworks. While, enforcement mechanisms
such as the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT) process or other
methods of international cooperation may seem respectful of
international borders and principles of sovereignty,<a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote29anc" href="#sdfootnote29sym"><sup>29</sup></a>
for users that live in undemocratic or oppressive regimes such
agreements are a considerable risk. Data is also increasingly being
stored across multiple jurisdictions and therefore merely applying
data location lens to protection measures may be too narrow. Further
it should be noted that when companies begin taking data storage
decisions based on legal considerations it will impact the speed and
reliability of services.<a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote30anc" href="#sdfootnote30sym"><sup>30</sup></a>
Any future regime must reflect the challenges of data transfers
taking place in legal and economic spaces that are not identical and
may be in opposition. Fundamentally, the protection of privacy will
always act as a barrier to the free flow of information even so, as
the Schrems case ruling points out not having adequate privacy
protections could also restrict flow of data, as has been the case
for India.</p>
<p align="justify">
The time is right for India to
appoint a data controller and put in place national frameworks, based
on nuanced understanding of issues of applying jurisdiction to govern
users and their data. Establishing better protection measures will
not only establish trust and enhance the ability of users to control
data about themselves it is also essential for sustaining economic
and social value generated from data generation and collection.
Suggestions for such frameworks have been considered previously by
the Group of Experts on Privacy constituted by the Planning
Commission.<a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote31anc" href="#sdfootnote31sym"><sup>31</sup></a>
By incorporating transparency in mechanisms for data and access
requests and premising requests on established necessity and
proportionality Indian government can lead the way in data protection
standards. This will give the Indian government more teeth to
challenge and address both the dangers of theft of data stored on
servers located outside of India and restrain indiscriminate access
arising from terms and conditions of businesses that grant such
rights to third parties. </p>
<div id="sdfootnote1">
<p>
<a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote1sym" href="#sdfootnote1anc">1</a>
Commission Decision of 26 July 2000 pursuant to Directive 95/46/EC
of the European Parliament and of the Council on the adequacy of the
protection provided by the safe harbour privacy principles and
related frequently asked questions issued by the US Department of
Commerce (notified under document number C(2000) 2441) (Text with
EEA relevance.) <em>Official
Journal L 215 , 25/08/2000 P. 0007 -0047 </em>
2000/520/EC:
<u><a href="http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32000D0520:EN:HTML">http</a><a href="http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32000D0520:EN:HTML">://</a><a href="http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32000D0520:EN:HTML">eur</a><a href="http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32000D0520:EN:HTML">-</a><a href="http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32000D0520:EN:HTML">lex</a><a href="http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32000D0520:EN:HTML">.</a><a href="http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32000D0520:EN:HTML">europa</a><a href="http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32000D0520:EN:HTML">.</a><a href="http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32000D0520:EN:HTML">eu</a><a href="http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32000D0520:EN:HTML">/</a><a href="http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32000D0520:EN:HTML">LexUriServ</a><a href="http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32000D0520:EN:HTML">/</a><a href="http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32000D0520:EN:HTML">LexUriServ</a><a href="http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32000D0520:EN:HTML">.</a><a href="http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32000D0520:EN:HTML">do</a><a href="http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32000D0520:EN:HTML">?</a><a href="http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32000D0520:EN:HTML">uri</a><a href="http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32000D0520:EN:HTML">=</a><a href="http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32000D0520:EN:HTML">CELEX</a><a href="http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32000D0520:EN:HTML">:32000</a><a href="http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32000D0520:EN:HTML">D</a><a href="http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32000D0520:EN:HTML">0520:</a><a href="http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32000D0520:EN:HTML">EN</a><a href="http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32000D0520:EN:HTML">:</a><a href="http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32000D0520:EN:HTML">HTML</a></u></p>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote2">
<p>
<a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote2sym" href="#sdfootnote2anc">2</a>
Safe Harbour Privacy Principles Issued by the U.S. Department of
Commerce on July 21, 2000
<u><a href="http://www.export.gov/safeharbor/eu/eg_main_018475.asp">http</a><a href="http://www.export.gov/safeharbor/eu/eg_main_018475.asp">://</a><a href="http://www.export.gov/safeharbor/eu/eg_main_018475.asp">www</a><a href="http://www.export.gov/safeharbor/eu/eg_main_018475.asp">.</a><a href="http://www.export.gov/safeharbor/eu/eg_main_018475.asp">export</a><a href="http://www.export.gov/safeharbor/eu/eg_main_018475.asp">.</a><a href="http://www.export.gov/safeharbor/eu/eg_main_018475.asp">gov</a><a href="http://www.export.gov/safeharbor/eu/eg_main_018475.asp">/</a><a href="http://www.export.gov/safeharbor/eu/eg_main_018475.asp">safeharbor</a><a href="http://www.export.gov/safeharbor/eu/eg_main_018475.asp">/</a><a href="http://www.export.gov/safeharbor/eu/eg_main_018475.asp">eu</a><a href="http://www.export.gov/safeharbor/eu/eg_main_018475.asp">/</a><a href="http://www.export.gov/safeharbor/eu/eg_main_018475.asp">eg</a><a href="http://www.export.gov/safeharbor/eu/eg_main_018475.asp">_</a><a href="http://www.export.gov/safeharbor/eu/eg_main_018475.asp">main</a><a href="http://www.export.gov/safeharbor/eu/eg_main_018475.asp">_018475.</a><a href="http://www.export.gov/safeharbor/eu/eg_main_018475.asp">asp</a></u></p>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote3">
<p>
<a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote3sym" href="#sdfootnote3anc">3</a>
Megan Graham, <a href="https://www.justsecurity.org/26651/adding-nuance-ecj-safe-harbor-decision/">Adding</a><a href="https://www.justsecurity.org/26651/adding-nuance-ecj-safe-harbor-decision/">Some</a><a href="https://www.justsecurity.org/26651/adding-nuance-ecj-safe-harbor-decision/">Nuance</a><a href="https://www.justsecurity.org/26651/adding-nuance-ecj-safe-harbor-decision/">on</a><a href="https://www.justsecurity.org/26651/adding-nuance-ecj-safe-harbor-decision/">the</a><a href="https://www.justsecurity.org/26651/adding-nuance-ecj-safe-harbor-decision/">European</a><a href="https://www.justsecurity.org/26651/adding-nuance-ecj-safe-harbor-decision/">Court</a><a href="https://www.justsecurity.org/26651/adding-nuance-ecj-safe-harbor-decision/">’</a><a href="https://www.justsecurity.org/26651/adding-nuance-ecj-safe-harbor-decision/">s</a><a href="https://www.justsecurity.org/26651/adding-nuance-ecj-safe-harbor-decision/">Safe</a><a href="https://www.justsecurity.org/26651/adding-nuance-ecj-safe-harbor-decision/">Harbor</a><a href="https://www.justsecurity.org/26651/adding-nuance-ecj-safe-harbor-decision/">Decision</a><a href="https://www.justsecurity.org/26651/adding-nuance-ecj-safe-harbor-decision/">,
</a><a href="https://www.justsecurity.org/26651/adding-nuance-ecj-safe-harbor-decision/">Just</a><a href="https://www.justsecurity.org/26651/adding-nuance-ecj-safe-harbor-decision/">security</a></p>
<p>
<u><a href="https://www.justsecurity.org/26651/adding-nuance-ecj-safe-harbor-decision/">https</a><a href="https://www.justsecurity.org/26651/adding-nuance-ecj-safe-harbor-decision/">://</a><a href="https://www.justsecurity.org/26651/adding-nuance-ecj-safe-harbor-decision/">www</a><a href="https://www.justsecurity.org/26651/adding-nuance-ecj-safe-harbor-decision/">.</a><a href="https://www.justsecurity.org/26651/adding-nuance-ecj-safe-harbor-decision/">justsecurity</a><a href="https://www.justsecurity.org/26651/adding-nuance-ecj-safe-harbor-decision/">.</a><a href="https://www.justsecurity.org/26651/adding-nuance-ecj-safe-harbor-decision/">org</a><a href="https://www.justsecurity.org/26651/adding-nuance-ecj-safe-harbor-decision/">/26651/</a><a href="https://www.justsecurity.org/26651/adding-nuance-ecj-safe-harbor-decision/">adding</a><a href="https://www.justsecurity.org/26651/adding-nuance-ecj-safe-harbor-decision/">-</a><a href="https://www.justsecurity.org/26651/adding-nuance-ecj-safe-harbor-decision/">nuance</a><a href="https://www.justsecurity.org/26651/adding-nuance-ecj-safe-harbor-decision/">-</a><a href="https://www.justsecurity.org/26651/adding-nuance-ecj-safe-harbor-decision/">ecj</a><a href="https://www.justsecurity.org/26651/adding-nuance-ecj-safe-harbor-decision/">-</a><a href="https://www.justsecurity.org/26651/adding-nuance-ecj-safe-harbor-decision/">safe</a><a href="https://www.justsecurity.org/26651/adding-nuance-ecj-safe-harbor-decision/">-</a><a href="https://www.justsecurity.org/26651/adding-nuance-ecj-safe-harbor-decision/">harbor</a><a href="https://www.justsecurity.org/26651/adding-nuance-ecj-safe-harbor-decision/">-</a><a href="https://www.justsecurity.org/26651/adding-nuance-ecj-safe-harbor-decision/">decision</a><a href="https://www.justsecurity.org/26651/adding-nuance-ecj-safe-harbor-decision/">/</a></u></p>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote4">
<p>
<a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote4sym" href="#sdfootnote4anc">4</a>
Advocate
General’s Opinion in Case C-362/14 Maximillian Schrems v Data
Protection Commissioner Court of Justice of the European Union,
Press Release, No 106/15 Luxembourg, 23 September 2015
<u><a href="http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2015-09/cp150106en.pdf">http</a><a href="http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2015-09/cp150106en.pdf">://</a><a href="http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2015-09/cp150106en.pdf">curia</a><a href="http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2015-09/cp150106en.pdf">.</a><a href="http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2015-09/cp150106en.pdf">europa</a><a href="http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2015-09/cp150106en.pdf">.</a><a href="http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2015-09/cp150106en.pdf">eu</a><a href="http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2015-09/cp150106en.pdf">/</a><a href="http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2015-09/cp150106en.pdf">jcms</a><a href="http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2015-09/cp150106en.pdf">/</a><a href="http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2015-09/cp150106en.pdf">upload</a><a href="http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2015-09/cp150106en.pdf">/</a><a href="http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2015-09/cp150106en.pdf">docs</a><a href="http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2015-09/cp150106en.pdf">/</a><a href="http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2015-09/cp150106en.pdf">application</a><a href="http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2015-09/cp150106en.pdf">/</a><a href="http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2015-09/cp150106en.pdf">pdf</a><a href="http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2015-09/cp150106en.pdf">/2015-09/</a><a href="http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2015-09/cp150106en.pdf">cp</a><a href="http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2015-09/cp150106en.pdf">150106</a><a href="http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2015-09/cp150106en.pdf">en</a><a href="http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2015-09/cp150106en.pdf">.</a><a href="http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2015-09/cp150106en.pdf">pdf</a></u></p>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote5">
<p>
<a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote5sym" href="#sdfootnote5anc">5</a>
Jennifer Baker, ‘EU desperately pushes just-as-dodgy safe harbour
alternatives’, The Register, October 7, 2015
<u><a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/10/07/eu_pushes_safe_harbour_alternatives/">http</a><a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/10/07/eu_pushes_safe_harbour_alternatives/">://</a><a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/10/07/eu_pushes_safe_harbour_alternatives/">www</a><a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/10/07/eu_pushes_safe_harbour_alternatives/">.</a><a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/10/07/eu_pushes_safe_harbour_alternatives/">theregister</a><a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/10/07/eu_pushes_safe_harbour_alternatives/">.</a><a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/10/07/eu_pushes_safe_harbour_alternatives/">co</a><a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/10/07/eu_pushes_safe_harbour_alternatives/">.</a><a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/10/07/eu_pushes_safe_harbour_alternatives/">uk</a><a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/10/07/eu_pushes_safe_harbour_alternatives/">/2015/10/07/</a><a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/10/07/eu_pushes_safe_harbour_alternatives/">eu</a><a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/10/07/eu_pushes_safe_harbour_alternatives/">_</a><a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/10/07/eu_pushes_safe_harbour_alternatives/">pushes</a><a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/10/07/eu_pushes_safe_harbour_alternatives/">_</a><a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/10/07/eu_pushes_safe_harbour_alternatives/">safe</a><a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/10/07/eu_pushes_safe_harbour_alternatives/">_</a><a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/10/07/eu_pushes_safe_harbour_alternatives/">harbour</a><a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/10/07/eu_pushes_safe_harbour_alternatives/">_</a><a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/10/07/eu_pushes_safe_harbour_alternatives/">alternatives</a><a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/10/07/eu_pushes_safe_harbour_alternatives/">/</a></u> </p>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote6">
<p>
<a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote6sym" href="#sdfootnote6anc">6</a>
Draft Report, General Data Protection Regulation, Committee on Civil
Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, European Parliament, 2009-2014
<a href="http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/libe/pr/922/922387/922387en.pdf">http</a><a href="http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/libe/pr/922/922387/922387en.pdf">://</a><a href="http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/libe/pr/922/922387/922387en.pdf">www</a><a href="http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/libe/pr/922/922387/922387en.pdf">.</a><a href="http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/libe/pr/922/922387/922387en.pdf">europarl</a><a href="http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/libe/pr/922/922387/922387en.pdf">.</a><a href="http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/libe/pr/922/922387/922387en.pdf">europa</a><a href="http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/libe/pr/922/922387/922387en.pdf">.</a><a href="http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/libe/pr/922/922387/922387en.pdf">eu</a><a href="http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/libe/pr/922/922387/922387en.pdf">/</a><a href="http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/libe/pr/922/922387/922387en.pdf">meetdocs</a><a href="http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/libe/pr/922/922387/922387en.pdf">/2009_2014/</a><a href="http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/libe/pr/922/922387/922387en.pdf">documents</a><a href="http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/libe/pr/922/922387/922387en.pdf">/</a><a href="http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/libe/pr/922/922387/922387en.pdf">libe</a><a href="http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/libe/pr/922/922387/922387en.pdf">/</a><a href="http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/libe/pr/922/922387/922387en.pdf">pr</a><a href="http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/libe/pr/922/922387/922387en.pdf">/922/922387/922387</a><a href="http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/libe/pr/922/922387/922387en.pdf">en</a><a href="http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/libe/pr/922/922387/922387en.pdf">.</a><a href="http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/libe/pr/922/922387/922387en.pdf">pdf</a></p>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote7">
<p>
<a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote7sym" href="#sdfootnote7anc">7</a>
Dana Polatin-Reuben, Joss Wright, ‘An Internet with BRICS
Characteristics: Data Sovereignty and the Balkanisation of the
Internet’, University of Oxford, July 7, 2014
<u><a href="https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/foci14/foci14-polatin-reuben.pdf">https</a><a href="https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/foci14/foci14-polatin-reuben.pdf">://</a><a href="https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/foci14/foci14-polatin-reuben.pdf">www</a><a href="https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/foci14/foci14-polatin-reuben.pdf">.</a><a href="https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/foci14/foci14-polatin-reuben.pdf">usenix</a><a href="https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/foci14/foci14-polatin-reuben.pdf">.</a><a href="https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/foci14/foci14-polatin-reuben.pdf">org</a><a href="https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/foci14/foci14-polatin-reuben.pdf">/</a><a href="https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/foci14/foci14-polatin-reuben.pdf">system</a><a href="https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/foci14/foci14-polatin-reuben.pdf">/</a><a href="https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/foci14/foci14-polatin-reuben.pdf">files</a><a href="https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/foci14/foci14-polatin-reuben.pdf">/</a><a href="https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/foci14/foci14-polatin-reuben.pdf">conference</a><a href="https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/foci14/foci14-polatin-reuben.pdf">/</a><a href="https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/foci14/foci14-polatin-reuben.pdf">foci</a><a href="https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/foci14/foci14-polatin-reuben.pdf">14/</a><a href="https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/foci14/foci14-polatin-reuben.pdf">foci</a><a href="https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/foci14/foci14-polatin-reuben.pdf">14-</a><a href="https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/foci14/foci14-polatin-reuben.pdf">polatin</a><a href="https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/foci14/foci14-polatin-reuben.pdf">-</a><a href="https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/foci14/foci14-polatin-reuben.pdf">reuben</a><a href="https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/foci14/foci14-polatin-reuben.pdf">.</a><a href="https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/foci14/foci14-polatin-reuben.pdf">pdf</a></u></p>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote8">
<p>
<a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote8sym" href="#sdfootnote8anc">8</a>
Sasha
Meinrath, The Future of the Internet: Balkanization and Borders,
Time, October 2013
<u><a href="http://ideas.time.com/2013/10/11/the-future-of-the-internet-balkanization-and-borders/">http</a><a href="http://ideas.time.com/2013/10/11/the-future-of-the-internet-balkanization-and-borders/">://</a><a href="http://ideas.time.com/2013/10/11/the-future-of-the-internet-balkanization-and-borders/">ideas</a><a href="http://ideas.time.com/2013/10/11/the-future-of-the-internet-balkanization-and-borders/">.</a><a href="http://ideas.time.com/2013/10/11/the-future-of-the-internet-balkanization-and-borders/">time</a><a href="http://ideas.time.com/2013/10/11/the-future-of-the-internet-balkanization-and-borders/">.</a><a href="http://ideas.time.com/2013/10/11/the-future-of-the-internet-balkanization-and-borders/">com</a><a href="http://ideas.time.com/2013/10/11/the-future-of-the-internet-balkanization-and-borders/">/2013/10/11/</a><a href="http://ideas.time.com/2013/10/11/the-future-of-the-internet-balkanization-and-borders/">the</a><a href="http://ideas.time.com/2013/10/11/the-future-of-the-internet-balkanization-and-borders/">-</a><a href="http://ideas.time.com/2013/10/11/the-future-of-the-internet-balkanization-and-borders/">future</a><a href="http://ideas.time.com/2013/10/11/the-future-of-the-internet-balkanization-and-borders/">-</a><a href="http://ideas.time.com/2013/10/11/the-future-of-the-internet-balkanization-and-borders/">of</a><a href="http://ideas.time.com/2013/10/11/the-future-of-the-internet-balkanization-and-borders/">-</a><a href="http://ideas.time.com/2013/10/11/the-future-of-the-internet-balkanization-and-borders/">the</a><a href="http://ideas.time.com/2013/10/11/the-future-of-the-internet-balkanization-and-borders/">-</a><a href="http://ideas.time.com/2013/10/11/the-future-of-the-internet-balkanization-and-borders/">internet</a><a href="http://ideas.time.com/2013/10/11/the-future-of-the-internet-balkanization-and-borders/">-</a><a href="http://ideas.time.com/2013/10/11/the-future-of-the-internet-balkanization-and-borders/">balkanization</a><a href="http://ideas.time.com/2013/10/11/the-future-of-the-internet-balkanization-and-borders/">-</a><a href="http://ideas.time.com/2013/10/11/the-future-of-the-internet-balkanization-and-borders/">and</a><a href="http://ideas.time.com/2013/10/11/the-future-of-the-internet-balkanization-and-borders/">-</a><a href="http://ideas.time.com/2013/10/11/the-future-of-the-internet-balkanization-and-borders/">borders</a><a href="http://ideas.time.com/2013/10/11/the-future-of-the-internet-balkanization-and-borders/">/</a></u></p>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote9">
<p>
<a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote9sym" href="#sdfootnote9anc">9</a>
Safe Harbour Privacy Principles, Issued by the U.S. Department of
Commerce, July 2001
<u><a href="http://www.export.gov/safeharbor/eu/eg_main_018475.asp">http</a><a href="http://www.export.gov/safeharbor/eu/eg_main_018475.asp">://</a><a href="http://www.export.gov/safeharbor/eu/eg_main_018475.asp">www</a><a href="http://www.export.gov/safeharbor/eu/eg_main_018475.asp">.</a><a href="http://www.export.gov/safeharbor/eu/eg_main_018475.asp">export</a><a href="http://www.export.gov/safeharbor/eu/eg_main_018475.asp">.</a><a href="http://www.export.gov/safeharbor/eu/eg_main_018475.asp">gov</a><a href="http://www.export.gov/safeharbor/eu/eg_main_018475.asp">/</a><a href="http://www.export.gov/safeharbor/eu/eg_main_018475.asp">safeharbor</a><a href="http://www.export.gov/safeharbor/eu/eg_main_018475.asp">/</a><a href="http://www.export.gov/safeharbor/eu/eg_main_018475.asp">eu</a><a href="http://www.export.gov/safeharbor/eu/eg_main_018475.asp">/</a><a href="http://www.export.gov/safeharbor/eu/eg_main_018475.asp">eg</a><a href="http://www.export.gov/safeharbor/eu/eg_main_018475.asp">_</a><a href="http://www.export.gov/safeharbor/eu/eg_main_018475.asp">main</a><a href="http://www.export.gov/safeharbor/eu/eg_main_018475.asp">_018475.</a><a href="http://www.export.gov/safeharbor/eu/eg_main_018475.asp">asp</a></u></p>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote10">
<p>
<a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote10sym" href="#sdfootnote10anc">10</a>
Facebook
case may force European firms to change data storage practices, The
Guardian, September 23, 2015
<u><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/sep/23/us-intelligence-services-surveillance-privacy">http</a><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/sep/23/us-intelligence-services-surveillance-privacy">://</a><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/sep/23/us-intelligence-services-surveillance-privacy">www</a><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/sep/23/us-intelligence-services-surveillance-privacy">.</a><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/sep/23/us-intelligence-services-surveillance-privacy">theguardian</a><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/sep/23/us-intelligence-services-surveillance-privacy">.</a><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/sep/23/us-intelligence-services-surveillance-privacy">com</a><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/sep/23/us-intelligence-services-surveillance-privacy">/</a><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/sep/23/us-intelligence-services-surveillance-privacy">us</a><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/sep/23/us-intelligence-services-surveillance-privacy">-</a><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/sep/23/us-intelligence-services-surveillance-privacy">news</a><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/sep/23/us-intelligence-services-surveillance-privacy">/2015/</a><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/sep/23/us-intelligence-services-surveillance-privacy">sep</a><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/sep/23/us-intelligence-services-surveillance-privacy">/23/</a><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/sep/23/us-intelligence-services-surveillance-privacy">us</a><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/sep/23/us-intelligence-services-surveillance-privacy">-</a><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/sep/23/us-intelligence-services-surveillance-privacy">intelligence</a><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/sep/23/us-intelligence-services-surveillance-privacy">-</a><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/sep/23/us-intelligence-services-surveillance-privacy">services</a><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/sep/23/us-intelligence-services-surveillance-privacy">-</a><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/sep/23/us-intelligence-services-surveillance-privacy">surveillance</a><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/sep/23/us-intelligence-services-surveillance-privacy">-</a><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/sep/23/us-intelligence-services-surveillance-privacy">privacy</a></u></p>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote11">
<p>
<a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote11sym" href="#sdfootnote11anc">11</a>
Privacy Tracker, US-EU Safe Harbor Under Pressure, August 2, 2013
<u><a href="https://iapp.org/news/a/us-eu-safe-harbor-under-pressure">https</a><a href="https://iapp.org/news/a/us-eu-safe-harbor-under-pressure">://</a><a href="https://iapp.org/news/a/us-eu-safe-harbor-under-pressure">iapp</a><a href="https://iapp.org/news/a/us-eu-safe-harbor-under-pressure">.</a><a href="https://iapp.org/news/a/us-eu-safe-harbor-under-pressure">org</a><a href="https://iapp.org/news/a/us-eu-safe-harbor-under-pressure">/</a><a href="https://iapp.org/news/a/us-eu-safe-harbor-under-pressure">news</a><a href="https://iapp.org/news/a/us-eu-safe-harbor-under-pressure">/</a><a href="https://iapp.org/news/a/us-eu-safe-harbor-under-pressure">a</a><a href="https://iapp.org/news/a/us-eu-safe-harbor-under-pressure">/</a><a href="https://iapp.org/news/a/us-eu-safe-harbor-under-pressure">us</a><a href="https://iapp.org/news/a/us-eu-safe-harbor-under-pressure">-</a><a href="https://iapp.org/news/a/us-eu-safe-harbor-under-pressure">eu</a><a href="https://iapp.org/news/a/us-eu-safe-harbor-under-pressure">-</a><a href="https://iapp.org/news/a/us-eu-safe-harbor-under-pressure">safe</a><a href="https://iapp.org/news/a/us-eu-safe-harbor-under-pressure">-</a><a href="https://iapp.org/news/a/us-eu-safe-harbor-under-pressure">harbor</a><a href="https://iapp.org/news/a/us-eu-safe-harbor-under-pressure">-</a><a href="https://iapp.org/news/a/us-eu-safe-harbor-under-pressure">under</a><a href="https://iapp.org/news/a/us-eu-safe-harbor-under-pressure">-</a><a href="https://iapp.org/news/a/us-eu-safe-harbor-under-pressure">pressure</a></u></p>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote12">
<p>
<a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote12sym" href="#sdfootnote12anc">12</a>
Kieren
McCarthy, Privacy, net neutrality, security, encryption ... Europe
tells Obama, US Congress to back off, The Register, 23 September,
2015
<u><a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/09/23/european_politicians_to_congress_back_off/">http</a><a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/09/23/european_politicians_to_congress_back_off/">://</a><a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/09/23/european_politicians_to_congress_back_off/">www</a><a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/09/23/european_politicians_to_congress_back_off/">.</a><a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/09/23/european_politicians_to_congress_back_off/">theregister</a><a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/09/23/european_politicians_to_congress_back_off/">.</a><a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/09/23/european_politicians_to_congress_back_off/">co</a><a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/09/23/european_politicians_to_congress_back_off/">.</a><a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/09/23/european_politicians_to_congress_back_off/">uk</a><a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/09/23/european_politicians_to_congress_back_off/">/2015/09/23/</a><a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/09/23/european_politicians_to_congress_back_off/">european</a><a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/09/23/european_politicians_to_congress_back_off/">_</a><a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/09/23/european_politicians_to_congress_back_off/">politicians</a><a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/09/23/european_politicians_to_congress_back_off/">_</a><a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/09/23/european_politicians_to_congress_back_off/">to</a><a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/09/23/european_politicians_to_congress_back_off/">_</a><a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/09/23/european_politicians_to_congress_back_off/">congress</a><a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/09/23/european_politicians_to_congress_back_off/">_</a><a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/09/23/european_politicians_to_congress_back_off/">back</a><a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/09/23/european_politicians_to_congress_back_off/">_</a><a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/09/23/european_politicians_to_congress_back_off/">off</a><a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/09/23/european_politicians_to_congress_back_off/">/</a></u></p>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote13">
<p>
<a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote13sym" href="#sdfootnote13anc">13</a>
Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the
Council, Rebuilding Trust in EU-US Data Flows, European Commission,
November 2013
<u><a href="http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/files/com_2013_846_en.pdf">http</a><a href="http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/files/com_2013_846_en.pdf">://</a><a href="http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/files/com_2013_846_en.pdf">ec</a><a href="http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/files/com_2013_846_en.pdf">.</a><a href="http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/files/com_2013_846_en.pdf">europa</a><a href="http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/files/com_2013_846_en.pdf">.</a><a href="http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/files/com_2013_846_en.pdf">eu</a><a href="http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/files/com_2013_846_en.pdf">/</a><a href="http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/files/com_2013_846_en.pdf">justice</a><a href="http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/files/com_2013_846_en.pdf">/</a><a href="http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/files/com_2013_846_en.pdf">data</a><a href="http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/files/com_2013_846_en.pdf">-</a><a href="http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/files/com_2013_846_en.pdf">protection</a><a href="http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/files/com_2013_846_en.pdf">/</a><a href="http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/files/com_2013_846_en.pdf">files</a><a href="http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/files/com_2013_846_en.pdf">/</a><a href="http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/files/com_2013_846_en.pdf">com</a><a href="http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/files/com_2013_846_en.pdf">_2013_846_</a><a href="http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/files/com_2013_846_en.pdf">en</a><a href="http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/files/com_2013_846_en.pdf">.</a><a href="http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/files/com_2013_846_en.pdf">pdf</a></u></p>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote14">
<p>
<a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote14sym" href="#sdfootnote14anc">14</a>
Safe
Harbor on trial in the European Union, Access Blog, September 2014
<u><a href="https://www.accessnow.org/blog/2014/11/13/safe-harbor-on-trial-in-the-european-union">https</a><a href="https://www.accessnow.org/blog/2014/11/13/safe-harbor-on-trial-in-the-european-union">://</a><a href="https://www.accessnow.org/blog/2014/11/13/safe-harbor-on-trial-in-the-european-union">www</a><a href="https://www.accessnow.org/blog/2014/11/13/safe-harbor-on-trial-in-the-european-union">.</a><a href="https://www.accessnow.org/blog/2014/11/13/safe-harbor-on-trial-in-the-european-union">accessnow</a><a href="https://www.accessnow.org/blog/2014/11/13/safe-harbor-on-trial-in-the-european-union">.</a><a href="https://www.accessnow.org/blog/2014/11/13/safe-harbor-on-trial-in-the-european-union">org</a><a href="https://www.accessnow.org/blog/2014/11/13/safe-harbor-on-trial-in-the-european-union">/</a><a href="https://www.accessnow.org/blog/2014/11/13/safe-harbor-on-trial-in-the-european-union">blog</a><a href="https://www.accessnow.org/blog/2014/11/13/safe-harbor-on-trial-in-the-european-union">/2014/11/13/</a><a href="https://www.accessnow.org/blog/2014/11/13/safe-harbor-on-trial-in-the-european-union">safe</a><a href="https://www.accessnow.org/blog/2014/11/13/safe-harbor-on-trial-in-the-european-union">-</a><a href="https://www.accessnow.org/blog/2014/11/13/safe-harbor-on-trial-in-the-european-union">harbor</a><a href="https://www.accessnow.org/blog/2014/11/13/safe-harbor-on-trial-in-the-european-union">-</a><a href="https://www.accessnow.org/blog/2014/11/13/safe-harbor-on-trial-in-the-european-union">on</a><a href="https://www.accessnow.org/blog/2014/11/13/safe-harbor-on-trial-in-the-european-union">-</a><a href="https://www.accessnow.org/blog/2014/11/13/safe-harbor-on-trial-in-the-european-union">trial</a><a href="https://www.accessnow.org/blog/2014/11/13/safe-harbor-on-trial-in-the-european-union">-</a><a href="https://www.accessnow.org/blog/2014/11/13/safe-harbor-on-trial-in-the-european-union">in</a><a href="https://www.accessnow.org/blog/2014/11/13/safe-harbor-on-trial-in-the-european-union">-</a><a href="https://www.accessnow.org/blog/2014/11/13/safe-harbor-on-trial-in-the-european-union">the</a><a href="https://www.accessnow.org/blog/2014/11/13/safe-harbor-on-trial-in-the-european-union">-</a><a href="https://www.accessnow.org/blog/2014/11/13/safe-harbor-on-trial-in-the-european-union">european</a><a href="https://www.accessnow.org/blog/2014/11/13/safe-harbor-on-trial-in-the-european-union">-</a><a href="https://www.accessnow.org/blog/2014/11/13/safe-harbor-on-trial-in-the-european-union">union</a></u></p>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote15">
<p>
<a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote15sym" href="#sdfootnote15anc">15</a>
European
Commission - Fact Sheet Questions and Answers on the EU-US data
protection "Umbrella agreement", September 8, 2015
<u><a href="http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-15-5612_en.htm">http</a><a href="http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-15-5612_en.htm">://</a><a href="http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-15-5612_en.htm">europa</a><a href="http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-15-5612_en.htm">.</a><a href="http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-15-5612_en.htm">eu</a><a href="http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-15-5612_en.htm">/</a><a href="http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-15-5612_en.htm">rapid</a><a href="http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-15-5612_en.htm">/</a><a href="http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-15-5612_en.htm">press</a><a href="http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-15-5612_en.htm">-</a><a href="http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-15-5612_en.htm">release</a><a href="http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-15-5612_en.htm">_</a><a href="http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-15-5612_en.htm">MEMO</a><a href="http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-15-5612_en.htm">-15-5612_</a><a href="http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-15-5612_en.htm">en</a><a href="http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-15-5612_en.htm">.</a><a href="http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-15-5612_en.htm">htm</a></u> </p>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote16">
<p>
<a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote16sym" href="#sdfootnote16anc">16</a>
McGuire Woods, ‘EU and U.S. reach “Umbrella Agreement” on data
transfers’, Lexology, September 14, 2015
<u><a href="http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=422bca41-2d54-4648-ae57-00d678515e1f">http</a><a href="http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=422bca41-2d54-4648-ae57-00d678515e1f">://</a><a href="http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=422bca41-2d54-4648-ae57-00d678515e1f">www</a><a href="http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=422bca41-2d54-4648-ae57-00d678515e1f">.</a><a href="http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=422bca41-2d54-4648-ae57-00d678515e1f">lexology</a><a href="http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=422bca41-2d54-4648-ae57-00d678515e1f">.</a><a href="http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=422bca41-2d54-4648-ae57-00d678515e1f">com</a><a href="http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=422bca41-2d54-4648-ae57-00d678515e1f">/</a><a href="http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=422bca41-2d54-4648-ae57-00d678515e1f">library</a><a href="http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=422bca41-2d54-4648-ae57-00d678515e1f">/</a><a href="http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=422bca41-2d54-4648-ae57-00d678515e1f">detail</a><a href="http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=422bca41-2d54-4648-ae57-00d678515e1f">.</a><a href="http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=422bca41-2d54-4648-ae57-00d678515e1f">aspx</a><a href="http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=422bca41-2d54-4648-ae57-00d678515e1f">?</a><a href="http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=422bca41-2d54-4648-ae57-00d678515e1f">g</a><a href="http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=422bca41-2d54-4648-ae57-00d678515e1f">=422</a><a href="http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=422bca41-2d54-4648-ae57-00d678515e1f">bca</a><a href="http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=422bca41-2d54-4648-ae57-00d678515e1f">41-2</a><a href="http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=422bca41-2d54-4648-ae57-00d678515e1f">d</a><a href="http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=422bca41-2d54-4648-ae57-00d678515e1f">54-4648-</a><a href="http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=422bca41-2d54-4648-ae57-00d678515e1f">ae</a><a href="http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=422bca41-2d54-4648-ae57-00d678515e1f">57-00</a><a href="http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=422bca41-2d54-4648-ae57-00d678515e1f">d</a><a href="http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=422bca41-2d54-4648-ae57-00d678515e1f">678515</a><a href="http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=422bca41-2d54-4648-ae57-00d678515e1f">e</a><a href="http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=422bca41-2d54-4648-ae57-00d678515e1f">1</a><a href="http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=422bca41-2d54-4648-ae57-00d678515e1f">f</a></u></p>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote17">
<p>
<a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote17sym" href="#sdfootnote17anc">17</a>
Andrew
Woods, Lowering the Temperature on the Microsoft-Ireland Case,
Lawfare September, 2015
<u><a href="https://www.lawfareblog.com/lowering-temperature-microsoft-ireland-case">https</a><a href="https://www.lawfareblog.com/lowering-temperature-microsoft-ireland-case">://</a><a href="https://www.lawfareblog.com/lowering-temperature-microsoft-ireland-case">www</a><a href="https://www.lawfareblog.com/lowering-temperature-microsoft-ireland-case">.</a><a href="https://www.lawfareblog.com/lowering-temperature-microsoft-ireland-case">lawfareblog</a><a href="https://www.lawfareblog.com/lowering-temperature-microsoft-ireland-case">.</a><a href="https://www.lawfareblog.com/lowering-temperature-microsoft-ireland-case">com</a><a href="https://www.lawfareblog.com/lowering-temperature-microsoft-ireland-case">/</a><a href="https://www.lawfareblog.com/lowering-temperature-microsoft-ireland-case">lowering</a><a href="https://www.lawfareblog.com/lowering-temperature-microsoft-ireland-case">-</a><a href="https://www.lawfareblog.com/lowering-temperature-microsoft-ireland-case">temperature</a><a href="https://www.lawfareblog.com/lowering-temperature-microsoft-ireland-case">-</a><a href="https://www.lawfareblog.com/lowering-temperature-microsoft-ireland-case">microsoft</a><a href="https://www.lawfareblog.com/lowering-temperature-microsoft-ireland-case">-</a><a href="https://www.lawfareblog.com/lowering-temperature-microsoft-ireland-case">ireland</a><a href="https://www.lawfareblog.com/lowering-temperature-microsoft-ireland-case">-</a><a href="https://www.lawfareblog.com/lowering-temperature-microsoft-ireland-case">case</a></u></p>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote18">
<p>
<a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote18sym" href="#sdfootnote18anc">18</a>
Jens-Henrik Jeppesen, Greg Nojeim, ‘The EU-US Umbrella Agreement
and the Judicial Redress Act: Small Steps Forward for EU Citizens’
Privacy Rights’, October 5, 2015
<u><a href="https://cdt.org/blog/the-eu-us-umbrella-agreement-and-the-judicial-redress-act-small-steps-forward-for-eu-citizens-privacy-rights/">https</a><a href="https://cdt.org/blog/the-eu-us-umbrella-agreement-and-the-judicial-redress-act-small-steps-forward-for-eu-citizens-privacy-rights/">://</a><a href="https://cdt.org/blog/the-eu-us-umbrella-agreement-and-the-judicial-redress-act-small-steps-forward-for-eu-citizens-privacy-rights/">cdt</a><a href="https://cdt.org/blog/the-eu-us-umbrella-agreement-and-the-judicial-redress-act-small-steps-forward-for-eu-citizens-privacy-rights/">.</a><a href="https://cdt.org/blog/the-eu-us-umbrella-agreement-and-the-judicial-redress-act-small-steps-forward-for-eu-citizens-privacy-rights/">org</a><a href="https://cdt.org/blog/the-eu-us-umbrella-agreement-and-the-judicial-redress-act-small-steps-forward-for-eu-citizens-privacy-rights/">/</a><a href="https://cdt.org/blog/the-eu-us-umbrella-agreement-and-the-judicial-redress-act-small-steps-forward-for-eu-citizens-privacy-rights/">blog</a><a href="https://cdt.org/blog/the-eu-us-umbrella-agreement-and-the-judicial-redress-act-small-steps-forward-for-eu-citizens-privacy-rights/">/</a><a href="https://cdt.org/blog/the-eu-us-umbrella-agreement-and-the-judicial-redress-act-small-steps-forward-for-eu-citizens-privacy-rights/">the</a><a href="https://cdt.org/blog/the-eu-us-umbrella-agreement-and-the-judicial-redress-act-small-steps-forward-for-eu-citizens-privacy-rights/">-</a><a href="https://cdt.org/blog/the-eu-us-umbrella-agreement-and-the-judicial-redress-act-small-steps-forward-for-eu-citizens-privacy-rights/">eu</a><a href="https://cdt.org/blog/the-eu-us-umbrella-agreement-and-the-judicial-redress-act-small-steps-forward-for-eu-citizens-privacy-rights/">-</a><a href="https://cdt.org/blog/the-eu-us-umbrella-agreement-and-the-judicial-redress-act-small-steps-forward-for-eu-citizens-privacy-rights/">us</a><a href="https://cdt.org/blog/the-eu-us-umbrella-agreement-and-the-judicial-redress-act-small-steps-forward-for-eu-citizens-privacy-rights/">-</a><a href="https://cdt.org/blog/the-eu-us-umbrella-agreement-and-the-judicial-redress-act-small-steps-forward-for-eu-citizens-privacy-rights/">umbrella</a><a href="https://cdt.org/blog/the-eu-us-umbrella-agreement-and-the-judicial-redress-act-small-steps-forward-for-eu-citizens-privacy-rights/">-</a><a href="https://cdt.org/blog/the-eu-us-umbrella-agreement-and-the-judicial-redress-act-small-steps-forward-for-eu-citizens-privacy-rights/">agreement</a><a href="https://cdt.org/blog/the-eu-us-umbrella-agreement-and-the-judicial-redress-act-small-steps-forward-for-eu-citizens-privacy-rights/">-</a><a href="https://cdt.org/blog/the-eu-us-umbrella-agreement-and-the-judicial-redress-act-small-steps-forward-for-eu-citizens-privacy-rights/">and</a><a href="https://cdt.org/blog/the-eu-us-umbrella-agreement-and-the-judicial-redress-act-small-steps-forward-for-eu-citizens-privacy-rights/">-</a><a href="https://cdt.org/blog/the-eu-us-umbrella-agreement-and-the-judicial-redress-act-small-steps-forward-for-eu-citizens-privacy-rights/">the</a><a href="https://cdt.org/blog/the-eu-us-umbrella-agreement-and-the-judicial-redress-act-small-steps-forward-for-eu-citizens-privacy-rights/">-</a><a href="https://cdt.org/blog/the-eu-us-umbrella-agreement-and-the-judicial-redress-act-small-steps-forward-for-eu-citizens-privacy-rights/">judicial</a><a href="https://cdt.org/blog/the-eu-us-umbrella-agreement-and-the-judicial-redress-act-small-steps-forward-for-eu-citizens-privacy-rights/">-</a><a href="https://cdt.org/blog/the-eu-us-umbrella-agreement-and-the-judicial-redress-act-small-steps-forward-for-eu-citizens-privacy-rights/">redress</a><a href="https://cdt.org/blog/the-eu-us-umbrella-agreement-and-the-judicial-redress-act-small-steps-forward-for-eu-citizens-privacy-rights/">-</a><a href="https://cdt.org/blog/the-eu-us-umbrella-agreement-and-the-judicial-redress-act-small-steps-forward-for-eu-citizens-privacy-rights/">act</a><a href="https://cdt.org/blog/the-eu-us-umbrella-agreement-and-the-judicial-redress-act-small-steps-forward-for-eu-citizens-privacy-rights/">-</a><a href="https://cdt.org/blog/the-eu-us-umbrella-agreement-and-the-judicial-redress-act-small-steps-forward-for-eu-citizens-privacy-rights/">small</a><a href="https://cdt.org/blog/the-eu-us-umbrella-agreement-and-the-judicial-redress-act-small-steps-forward-for-eu-citizens-privacy-rights/">-</a><a href="https://cdt.org/blog/the-eu-us-umbrella-agreement-and-the-judicial-redress-act-small-steps-forward-for-eu-citizens-privacy-rights/">steps</a><a href="https://cdt.org/blog/the-eu-us-umbrella-agreement-and-the-judicial-redress-act-small-steps-forward-for-eu-citizens-privacy-rights/">-</a><a href="https://cdt.org/blog/the-eu-us-umbrella-agreement-and-the-judicial-redress-act-small-steps-forward-for-eu-citizens-privacy-rights/">forward</a><a href="https://cdt.org/blog/the-eu-us-umbrella-agreement-and-the-judicial-redress-act-small-steps-forward-for-eu-citizens-privacy-rights/">-</a><a href="https://cdt.org/blog/the-eu-us-umbrella-agreement-and-the-judicial-redress-act-small-steps-forward-for-eu-citizens-privacy-rights/">for</a><a href="https://cdt.org/blog/the-eu-us-umbrella-agreement-and-the-judicial-redress-act-small-steps-forward-for-eu-citizens-privacy-rights/">-</a><a href="https://cdt.org/blog/the-eu-us-umbrella-agreement-and-the-judicial-redress-act-small-steps-forward-for-eu-citizens-privacy-rights/">eu</a><a href="https://cdt.org/blog/the-eu-us-umbrella-agreement-and-the-judicial-redress-act-small-steps-forward-for-eu-citizens-privacy-rights/">-</a><a href="https://cdt.org/blog/the-eu-us-umbrella-agreement-and-the-judicial-redress-act-small-steps-forward-for-eu-citizens-privacy-rights/">citizens</a><a href="https://cdt.org/blog/the-eu-us-umbrella-agreement-and-the-judicial-redress-act-small-steps-forward-for-eu-citizens-privacy-rights/">-</a><a href="https://cdt.org/blog/the-eu-us-umbrella-agreement-and-the-judicial-redress-act-small-steps-forward-for-eu-citizens-privacy-rights/">privacy</a><a href="https://cdt.org/blog/the-eu-us-umbrella-agreement-and-the-judicial-redress-act-small-steps-forward-for-eu-citizens-privacy-rights/">-</a><a href="https://cdt.org/blog/the-eu-us-umbrella-agreement-and-the-judicial-redress-act-small-steps-forward-for-eu-citizens-privacy-rights/">rights</a><a href="https://cdt.org/blog/the-eu-us-umbrella-agreement-and-the-judicial-redress-act-small-steps-forward-for-eu-citizens-privacy-rights/">/</a></u></p>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote19">
<p>
<a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote19sym" href="#sdfootnote19anc">19</a>
Ibid 18.</p>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote20">
<p>
<a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote20sym" href="#sdfootnote20anc">20</a>
Landmark ECJ data protection ruling could impact Facebook and
Google, The Guardian, 2 October, 2015
<u><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/oct/02/landmark-ecj-data-protection-ruling-facebook-google-weltimmo">http</a><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/oct/02/landmark-ecj-data-protection-ruling-facebook-google-weltimmo">://</a><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/oct/02/landmark-ecj-data-protection-ruling-facebook-google-weltimmo">www</a><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/oct/02/landmark-ecj-data-protection-ruling-facebook-google-weltimmo">.</a><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/oct/02/landmark-ecj-data-protection-ruling-facebook-google-weltimmo">theguardian</a><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/oct/02/landmark-ecj-data-protection-ruling-facebook-google-weltimmo">.</a><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/oct/02/landmark-ecj-data-protection-ruling-facebook-google-weltimmo">com</a><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/oct/02/landmark-ecj-data-protection-ruling-facebook-google-weltimmo">/</a><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/oct/02/landmark-ecj-data-protection-ruling-facebook-google-weltimmo">technology</a><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/oct/02/landmark-ecj-data-protection-ruling-facebook-google-weltimmo">/2015/</a><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/oct/02/landmark-ecj-data-protection-ruling-facebook-google-weltimmo">oct</a><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/oct/02/landmark-ecj-data-protection-ruling-facebook-google-weltimmo">/02/</a><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/oct/02/landmark-ecj-data-protection-ruling-facebook-google-weltimmo">landmark</a><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/oct/02/landmark-ecj-data-protection-ruling-facebook-google-weltimmo">-</a><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/oct/02/landmark-ecj-data-protection-ruling-facebook-google-weltimmo">ecj</a><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/oct/02/landmark-ecj-data-protection-ruling-facebook-google-weltimmo">-</a><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/oct/02/landmark-ecj-data-protection-ruling-facebook-google-weltimmo">data</a><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/oct/02/landmark-ecj-data-protection-ruling-facebook-google-weltimmo">-</a><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/oct/02/landmark-ecj-data-protection-ruling-facebook-google-weltimmo">protection</a><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/oct/02/landmark-ecj-data-protection-ruling-facebook-google-weltimmo">-</a><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/oct/02/landmark-ecj-data-protection-ruling-facebook-google-weltimmo">ruling</a><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/oct/02/landmark-ecj-data-protection-ruling-facebook-google-weltimmo">-</a><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/oct/02/landmark-ecj-data-protection-ruling-facebook-google-weltimmo">facebook</a><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/oct/02/landmark-ecj-data-protection-ruling-facebook-google-weltimmo">-</a><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/oct/02/landmark-ecj-data-protection-ruling-facebook-google-weltimmo">google</a><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/oct/02/landmark-ecj-data-protection-ruling-facebook-google-weltimmo">-</a><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/oct/02/landmark-ecj-data-protection-ruling-facebook-google-weltimmo">weltimmo</a></u></p>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote21">
<p>
<a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote21sym" href="#sdfootnote21anc">21</a>
Julia Powles, Tech companies like Facebook not above the law, says
Max Schrems, The Guardian, Octover 9, 2015
<a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/oct/09/facebook-data-privacy-max-schrems-european-court-of-justice">http</a><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/oct/09/facebook-data-privacy-max-schrems-european-court-of-justice">://</a><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/oct/09/facebook-data-privacy-max-schrems-european-court-of-justice">www</a><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/oct/09/facebook-data-privacy-max-schrems-european-court-of-justice">.</a><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/oct/09/facebook-data-privacy-max-schrems-european-court-of-justice">theguardian</a><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/oct/09/facebook-data-privacy-max-schrems-european-court-of-justice">.</a><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/oct/09/facebook-data-privacy-max-schrems-european-court-of-justice">com</a><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/oct/09/facebook-data-privacy-max-schrems-european-court-of-justice">/</a><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/oct/09/facebook-data-privacy-max-schrems-european-court-of-justice">technology</a><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/oct/09/facebook-data-privacy-max-schrems-european-court-of-justice">/2015/</a><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/oct/09/facebook-data-privacy-max-schrems-european-court-of-justice">oct</a><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/oct/09/facebook-data-privacy-max-schrems-european-court-of-justice">/09/</a><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/oct/09/facebook-data-privacy-max-schrems-european-court-of-justice">facebook</a><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/oct/09/facebook-data-privacy-max-schrems-european-court-of-justice">-</a><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/oct/09/facebook-data-privacy-max-schrems-european-court-of-justice">data</a><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/oct/09/facebook-data-privacy-max-schrems-european-court-of-justice">-</a><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/oct/09/facebook-data-privacy-max-schrems-european-court-of-justice">privacy</a><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/oct/09/facebook-data-privacy-max-schrems-european-court-of-justice">-</a><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/oct/09/facebook-data-privacy-max-schrems-european-court-of-justice">max</a><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/oct/09/facebook-data-privacy-max-schrems-european-court-of-justice">-</a><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/oct/09/facebook-data-privacy-max-schrems-european-court-of-justice">schrems</a><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/oct/09/facebook-data-privacy-max-schrems-european-court-of-justice">-</a><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/oct/09/facebook-data-privacy-max-schrems-european-court-of-justice">european</a><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/oct/09/facebook-data-privacy-max-schrems-european-court-of-justice">-</a><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/oct/09/facebook-data-privacy-max-schrems-european-court-of-justice">court</a><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/oct/09/facebook-data-privacy-max-schrems-european-court-of-justice">-</a><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/oct/09/facebook-data-privacy-max-schrems-european-court-of-justice">of</a><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/oct/09/facebook-data-privacy-max-schrems-european-court-of-justice">-</a><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/oct/09/facebook-data-privacy-max-schrems-european-court-of-justice">justice</a></p>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote22">
<p>
<a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote22sym" href="#sdfootnote22anc">22</a>
Adam
Thierer,
Unintended
Consequences of the EU Safe Harbor Ruling, The Technology Liberation
Front, October 6, 2015
<u><a href="http://techliberation.com/2015/10/06/unintended-consequenses-of-the-eu-safe-harbor-ruling/#more-75831">http</a><a href="http://techliberation.com/2015/10/06/unintended-consequenses-of-the-eu-safe-harbor-ruling/#more-75831">://</a><a href="http://techliberation.com/2015/10/06/unintended-consequenses-of-the-eu-safe-harbor-ruling/#more-75831">techliberation</a><a href="http://techliberation.com/2015/10/06/unintended-consequenses-of-the-eu-safe-harbor-ruling/#more-75831">.</a><a href="http://techliberation.com/2015/10/06/unintended-consequenses-of-the-eu-safe-harbor-ruling/#more-75831">com</a><a href="http://techliberation.com/2015/10/06/unintended-consequenses-of-the-eu-safe-harbor-ruling/#more-75831">/2015/10/06/</a><a href="http://techliberation.com/2015/10/06/unintended-consequenses-of-the-eu-safe-harbor-ruling/#more-75831">unintended</a><a href="http://techliberation.com/2015/10/06/unintended-consequenses-of-the-eu-safe-harbor-ruling/#more-75831">-</a><a href="http://techliberation.com/2015/10/06/unintended-consequenses-of-the-eu-safe-harbor-ruling/#more-75831">consequenses</a><a href="http://techliberation.com/2015/10/06/unintended-consequenses-of-the-eu-safe-harbor-ruling/#more-75831">-</a><a href="http://techliberation.com/2015/10/06/unintended-consequenses-of-the-eu-safe-harbor-ruling/#more-75831">of</a><a href="http://techliberation.com/2015/10/06/unintended-consequenses-of-the-eu-safe-harbor-ruling/#more-75831">-</a><a href="http://techliberation.com/2015/10/06/unintended-consequenses-of-the-eu-safe-harbor-ruling/#more-75831">the</a><a href="http://techliberation.com/2015/10/06/unintended-consequenses-of-the-eu-safe-harbor-ruling/#more-75831">-</a><a href="http://techliberation.com/2015/10/06/unintended-consequenses-of-the-eu-safe-harbor-ruling/#more-75831">eu</a><a href="http://techliberation.com/2015/10/06/unintended-consequenses-of-the-eu-safe-harbor-ruling/#more-75831">-</a><a href="http://techliberation.com/2015/10/06/unintended-consequenses-of-the-eu-safe-harbor-ruling/#more-75831">safe</a><a href="http://techliberation.com/2015/10/06/unintended-consequenses-of-the-eu-safe-harbor-ruling/#more-75831">-</a><a href="http://techliberation.com/2015/10/06/unintended-consequenses-of-the-eu-safe-harbor-ruling/#more-75831">harbor</a><a href="http://techliberation.com/2015/10/06/unintended-consequenses-of-the-eu-safe-harbor-ruling/#more-75831">-</a><a href="http://techliberation.com/2015/10/06/unintended-consequenses-of-the-eu-safe-harbor-ruling/#more-75831">ruling</a><a href="http://techliberation.com/2015/10/06/unintended-consequenses-of-the-eu-safe-harbor-ruling/#more-75831">/#</a><a href="http://techliberation.com/2015/10/06/unintended-consequenses-of-the-eu-safe-harbor-ruling/#more-75831">more</a><a href="http://techliberation.com/2015/10/06/unintended-consequenses-of-the-eu-safe-harbor-ruling/#more-75831">-75831</a></u></p>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote23">
<p>
<a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote23sym" href="#sdfootnote23anc">23</a>
Anupam
Chander, Tweeted ECJ<a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/schrems?src=hash">
#</a><a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/schrems?src=hash">schrems</a>
ruling may effectively require data localization within Europe,
<u><a href="https://twitter.com/AnupamChander/status/651369730754801665">https</a><a href="https://twitter.com/AnupamChander/status/651369730754801665">://</a><a href="https://twitter.com/AnupamChander/status/651369730754801665">twitter</a><a href="https://twitter.com/AnupamChander/status/651369730754801665">.</a><a href="https://twitter.com/AnupamChander/status/651369730754801665">com</a><a href="https://twitter.com/AnupamChander/status/651369730754801665">/</a><a href="https://twitter.com/AnupamChander/status/651369730754801665">AnupamChander</a><a href="https://twitter.com/AnupamChander/status/651369730754801665">/</a><a href="https://twitter.com/AnupamChander/status/651369730754801665">status</a><a href="https://twitter.com/AnupamChander/status/651369730754801665">/651369730754801665</a></u></p>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote24">
<p>
<a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote24sym" href="#sdfootnote24anc">24</a>
Lokman Tsui, Tweeted, “If the TPP bans data localization, but the
ECJ ruling effectively mandates it, what does that mean for the
internet?”
<u><a href="https://twitter.com/lokmantsui/status/651393867376275456">https</a><a href="https://twitter.com/lokmantsui/status/651393867376275456">://</a><a href="https://twitter.com/lokmantsui/status/651393867376275456">twitter</a><a href="https://twitter.com/lokmantsui/status/651393867376275456">.</a><a href="https://twitter.com/lokmantsui/status/651393867376275456">com</a><a href="https://twitter.com/lokmantsui/status/651393867376275456">/</a><a href="https://twitter.com/lokmantsui/status/651393867376275456">lokmantsui</a><a href="https://twitter.com/lokmantsui/status/651393867376275456">/</a><a href="https://twitter.com/lokmantsui/status/651393867376275456">status</a><a href="https://twitter.com/lokmantsui/status/651393867376275456">/651393867376275456</a></u></p>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote25">
<p>
<a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote25sym" href="#sdfootnote25anc">25</a>
Statement from Indian Head of Delegation, Mr Ram Narain for WGPL,
<a href="https://ccgnludelhi.wordpress.com/2014/11/04/indian-statement-on-itu-and-internet-at-the-working-group-plenary/">Indian</a><a href="https://ccgnludelhi.wordpress.com/2014/11/04/indian-statement-on-itu-and-internet-at-the-working-group-plenary/">statement</a><a href="https://ccgnludelhi.wordpress.com/2014/11/04/indian-statement-on-itu-and-internet-at-the-working-group-plenary/">on</a><a href="https://ccgnludelhi.wordpress.com/2014/11/04/indian-statement-on-itu-and-internet-at-the-working-group-plenary/">ITU</a><a href="https://ccgnludelhi.wordpress.com/2014/11/04/indian-statement-on-itu-and-internet-at-the-working-group-plenary/">and</a><a href="https://ccgnludelhi.wordpress.com/2014/11/04/indian-statement-on-itu-and-internet-at-the-working-group-plenary/">Internet</a><a href="https://ccgnludelhi.wordpress.com/2014/11/04/indian-statement-on-itu-and-internet-at-the-working-group-plenary/">at</a><a href="https://ccgnludelhi.wordpress.com/2014/11/04/indian-statement-on-itu-and-internet-at-the-working-group-plenary/">the</a><a href="https://ccgnludelhi.wordpress.com/2014/11/04/indian-statement-on-itu-and-internet-at-the-working-group-plenary/">Working</a><a href="https://ccgnludelhi.wordpress.com/2014/11/04/indian-statement-on-itu-and-internet-at-the-working-group-plenary/">Group</a><a href="https://ccgnludelhi.wordpress.com/2014/11/04/indian-statement-on-itu-and-internet-at-the-working-group-plenary/">Plenary</a><a href="https://ccgnludelhi.wordpress.com/2014/11/04/indian-statement-on-itu-and-internet-at-the-working-group-plenary/">November</a><a href="https://ccgnludelhi.wordpress.com/2014/11/04/indian-statement-on-itu-and-internet-at-the-working-group-plenary/">
4, 2014 </a><a href="https://ccgnludelhi.wordpress.com/author/asukum87/page/2/">https</a><a href="https://ccgnludelhi.wordpress.com/author/asukum87/page/2/">://</a><a href="https://ccgnludelhi.wordpress.com/author/asukum87/page/2/">ccgnludelhi</a><a href="https://ccgnludelhi.wordpress.com/author/asukum87/page/2/">.</a><a href="https://ccgnludelhi.wordpress.com/author/asukum87/page/2/">wordpress</a><a href="https://ccgnludelhi.wordpress.com/author/asukum87/page/2/">.</a><a href="https://ccgnludelhi.wordpress.com/author/asukum87/page/2/">com</a><a href="https://ccgnludelhi.wordpress.com/author/asukum87/page/2/">/</a><a href="https://ccgnludelhi.wordpress.com/author/asukum87/page/2/">author</a><a href="https://ccgnludelhi.wordpress.com/author/asukum87/page/2/">/</a><a href="https://ccgnludelhi.wordpress.com/author/asukum87/page/2/">asukum</a><a href="https://ccgnludelhi.wordpress.com/author/asukum87/page/2/">87/</a><a href="https://ccgnludelhi.wordpress.com/author/asukum87/page/2/">page</a><a href="https://ccgnludelhi.wordpress.com/author/asukum87/page/2/">/2/</a></p>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote26">
<p>
<a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote26sym" href="#sdfootnote26anc">26</a>
Sounak
Mitra, Xiaomi bets big on India despite problems, Business Standard,
December 2014
<u><a href="http://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/xiaomi-bets-big-on-india-despite-problems-114122201023_1.html">http</a><a href="http://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/xiaomi-bets-big-on-india-despite-problems-114122201023_1.html">://</a><a href="http://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/xiaomi-bets-big-on-india-despite-problems-114122201023_1.html">www</a><a href="http://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/xiaomi-bets-big-on-india-despite-problems-114122201023_1.html">.</a><a href="http://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/xiaomi-bets-big-on-india-despite-problems-114122201023_1.html">business</a><a href="http://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/xiaomi-bets-big-on-india-despite-problems-114122201023_1.html">-</a><a href="http://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/xiaomi-bets-big-on-india-despite-problems-114122201023_1.html">standard</a><a href="http://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/xiaomi-bets-big-on-india-despite-problems-114122201023_1.html">.</a><a href="http://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/xiaomi-bets-big-on-india-despite-problems-114122201023_1.html">com</a><a href="http://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/xiaomi-bets-big-on-india-despite-problems-114122201023_1.html">/</a><a href="http://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/xiaomi-bets-big-on-india-despite-problems-114122201023_1.html">article</a><a href="http://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/xiaomi-bets-big-on-india-despite-problems-114122201023_1.html">/</a><a href="http://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/xiaomi-bets-big-on-india-despite-problems-114122201023_1.html">companies</a><a href="http://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/xiaomi-bets-big-on-india-despite-problems-114122201023_1.html">/</a><a href="http://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/xiaomi-bets-big-on-india-despite-problems-114122201023_1.html">xiaomi</a><a href="http://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/xiaomi-bets-big-on-india-despite-problems-114122201023_1.html">-</a><a href="http://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/xiaomi-bets-big-on-india-despite-problems-114122201023_1.html">bets</a><a href="http://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/xiaomi-bets-big-on-india-despite-problems-114122201023_1.html">-</a><a href="http://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/xiaomi-bets-big-on-india-despite-problems-114122201023_1.html">big</a><a href="http://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/xiaomi-bets-big-on-india-despite-problems-114122201023_1.html">-</a><a href="http://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/xiaomi-bets-big-on-india-despite-problems-114122201023_1.html">on</a><a href="http://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/xiaomi-bets-big-on-india-despite-problems-114122201023_1.html">-</a><a href="http://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/xiaomi-bets-big-on-india-despite-problems-114122201023_1.html">india</a><a href="http://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/xiaomi-bets-big-on-india-despite-problems-114122201023_1.html">-</a><a href="http://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/xiaomi-bets-big-on-india-despite-problems-114122201023_1.html">despite</a><a href="http://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/xiaomi-bets-big-on-india-despite-problems-114122201023_1.html">-</a><a href="http://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/xiaomi-bets-big-on-india-despite-problems-114122201023_1.html">problems</a><a href="http://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/xiaomi-bets-big-on-india-despite-problems-114122201023_1.html">-114122201023_1.</a><a href="http://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/xiaomi-bets-big-on-india-despite-problems-114122201023_1.html">html</a></u></p>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote27">
<p>
<a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote27sym" href="#sdfootnote27anc">27</a>
Neha
Alawadi, Ruling on data flow between EU & US may impact India’s
IT sector, Economic Times,October 7, 2015
<a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/49250738.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst">http</a><a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/49250738.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst">://</a><a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/49250738.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst">economictimes</a><a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/49250738.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst">.</a><a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/49250738.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst">indiatimes</a><a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/49250738.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst">.</a><a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/49250738.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst">com</a><a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/49250738.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst">/</a><a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/49250738.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst">articleshow</a><a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/49250738.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst">/49250738.</a><a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/49250738.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst">cms</a><a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/49250738.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst">?</a><a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/49250738.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst">utm</a><a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/49250738.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst">_</a><a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/49250738.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst">source</a><a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/49250738.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst">=</a><a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/49250738.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst">contentofinterest</a><a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/49250738.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst">&</a><a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/49250738.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst">utm</a><a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/49250738.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst">_</a><a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/49250738.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst">medium</a><a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/49250738.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst">=</a><a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/49250738.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst">text</a><a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/49250738.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst">&</a><a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/49250738.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst">utm</a><a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/49250738.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst">_</a><a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/49250738.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst">campaign</a><a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/49250738.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst">=</a><a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/49250738.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst">cppst</a></p>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote28">
<p>
<a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote28sym" href="#sdfootnote28anc">28</a>
Pranav Menon, Data Protection Laws in India and Data Security-
Impact on India and Data Security-Impact on India - EU Free Trade
Agreement, CIS Access to Knowledge, 2011
<u><a href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/data-security-laws-india.pdf">http</a><a href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/data-security-laws-india.pdf">://</a><a href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/data-security-laws-india.pdf">cis</a><a href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/data-security-laws-india.pdf">-</a><a href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/data-security-laws-india.pdf">india</a><a href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/data-security-laws-india.pdf">.</a><a href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/data-security-laws-india.pdf">org</a><a href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/data-security-laws-india.pdf">/</a><a href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/data-security-laws-india.pdf">a</a><a href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/data-security-laws-india.pdf">2</a><a href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/data-security-laws-india.pdf">k</a><a href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/data-security-laws-india.pdf">/</a><a href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/data-security-laws-india.pdf">blogs</a><a href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/data-security-laws-india.pdf">/</a><a href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/data-security-laws-india.pdf">data</a><a href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/data-security-laws-india.pdf">-</a><a href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/data-security-laws-india.pdf">security</a><a href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/data-security-laws-india.pdf">-</a><a href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/data-security-laws-india.pdf">laws</a><a href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/data-security-laws-india.pdf">-</a><a href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/data-security-laws-india.pdf">india</a><a href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/data-security-laws-india.pdf">.</a><a href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/data-security-laws-india.pdf">pdf</a></u></p>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote29">
<p>
<a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote29sym" href="#sdfootnote29anc">29</a>
Surendra
Kumar Sinha, India wants Mutual Legal Assistance treaty with
Bangladesh, Economic Times, October 7, 2015
h<u><a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/49262294.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst">ttp</a><a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/49262294.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst">://</a><a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/49262294.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst">economictimes</a><a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/49262294.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst">.</a><a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/49262294.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst">indiatimes</a><a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/49262294.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst">.</a><a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/49262294.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst">com</a><a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/49262294.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst">/</a><a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/49262294.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst">articleshow</a><a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/49262294.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst">/49262294.</a><a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/49262294.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst">cms</a><a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/49262294.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst">?</a><a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/49262294.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst">utm</a><a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/49262294.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst">_</a><a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/49262294.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst">source</a><a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/49262294.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst">=</a><a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/49262294.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst">contentofinterest</a><a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/49262294.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst">&</a><a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/49262294.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst">utm</a><a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/49262294.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst">_</a><a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/49262294.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst">medium</a><a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/49262294.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst">=</a><a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/49262294.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst">text</a><a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/49262294.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst">&</a><a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/49262294.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst">utm</a><a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/49262294.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst">_</a><a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/49262294.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst">campaign</a><a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/49262294.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst">=</a><a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/49262294.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst">cppst</a></u></p>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote30">
<p>
<a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote30sym" href="#sdfootnote30anc">30</a>
Pablo
Chavez, Director, Public Policy and Government Affairs, Testifying
before the U.S. Senate on transparency legislation, November 3,
2013
<u><a href="http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.in/2013/11/testifying-before-us-senate-on.html">http</a><a href="http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.in/2013/11/testifying-before-us-senate-on.html">://</a><a href="http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.in/2013/11/testifying-before-us-senate-on.html">googlepublicpolicy</a><a href="http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.in/2013/11/testifying-before-us-senate-on.html">.</a><a href="http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.in/2013/11/testifying-before-us-senate-on.html">blogspot</a><a href="http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.in/2013/11/testifying-before-us-senate-on.html">.</a><a href="http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.in/2013/11/testifying-before-us-senate-on.html">in</a><a href="http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.in/2013/11/testifying-before-us-senate-on.html">/2013/11/</a><a href="http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.in/2013/11/testifying-before-us-senate-on.html">testifying</a><a href="http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.in/2013/11/testifying-before-us-senate-on.html">-</a><a href="http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.in/2013/11/testifying-before-us-senate-on.html">before</a><a href="http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.in/2013/11/testifying-before-us-senate-on.html">-</a><a href="http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.in/2013/11/testifying-before-us-senate-on.html">us</a><a href="http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.in/2013/11/testifying-before-us-senate-on.html">-</a><a href="http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.in/2013/11/testifying-before-us-senate-on.html">senate</a><a href="http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.in/2013/11/testifying-before-us-senate-on.html">-</a><a href="http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.in/2013/11/testifying-before-us-senate-on.html">on</a><a href="http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.in/2013/11/testifying-before-us-senate-on.html">.</a><a href="http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.in/2013/11/testifying-before-us-senate-on.html">htm</a></u> </p>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote31">
<p>
<a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote31sym" href="#sdfootnote31anc">31</a>
Report
of the Group of Experts on Privacy (Chaired by Justice A P Shah,
Former Chief Justice, Delhi High Court), Planning Commission,
October 2012
<u><a href="http://planningcommission.nic.in/reports/genrep/rep_privacy.pdf">http</a><a href="http://planningcommission.nic.in/reports/genrep/rep_privacy.pdf">://</a><a href="http://planningcommission.nic.in/reports/genrep/rep_privacy.pdf">planningcommission</a><a href="http://planningcommission.nic.in/reports/genrep/rep_privacy.pdf">.</a><a href="http://planningcommission.nic.in/reports/genrep/rep_privacy.pdf">nic</a><a href="http://planningcommission.nic.in/reports/genrep/rep_privacy.pdf">.</a><a href="http://planningcommission.nic.in/reports/genrep/rep_privacy.pdf">in</a><a href="http://planningcommission.nic.in/reports/genrep/rep_privacy.pdf">/</a><a href="http://planningcommission.nic.in/reports/genrep/rep_privacy.pdf">reports</a><a href="http://planningcommission.nic.in/reports/genrep/rep_privacy.pdf">/</a><a href="http://planningcommission.nic.in/reports/genrep/rep_privacy.pdf">genrep</a><a href="http://planningcommission.nic.in/reports/genrep/rep_privacy.pdf">/</a><a href="http://planningcommission.nic.in/reports/genrep/rep_privacy.pdf">rep</a><a href="http://planningcommission.nic.in/reports/genrep/rep_privacy.pdf">_</a><a href="http://planningcommission.nic.in/reports/genrep/rep_privacy.pdf">privacy</a><a href="http://planningcommission.nic.in/reports/genrep/rep_privacy.pdf">.</a><a href="http://planningcommission.nic.in/reports/genrep/rep_privacy.pdf">pdf</a></u></p>
<p align="justify"> </p>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote31">
<p align="justify"> </p>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote30"> </div>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/contestations-of-data-ecj-safe-harbor-ruling-and-lessons-for-india'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/contestations-of-data-ecj-safe-harbor-ruling-and-lessons-for-india</a>
</p>
No publisherjyotiAccess to KnowledgeDigital EconomyPublic AccountabilityPrivacyPlatform ResponsibilityData ProtectionAccountabilityDigital SecurityDigital IndiaInternet Governance2015-10-14T14:40:08ZBlog EntryDeitY says 143 URLs have been Blocked in 2015; Procedure for Blocking Content Remains Opaque and in Urgent Need of Transparency Measures
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/deity-says-143-urls-blocked-in-2015
<b>Across India on 30 December 2014, following an order issued by the Department of Telecom (DOT), Internet Service Providers (ISPs) blocked 32 websites including Vimeo, Dailymotion, GitHub and Pastebin.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify;">In February 2015, the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) requested the Department of Electronics and Information Technology (DeitY) under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) to provide information clarifying the procedures for blocking in India. We have received a response from DeitY which may be <a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/response-deity.clarifying-procedures-for-blocking.pdf" class="external-link">seen here</a>.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">In this post, I shall elaborate on this response from DeitY and highlight some of the accountability and transparency measures that the procedure needs. To stress the urgency of reform, I shall also touch upon two recent developments—the response from Ministry of Communication to questions raised in Parliament on the blocking procedures and the Supreme Court (SC) judgment in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India.</p>
<h2 style="text-align: justify;">Section 69A and the Blocking Rules</h2>
<p align="JUSTIFY" class="western">Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2008 (S69A hereinafter) grants powers to the central government to issue directions for blocking of access to any information through any computer resource. In other words, it allows the government to block any websites under certain grounds. The Government has notified rules laying down the procedure for blocking access online under the Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public Rules, 2009 (Rules, 2009 hereinafter). CIS has produced a poster explaining the blocking procedure (<a href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/blocking-websites.pdf/at_download/file">download PDF</a>, 2.037MB).</p>
<p align="JUSTIFY" class="western">There are <em>three key aspects</em> of the blocking rules that need to be kept under consideration:</p>
<h3 align="JUSTIFY" class="western">Officers and committees handling requests</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Designated Officer (DO)</strong> – Appointed by the Central government, officer not below the rank of Joint Secretary.<br /><strong>Nodal Officer (NO)</strong> – Appointed by organizations including Ministries or Departments of the State governments and Union Territories and any agency of the Central Government. <br /><strong>Intermediary contact</strong>–Appointed by every intermediary to receive and handle blocking directions from the DO.<br /><strong>Committee for Examination of Request (CER)</strong> – The request along with printed sample of alleged offending information is examined by the CER—committee with the DO serving as the Chairperson and representatives from Ministry of Law and Justice; Ministry of Home Affairs; Ministry of Information and Broadcasting and representative from the Indian Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT-In). The CER is responsible for examining each blocking request and makes recommendations including revoking blocking orders to the DO, which are taken into consideration for final approval of request for blocking by the Secretary, DOT. <br /><strong>Review Committee (RC) </strong>– Constituted under rule 419A of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1951, the RC includes the Cabinet Secretary, Secretary to the Government of India (Legal Affairs) and Secretary (Department of Telecom). The RC is mandated to meet at least once in 2 months and record its findings and has to validate that directions issued are in compliance with S69A(1).</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;">Provisions outlining the procedure for blocking</h3>
<p>Rules 6, 9 and 10 create three distinct blocking procedures, which must commence within 7 days of the DO receiving the request.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">a) Rule 6 lays out the first procedure, under which any person may approach the NO and request blocking, alternatively, the NO may also raise a blocking request. After the NO of the approached Ministry or Department of the State governments and Union Territories and/or any agency of the Central Government, is satisfied of the validity of the request they forward it to the DO. Requests when not sent through the NO of any organization, must be approved by Chief Secretary of the State or Union Territory or the Advisor to the Administrator of the Union Territory, before being sent to the DO.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">The DO upon receiving the request places, must acknowledge receipt within 24 four hours and places the request along with printed copy of alleged information for validation by the CER. The DO also, must make reasonable efforts to identify the person or intermediary hosting the information, and having identified them issue a notice asking them to appear and submit their reply and clarifications before the committee at a specified date and time, within forty eight hours of the receipt of notice.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Foreign entities hosting the information are also informed and the CER gives it recommendations after hearing from the intermediary or the person has clarified their position and even if there is no representation by the same and after examining if the request falls within the scope outlined under S69A(1). The blocking directions are issued by the Secretary (DeitY), after the DO forwards the request and the CER recommendations. If approval is granted the DO directs the relevant intermediary or person to block the alleged information.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;" class="western">b) Rule 9 outlines a procedure wherein, under emergency circumstances, and after the DO has established the necessity and expediency to block alleged information submits recommendations in writing to the Secretary, DeitY. The Secretary, upon being satisfied by the justification for, and necessity of, and expediency to block information may issue an blocking directions as an interim measure and must record the reasons for doing so in writing.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;" class="western">Under such circumstances, the intermediary and person hosting information is not given the opportunity of a hearing. Nevertheless, the DO is required to place the request before the CER within forty eight hours of issuing of directions for interim blocking. Only upon receiving the final recommendations from the committee can the Secretary pass a final order approving the request. If the request for blocking is not approved then the interim order passed earlier is revoked, and the intermediary or identified person should be directed to unblock the information for public access.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;" class="western">c) Rule 10 outlines the process when an order is issued by the courts in India. The DO upon receipt of the court order for blocking of information submits it to the Secretary, DeitY and initiates action as directed by the courts.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;" class="western">Confidentiality clause</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Rule 16 mandates confidentiality regarding all requests and actions taken thereof, which renders any requests received by the NO and the DO, recommendations made by the DO or the CER and any written reasons for blocking or revoking blocking requests outside the purview of public scrutiny. More detail on the officers and committees that enforce the blocking rules and procedure can be found <a href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/is-india2019s-website-blocking-law-constitutional-2013-i-law-procedure">here</a>.</p>
<h2>Response on blocking from the Ministry of Communication and Information Technology</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify;">The response to our RTI from E-Security and Cyber Law Group is timely, given the recent clarification from the Ministry of Communication and Information Technology to a number of questions, raised by parliamentarian Shri Avinash Pande in the Rajya Sabha. The questions had been raised in reference to the Emergency blocking order under IT Act, the current status of the Central Monitoring System, Data Privacy law and Net Neutrality. The Centre for Communication Governance (CCG), National Law University New Delhi have extracted a set of 6 questions and you can read the full article <a href="https://ccgnludelhi.wordpress.com/2015/04/24/governments-response-to-fundamental-questions-regarding-the-internet-in-india/">here</a>.</p>
<p align="JUSTIFY" class="western">The governments response as quoted by CCG, clarifies under rule 9—the Government has issued directions for emergency blocking of <em>a total number of 216 URLs from 1st January, 2014 till date </em>and that <em>a total of 255 URLs were blocked in 2014 and no URLs has been blocked in 2015 (till 31 March 2015)</em> under S69A through the Committee constituted under the rules therein. Further, a total of 2091 URLs and 143 URLs were blocked in order to comply with the directions of the competent courts of India in 2014 and 2015 (till 31 March 2015) respectively. The government also clarified that the CER, had recommended not to block 19 URLs in the meetings held between 1<sup>st</sup><sup> </sup>January 2014 upto till date and so far, two orders have been issued to revoke 251 blocked URLs from 1st January 2014 till date. Besides, CERT-In received requests for blocking of objectionable content from individuals and organisations, and these were forwarded to the concerned websites for appropriate action, however the response did not specify the number of requests.</p>
<p align="JUSTIFY" class="western">We have prepared a table explaining the information released by the government and to highlight the inconsistency in their response.</p>
<table class="grid listing">
<colgroup> <col width="331"> <col width="90"> <col width="91"> <col width="119"> </colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td rowspan="2">
<p align="LEFT"><strong>Applicable rule and procedure outlined under the Blocking Rules</strong></p>
</td>
<td colspan="3">
<p align="CENTER"><strong>Number of websites</strong></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p align="CENTER"><em>2014</em></p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="CENTER"><em>2015</em></p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="CENTER"><em>Total</em></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p align="LEFT">Rule 6 - Blocking requests from NO and others</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="CENTER">255</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="CENTER">None</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="CENTER">255</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p align="LEFT">Rule 9 - Blocking under emergency circumstances</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="CENTER">-</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="CENTER">-</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="CENTER">216</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p align="LEFT">Rule 10 - Blocking orders from Court</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="CENTER">2091</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="CENTER">143</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="CENTER">2234</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p align="LEFT">Requests from individuals and orgs forwarded to CERT-In</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="CENTER">-</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="CENTER">-</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="CENTER">-</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p align="LEFT">Recommendations to not block by CER</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="CENTER">-</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="CENTER">-</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="CENTER">19</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p align="LEFT">Number of blocking requests revoked</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="CENTER">-</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="CENTER">-</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="CENTER">251</p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p>In a <a href="http://sflc.in/deity-says-2341-urls-were-blocked-in-2014-refuses-to-reveal-more/">response </a>to an RTI filed by the Software Freedom Law Centre, DeitY said that 708 URLs were blocked in 2012, 1,349 URLs in 2013, and 2,341 URLs in 2014.</p>
<h2>Shreya Singhal v. Union of India</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify;">In its recent judgment, the SC of India upheld the constitutionality of 69A, stating that it was a narrowly-drawn provision with adequate safeguards. The constitutional challenge on behalf of the People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) considered the manner in which the blocking is done and the arguments focused on the secrecy present in blocking.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">The rules may indicate that there is a requirement to identify and contact the originator of information, though as an expert <a href="http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/but-what-about-section-69a/">has pointed out</a>, there is no evidence of this in practice. The court has stressed the importance of a written order so that writ petitions may be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. In doing so, the court seems to have assumed that the originator or intermediary is informed, and therefore held the view that any procedural inconsistencies may be challenged through writ petitions. However, this recourse is rendered ineffective not only due to procedural constraints, but also because of the confidentiality clause. The opaqueness through rule 16 severely reigns in the recourse that may be given to the originator and the intermediary. While the court notes that rule 16 requiring confidentality was argued to be unconstitutional, it does not state its opinion on this question in the judgment. One expert, holds the <a href="https://indconlawphil.wordpress.com/2015/03/25/the-supreme-courts-it-act-judgment-and-secret-blocking/">view</a> that this, by implication, requires that requests cannot be confidential. However, such a reading down of rule 16 is yet to be tested.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Further, Sunil Abraham has <a href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/economic-and-political-weekly-sunil-abraham-april-11-2015-shreya-singhal-and-66a">pointed</a> out, “block orders are unevenly implemented by ISPs making it impossible for anyone to independently monitor and reach a conclusion whether an internet resource is inaccessible as a result of a S69A block order or due to a network anomaly.” As there are no comprehensive list of blocked websites or of the legal orders through which they are blocked exists, the public has to rely on media reports and filing RTI requests to understand the censorship regime in India. CIS has previously <a href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/analysing-blocked-sites-riots-communalism">analysed</a> the leaked block lists and lists received as responses to RTI requests which have revealed that the block orders are full of errors and blocking of entire platforms and not just specific links has taken place.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">While the state has the power of blocking content, doing so in secrecy and without judical scrutiny, mark deficiencies that remain in the procedure outlined under the provisions of the blocking rules . The Court could read down rule 16 except for a really narrow set of exceptions, and in not doing so, perhaps has overlooked the opportunities for reform in the existing system. The blocking of 32 websites, is an example of the opaqueness of the system of blocking orders, and where the safeguards assumed by the SC are often not observed such as there being no access to the recommendations that were made by the CER, or towards the revocation of the blocking orders subsequently. CIS filed the RTI to try and understand the grounds for blocking and related procedures and the response has thrown up some issues that must need urgent attention.</p>
<h2>Response to RTI filed by CIS</h2>
<p align="JUSTIFY" class="western">Our first question sought clarification on the websites blocked on 30<sup>th</sup><sup> </sup>December 2014 and the response received from DeitY, E-Security and Cyber Law Group reveals that the websites had been blocked as “they were being used to post information related to ISIS using the resources provided by these websites”. The response also clarifies that the directions to block were issued on <em>18-12-2014 and as of 09-01-2015</em>, after obtaining an undertaking from website owners, stating their compliance with the Government and Indian laws, the sites were unblocked.</p>
<p align="JUSTIFY" class="western">It is not clear if ATS, Mumbai had been intercepting communication or if someone reported these websites. If the ATS was indeed intercepting communication, then as per the rules, the RC should be informed and their recommendations sought. It is unclear, if this was the case and the response evokes the confidentiality clause under rule 16 for not divulging further details. Based on our reading of the rules, court orders should be accessible to the public and without copies of requests and complaints received and knowledge of which organization raised them, there can be no appeal or recourse available to the intermediary or even the general public.</p>
<p align="JUSTIFY" class="western">We also asked for a list of all requests for blocking of information that had been received by the DO between January 2013 and January 2015, including the copies of all files that had accepted or rejected. We also specifically, asked for a list of requests under rule 9. The response from DeitY stated that since January 1, 2015 to March 31, 2015 directions to block 143 URLs had been issued based on court orders. The response completely overlooks our request for information, covering the 2 year time period. It also does not cover all types of blocking orders under rule 6 and rule 9, nor the requests that are forwarded to CERT-In, as we have gauged from the ministry's response to the Parliament. Contrary to the SC's assumption of contacting the orginator of information, it is also clear from DeitY's response that only the websites had been contacted and the letter states that the “websites replied only after blocking of objectionable content”. </p>
<p align="JUSTIFY" class="western">Further, seeking clarification on the functioning of the CER, we asked for the recent composition of members and the dates and copies of the minutes of all meetings including copies of the recommendations made by them. The response merely quotes rule 7 as the reference for the composition and does not provide any names or other details. We ascertain that as per the DeitY website Shri B.J. Srinath, Scientist-G/GC is the appointed Designated Officer, however this needs confirmation. While we are already aware of the structure of the CER which representatives and appointed public officers are guiding the examination of requests remains unclear. Presently, there are 3 Joint Secretaries appointed under the Ministry of Law and Justice, the Home Ministry has appointed 19, while 3 are appointed under the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. Further, it is not clear which grade of scientist would be appointed to this committee from CERT-In as the rules do not specify this. While the government has clarified in their answer to Parliament that the committee had recommended not to block 19 URLs in the meetings held between 1st January 2014 to till date, it is remains unclear who is taking these decisions to block and revoke blocked URLs. The response from DeitY specifies that the CER has met six times between 2014 and March 2015, however stops short on sharing any further information or copies of files on complaints and recommendations of the CER, citing rule 16.</p>
<p align="JUSTIFY" class="western">Finally, answering our question on the composition of the RC the letter merely highlights the provision providing for the composition under 419A of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951. The response clarifies that so far, the RC has met once on 7th December, 2013 under the Chairmanship of the Cabinet Secretary, Department of Legal Affaits and Secretary, DOT. Our request for minutes of meetings and copies of orders and findings of the RC is denied by simply stating that “minutes are not available”. Under 419A, any directions for interception of any message or class of messages under sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 issued by the competent authority shall contain reasons for such direction and a copy of such order shall be forwarded to the concerned RC within a period of seven working days. Given that the RC has met just once since 2013, it is unclear if the RC is not functioning or if the interception of messages is being guided through other procedures. Further, we do not yet know details or have any records of revocation orders or notices sent to intermediary contacts. This restricts the citizens’ right to receive information and DeitY should work to make these available for the public.</p>
<p align="JUSTIFY" class="western">Given the response to our RTI, the Ministry's response to Parliament and the SC judgment we recommend the following steps be taken by the DeitY to ensure that we create a procedure that is just, accountable and follows the rule of law.</p>
<p align="JUSTIFY" class="western">The revocation of rule 16 needs urgent clarification for two reasons:</p>
<ol>
<li>Under Section 22 of the RTI Act provisions thereof, override all conflicting provisions in any other legislation.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify;">In upholding the constitutionality of S69A the SC cites the requirement of reasons behind blocking orders to be recorded in writing, so that they may be challenged by means of writ petitions filed under <a href="http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1712542/">A</a><a href="http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1712542/">rticle 226</a> of the Constitution of India.</li></ol>
<p style="text-align: justify;">If the blocking orders or the meetings of the CER and RC that consider the reasons in the orders are to remain shrouded in secrecy and unavailable through RTI requests, filing writ petitions challenging these decisions will not be possible, rendering this very important safeguard for the protection of online free speech and expression infructuous. In summation, the need for comprehensive legislative reform remains in the blocking procedures and the government should act to address the pressing need for transparency and accountability. Not only does opacity curtial the strengths of democracy it also impedes good governance. We have filed an RTI seeking a comprehensive account of the blocking procedure, functioning of committees from 2009-2015 and we shall publish any information that we may receive.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/deity-says-143-urls-blocked-in-2015'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/deity-says-143-urls-blocked-in-2015</a>
</p>
No publisherjyotiCensorshipFreedom of Speech and ExpressionRTIIntermediary LiabilityAccountabilityFeatured69AInternet GovernanceChilling EffectTransparencyHomepageBlocking2015-04-30T07:37:40ZBlog EntryNational IPR Policy Series: RTI Requests by CIS to DIPP + DIPP Responses
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/national-ipr-policy-series-rti-requests-by-cis-to-dipp-dipp-responses
<b>In earlier blog posts, we have discussed the development of India’s National IPR Policy (“the Policy”); comments by the Centre for Internet and Society (“CIS”) to the IPR Think Tank before the release of the first draft of the Policy and CIS’ comments to the IPR Think Tank in response to the first draft of the Policy. Continuing our National IPR Policy Series, this article documents our requests to the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (“DIPP” / “the Department”) under the Right to Information (“RTI”) Act, 2005 and the responses of the Department.</b>
<p><a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/national-ipr-policy-series-dipp-response.pdf" class="external-link">View the PDF here</a>.</p>
<hr />
<h3>Details of RTI Requests Filed by CIS</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In February, 2015, <a href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/rti-requests-dipp-details-on-constitution-and-working-of-ipr-think-tank">CIS had filed three RTI requests</a> with the DIPP. <a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-rti-request-to-dipp-number-1-february-2015/view">The first request</a> was four-pronged, seeking information related to <i>first,</i> the process followed by the Department in the creation of the IPR Think Tank; <i>second, </i>details and documents of a meeting held to constitute the Think Tank; <i>third, </i>details and documents of all/multiple meetings held to constitute the Think Tank; <i>fourth</i>, details of a directive/directives received from any other Government Ministry/authority directing the constitution of the Think Tank and <i>fifth,</i> the process of shortlisting the members of the Think Tank by the DIPP.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-rti-request-to-dipp-number-2-february-2015/view">In our second RTI request,</a> <i>first,</i> we requested details of the process followed by the Think Tank in the formulation of the Policy; <i>second, </i>we requested all documents relating to a meeting held for the formulation of the Policy; <i>third, </i>we requested all documents held for multiple meetings for the creation of the Policy and <i>fourth,</i> we requisitioned all suggestions and comments received by the Think Tank from stakeholders <b>before</b> the release of the Policy, that is, those suggestions/comments received in November, 2014.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In our <a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-request-to-dipp-3.pdf" class="external-link">third RTI request</a>, also filed on also filed in February, 2015, we had asked the DIPP to indicate all suggestions and comments received by the IPR Think Tank from different stakeholders in response to the first draft of the National IPR Policy (to have been submitted on or before January 30, 2015 <a href="http://dipp.nic.in/English/acts_rules/Press_Release/pressRelease_IPR_Policy_30December2014.pdf">as per DIPP’s Public Notice</a>).</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Responses by DIPP to CIS' RTI Requests</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The DIPP replied to our three RTI requests in multiple stages. At first, <a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/dipp-response-improper-payment.pdf" class="external-link">in a letter dated 12 February, 2015</a>, we were directed to resubmit our application , seemingly because we hadn’t addressed the Postal Money Order to the correct authority, and were directed to do the same. Funnily enough, we received three other responses – one for each of our RTI requests (the first of these is not dated; the second one is dated 19 February, 2015 and then revised to 26 February, 2015; and the third is also dated 26 February, 2015).</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">The First Response: On the Constitution of the Think Tank</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In the <a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/dipp-response-1.pdf" class="external-link">first of their responses</a> to these requests, the Department has grouped our queries into five questions and provided a point-wise response to these questions, as under:</p>
<ul>
<li style="text-align: justify; "><b>Please indicate in detail the process followed by the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion for the constitution for an IPR Think Tank to draft the National Intellectual Property Rights Policy under Public Notice No. 10 (22)/2013 –IPR-III dated November 13, 2014 (sic).</b></li>
</ul>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In its response the Department notes that it convened an <i>interactive meeting on IPR issues</i> which was chaired by the Minister for Commerce and Industry (Independent Charge), i.e., Ms. Nirmala Sitharaman. As per the Department’s response, this meeting was held on 22 September, 2014 (<b>“the Meeting”</b>) and was aimed at discussing <i>issues related to IPRs, including finalization of the Terms of Reference for IPR Think-Tank proposed to be established </i>(sic.) The Department also notes that <i>representatives from various Ministries/Departments, Member of various Expert Committees constituted by the Department, besides IP experts and other Legal Practitioners</i> (sic) were invited to the meeting. The Department then states that the composition of the Think Tank was decided <i>on the basis of the discussions held in the department after the said interactive Meeting</i> (sic).</p>
<ul>
<li style="text-align: justify; "><b>If there was a meeting held to decide on the same, please include all necessary documents including the minutes of the meeting, records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinion, advices, press releases, circulars, orders etc in which the constitution of the aforesaid mentioned IPR Think Tank was decided (sic).</b></li>
</ul>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Department has attached the Minutes of the Meeting held on 22 September, 2014 (<b>“the Minutes”</b>) and states that there were no documents or papers that were circulated at this meeting and that the participants were asked to present their views on various IP issues at this meeting.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>Excerpts from the Minutes</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Secretary of the Department (Shri Amitabh Kant) refers to a (then) recent announcement made by the Minister of State for Commerce and Industry (<b>“the Minister”</b>) on the formulation of the National IPR Policy and the establishment of an IPR Think Tank and states that the meeting had been convened to <i>discuss on various IPR issues with IP experts and legal practitioners so that it would provide essential inputs to the policy needs of the department</i> (sic). The Minutes report that Mr. Kant further stated that the objective of the department was to have <i>a world class IP system</i> and that this included a comprehensive National IPR Policy and <i>which takes care of various issues like IP creation, protection, administration and capacity building </i>(sic). He is also reported to have said that such a stakeholder interaction was important for the government to seek inputs.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Minister is reported to have said that the purpose of the meeting was to constitute an IP Think Tank that would <i>regularly provide inputs to all IP policy needs of this department as well as advice government in disparate legal aspects (sic). </i>The Minutes also report her to have said that the department would finalize an IP policy within ninety days of the Meeting, based on the inputs of the participants.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">According to the Minutes, various issues emerged from the discussion. <i>Inter alia, </i>these include <i>first,</i> that the proposal to constitute the Think Tank was a welcome measure, along the lines of similar initiatives taken by Australia, South Kora, the United Kingdom and the United States of America; <i>second, </i>that in order to remove misconceptions held by <i>foreign stakeholders</i> about IP enforcement in India, there was a need to highlight judgments of Indian courts that were favorable to <i>foreign stakeholders and MNCs</i>; <i>third, </i>that the national policies on telecom, manufacturing and IP ought to be integrated; <i>fourth</i>, that the focus of the Policy should be <b><i>increase in creation of IP including commercialization of IP and strengthening human capital and IP management</i></b> and <i>fifth</i>, that empirical studies should be conducted to examine the feasibility of Utility Models protection, that there was a need to revise the law on Geographical Indications and that the Policy should include protection for traditional knowledge and guidelines for publicly funded research.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Minister is then said to have identified six major areas during the discussion, including <i>IP institution, legislation, implementation, public awareness, international aspects and barriers in IP growth</i> as areas to be covered under the Policy.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>Who attended the Meeting?</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Attached with the Minutes was also a list of participants who attended the Meeting. Out of the thirty six attendees, <i>I have not been able to locate a single individual or organization representing civil society</i>. Participants include representatives from various government departments and ministries, including <i>inter alia,</i> the DIPP, the Department of Commerce, the Ministry of External Affairs, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, the Copyright Division from the Department of Higher Education of the Ministry of Human Resources Development, the Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks and the Ministry of Culture. The Meeting was also attended by representatives of corporations and industry associations, including FICCI, CII and Cadila Pharmaceuticals; in addition to representatives from law firms including Luthra and Luthra, K&S Partners and Inventure IP and academics including, <i>inter alia,</i> faculty from the Asian School of Business, Trivandrum, Indian Law Institute, Delhi, Tezpur University, Assam, National Law University, Delhi, NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad, the Indian Institute of Technology, Madras and the National Law School of India University, Bangalore.</p>
<ul>
<li style="text-align: justify; "><b>If there were multiple meetings held for the same please provide all necessary documents including the minutes of all such meetings, records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders etc. for all such meetings held (sic).</b></li>
</ul>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Department answered, “No”; which I’m taking to mean that there weren’t other meetings held for the formulation of the Think Tank or the Policy. This is interesting, because the Minutes (referred to earlier) speak of another inter-ministerial meeting <i>including IP experts and legal practitioners</i> slated to be held around the 10<sup>th</sup> of October, 2014, to discuss the framework of the Policy.</p>
<ul style="text-align: justify; ">
<li><b>If a directive or directives were received by the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion from any other government body to constitute such a think tank, please provide a copy of such a directive received by the DIPP from any Government authority, to constitute such a Think Tank (sic).</b></li>
</ul>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Department answered, “No”; which I’m taking to mean that there was no communication received by the Department to constitute this Think Tank.</p>
<ul style="text-align: justify; ">
<li><b>Please indicate in detail the process of shortlisting the members of the IPR Think Tank by the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion or any other body that was responsible for the same (sic).</b></li>
</ul>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Department replied that the answer to this was the same as that to the first question.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">The Second Response: The Drafting of the Policy</h3>
<p>The <a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/dipp-response-2.pdf/" class="external-link">second of the Department's responses</a> to our requests came in the form of separate responses to each of our four questions, as under:</p>
<ul>
<li><b>Please indicate in detail the process followed by the IPR Think Tank constituted by the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion via Public Notice No. 10 (22)/2013-IPR-III dated November 13, 2014 while framing the first draft of the National IPR Policy dated Dec. 19, 2014 (sic).</b></li>
</ul>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Department stated that the IPR Think Tank conducted its meetings independently without any interference from the Department. The Department then stated that the Think Tank had received comments from stakeholders via a dedicated email id and <i>conducted the interactive meeting with stakeholders while framing the draft on the National IPR Policy.</i></p>
<ul>
<li style="text-align: justify; "><b>If there was a meeting held to decide on the same, please include all necessary documents including the minutes of the meeting, records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinion, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, suggestions etc. related to drafting of such National IPR Policy Think Tank chaired by Justice Prabha Sridevan (sic). </b></li>
</ul>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Department replied that since the IPR Think Tank had decided <i>its process by themselves</i> (sic), the Department<i> do not have the minutes of the meeting etc. conducted by the IPR Think Tank </i>(sic). It attached with its reply a copy of the press releases announcing the composition of the Think Tank and asking stakeholders to submit comments to the first draft of the Policy.</p>
<ul>
<li style="text-align: justify; "><b>If there were multiple meetings held for the same, please provide all necessary documents including the minutes of all such meetings, records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, order suggestions etc. for all such meetings held (sic).</b></li>
</ul>
<p>The Department replied that the response to this was the same as that to the earlier question above.</p>
<ul>
<li style="text-align: justify; "><b>Please provide all the suggestions and comments received by the IPR Think Tank from stakeholders after the DIPP issued Public Notice No. 10/22/2013-IPR-III dated 13.11.2014 asking for suggestions and comments on or before November 30, 2014 (sic).</b></li>
</ul>
<p>The Department replied that the comments and suggestions were received by the Think Tank directly and that therefore, the Department was <i>not in a position to provide the same.</i></p>
<h3>The<i> </i>Third Response: Stakeholder Comments</h3>
<p>In its <a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/dipp-response-3.pdf" class="external-link">third and final response</a> to our requests, the DIPP replied to our query as under:</p>
<ul>
<li style="text-align: justify; "><b>Please indicate all the suggestions and comments received by the IPR Think Tank by different stakeholders on or before January 30, 2015 on its first draft of the National Intellectual Property Policy submitted by the IPR Think Tank on December 19, 2014.</b></li>
</ul>
<p>The Department said that <i>the suggestions and comments on the draft on National IPR Policy have been received by the IPR Think Tank directly. As such this Department is not in a position to provide the same (sic.).</i></p>
<h3>Observation on the DIPP's Responses</h3>
<p><i>Prima facie, </i>the responses by the Department are rather curious, leading to a range of oddities and unanswered questions.</p>
<h3>Who Will Watch the IPR Think Tank</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In its response to our first RTI request, the Department quite clearly stated that it decided the composition of the IPR Think Tank based on discussions in a meeting that it convened, which was also chaired by the Minister of State for Commerce and Industry, the parent ministry of the DIPP. In the same response, the Department also stated that it had not received any directive from any other ministry/government department directing the constitution of the IPR Think Tank, leading to the conclusion that this decision was taken by the DIPP/the Ministry of Commerce and Industry itself. Subsequently however, the Department justified its refusal to furnish us with documents leading to the development of the first draft of the National IPR Policy (contained in our second RTI request) by stating that the IPR Think Tank conducted its business without any interference from the Department, and that the Department did not have access to any of the submissions made to the IPR Think Tank or any of the internal minutes of the meetings etc. that were a part of the process of drafting the IPR Policy.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Various press releases by the DIPP have stated that it has constituted the IPR Think Tank, and that the purpose of the IPR Think Tank <a href="http://dipp.nic.in/English/acts_rules/Press_Release/ipr_PressRelease_24October2014.pdf">would be to advise the Department on IPR issues.</a> Visibly, the Department intends for the IPR Think Tank to play an active role in shaping India’s IP law and policy, including suggesting amendments to laws wherever necessary. It is concerning therefore that on the question of accountability of the IPR Think Tank, the DIPP remains silent. It may be argued perhaps, that the IPR Think Tank constitutes a ‘public authority’ under Section 2(h)(d) of the <a href="http://righttoinformation.gov.in/rti-act.pdf">Right to Information Act, 2005</a> (<b>“RTI Act”</b>). In that case, the IPR Think Tank would have to fulfill, <i>inter alia,</i> all of the obligations under Section 4 of the RTI Act as well as designate a Public Information Officer. Alternatively, given that the IPR Think Tank has been constituted by the DIPP and performs functions for the DIPP, the Public Information Officer of the DIPP would have to furnish <span>all</span> relevant information under the RTI Act (including the information that we sought in our requests, which was not provided to us).</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Who are the Stakeholders</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Even a preliminary look at the list of participants at the Meeting (based on which the Department constituted the IPR Think Tank) reveals that not all stakeholders have been adequately represented. I haven’t been able to spot any representation from civil society and other organizations that might be interested in a more balanced intellectual property framework that is not rights-heavy. The following chart (based on a total sample size of 36 participants, as stated in the list of participants provided to us by the DIPP) will help put things in perspective.</p>
<table class="listing">
<tbody>
<tr>
<th><img src="https://cis-india.org/home-images/Meeting.png" alt="Meeting" class="image-inline" title="Meeting" /></th>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">What Could've Been Done?</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Setting aside arguments on its necessity, let us for the moment assume that this drafting of the National IPR Policy is an exercise that needed to have been undertaken. We must now examine what might possibly be the best way to go about this.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In 2014, the World Intellectual Property Organization (<b>“WIPO”</b>) (based on whose approach the Policy seems to have been based- at least in part), produced a detailed <a href="http://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/intproperty/958/wipo_pub_958_1.pdf">Methodology for the Development of National Intellectual Property Strategies</a>, outlining a detailed eight step process before a National IP Policy was implemented in a Member State. While this approach is one to be followed by the WIPO and might not be entirely suited to India’s drafting exercise, specific sections on the national consultation process as well as the drafting and implementation of national intellectual property strategies might prove to be a decent starting point.</p>
<p>(More on this in an upcoming article).d</p>
<h3>Where Do We Go From Here?</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The DIPP’s responses have left me with more questions, probably the subject of more RTI requests. Is the IPR Think Tank a public authority for the purposes of the Right to Information Act, 2005? To whom should questions of informational accountability of the IPR Think Tank be addressed, if there is no information available on the IPR Think Tank, and the DIPP claims to have no access to it? Do we need to re-examine the draft National IPR Policy given that there has been inadequate representation of all stakeholders? What were the suggestions made by different stakeholders, and (how) have these been reflected in the first draft of the Policy? Was there an evaluation exercise conducted before the first draft of the Policy was released in order to better inform the formulation of the Policy?</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">We will be looking at these and other questions as they arise, and sending some of these to the DIPP in the form of RTI requests. (Watch the blog for more).</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/national-ipr-policy-series-rti-requests-by-cis-to-dipp-dipp-responses'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/national-ipr-policy-series-rti-requests-by-cis-to-dipp-dipp-responses</a>
</p>
No publishernehaaAccess to KnowledgePervasive TechnologiesDIPPRTINational IPR PolicyAccountabilityFeaturedIPR Think TankHomepage2015-04-26T08:47:00ZBlog EntryDIPP RESPONSE TO CIS (THIRD) RTI REQUEST - FEBRUARY, 2015
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/dipp-response-to-cis-third-rti-request-february-2015
<b></b>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/dipp-response-to-cis-third-rti-request-february-2015'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/dipp-response-to-cis-third-rti-request-february-2015</a>
</p>
No publishernehaaGovernment InformationAccess to KnowledgeDIPPIntellectual Property RightsAccountabilityNATIONAL IPR POLICYIPR THINK TANK2015-04-14T18:16:52ZFileDIPP RESPONSE TO CIS (SECOND) RTI - FEBRUARY, 2015
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/dipp-response-to-cis-second-rti-february-2015
<b></b>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/dipp-response-to-cis-second-rti-february-2015'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/dipp-response-to-cis-second-rti-february-2015</a>
</p>
No publishernehaaGovernment InformationAccess to KnowledgeDIPPIntellectual Property RightsAccountabilityNATIONAL IPR POLICYIPR THINK TANK2015-04-14T18:14:18ZFileDIPP RESPONSE TO CIS (SECOND) RTI REQUEST - FEBRUARY, 2015
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/dipp-response-to-cis-second-rti-request-february-2015
<b></b>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/dipp-response-to-cis-second-rti-request-february-2015'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/dipp-response-to-cis-second-rti-request-february-2015</a>
</p>
No publishernehaaGovernment InformationAccess to KnowledgeDIPPIntellectual Property RightsAccountabilityNATIONAL IPR POLICYIPR THINK TANK2015-04-14T17:58:50ZFileDIPP RESPONSE TO CIS (FIRST) RTI - FEBRUARY, 2015
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/dipp-response-to-cis-first-rti-february-2015
<b></b>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/dipp-response-to-cis-first-rti-february-2015'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/dipp-response-to-cis-first-rti-february-2015</a>
</p>
No publishernehaaGovernment InformationAccess to KnowledgeDIPPIntellectual Property RightsAccountabilityNATIONAL IPR POLICYIPR THINK TANK2015-04-14T17:42:43ZFile