<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?>
<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:syn="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/" xmlns="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/">




    



<channel rdf:about="https://cis-india.org/search_rss">
  <title>Centre for Internet and Society</title>
  <link>https://cis-india.org</link>
  
  <description>
    
            These are the search results for the query, showing results 21 to 33.
        
  </description>
  
  
  
  
  <image rdf:resource="https://cis-india.org/logo.png"/>

  <items>
    <rdf:Seq>
        
            <rdf:li rdf:resource="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-4-icann-and-the-netmundial-principles"/>
        
        
            <rdf:li rdf:resource="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-3-cyber-attacks-on-icann"/>
        
        
            <rdf:li rdf:resource="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-2"/>
        
        
            <rdf:li rdf:resource="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-1-icanns-expenditures-on-travel-meetings"/>
        
        
            <rdf:li rdf:resource="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/deity-says-143-urls-blocked-in-2015"/>
        
        
            <rdf:li rdf:resource="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/contestations-of-data-ecj-safe-harbor-ruling-and-lessons-for-india"/>
        
        
            <rdf:li rdf:resource="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis-comments-supporting-the-dns-industry-in-underserved-regions"/>
        
        
            <rdf:li rdf:resource="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis2019-efforts-towards-greater-financial-disclosure-by-icann"/>
        
        
            <rdf:li rdf:resource="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/icann49-public-forum-statement"/>
        
        
            <rdf:li rdf:resource="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-rti-request-to-dipp-number-3-february-2015"/>
        
        
            <rdf:li rdf:resource="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-rti-request-to-dipp-number-1-february-2015"/>
        
        
            <rdf:li rdf:resource="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis-comments-enhancing-icann-accountability"/>
        
        
            <rdf:li rdf:resource="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"/>
        
    </rdf:Seq>
  </items>

</channel>


    <item rdf:about="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-4-icann-and-the-netmundial-principles">
    <title>DIDP Request #4: ICANN and the NETmundial Principles</title>
    <link>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-4-icann-and-the-netmundial-principles</link>
    <description>
        &lt;b&gt;CIS sent ICANN a request under its Documentary Information Disclosure Policy, seeking details of ICANN's implementation of the NETmundial Principles that it has endorsed widely and publicly. CIS' request and ICANN's response are detailed below.&lt;/b&gt;
        &lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt; &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h3 style="text-align: justify; "&gt;CIS Request&lt;/h3&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;&lt;span&gt;27 December 2014&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;To:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Mr. Fadi Chehade, CEO and President&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Mr. Steve Crocker, Chairman of the Board&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Mr. Cherine Chalaby, Chair, Finance Committee of the Board&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Mr. Xavier Calvez, Chief Financial Officer&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: center; "&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Sub: Details of implementation by and within ICANN of the NETmundial Outcome Document (April ‘14)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;We express our appreciation at ICANN’s prompt acknowledgement of our previous DIDP request, and await the information. We would, in the meanwhile, request information regarding ICANN’s internal measures to implement the NETmundial Outcome Document.&lt;a href="#_ftn1"&gt;[1]&lt;/a&gt;&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;In a post titled &lt;i&gt;Turning Talk Into Action After NETmundial,&lt;/i&gt;&lt;a href="#_ftn2"&gt;[2]&lt;/a&gt; Mr. Chehade emphasized the imperative to carry forward the NETmundial principles to fruition. In nearly every public statement, Mr. Chehade and other ICANN representatives have spoken in praise and support of NETmundial and its Outcome Document.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;But in the absence of binding value to them, self-regulation and organizational initiatives pave the way to adopt them. There must be concrete action to implement the Principles. In this regard, we request information about mechanisms or any other changes afoot within ICANN, implemented internally in recognition of the NETmundial Principles.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;At the IGF in Istanbul, when CIS’ Sunil Abraham raised this query,&lt;a href="#_ftn3"&gt;[3]&lt;/a&gt; Mr. Chehade responded that mechanisms ought to and will be undertaken jointly and in collaboration with other organisations. However, institutional improvements are intra-organisational as well, and require changes &lt;i&gt;within &lt;/i&gt;ICANN. An example would be the suggestions to strengthen the IGF, increase its term, and provide financial support (some of which are being achieved, though ICANN’s financial contribution to IGFSA is incongruous in comparison to its financial involvement in the NETmundial Initiative).&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;From ICANN, we have seen consistent championing of the controversial NETmundial Initiative,&lt;a href="#_ftn4"&gt;[4]&lt;/a&gt; and contribution to the IGF Support Association.&lt;a href="#_ftn5"&gt;[5]&lt;/a&gt; There are also mechanisms instituted for IANA Stewardship Transition and Enhancing ICANN Accountability,&lt;a href="#_ftn6"&gt;[6]&lt;/a&gt; as responses to the NTIA’s announcement to not renew the IANA functions contract and related concerns of accountability.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;In addition to the above, we would like to know what ICANN has done to implement the NETmundial Principles, internally and proactively.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;We hope that our request will be processed within the stipulated time period of 30 days. Do let us know if you require any clarifications on our queries.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Thank you very much.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Warm regards,&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Geetha Hariharan&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Centre for Internet &amp;amp; Society&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;W: &lt;a href="http://cis-india.org"&gt;http://cis-india.org&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt; &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h3 style="text-align: justify; "&gt;ICANN Response&lt;/h3&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;ICANN's response to the above request disappointingly linked to the very same blogpost we note in our request, &lt;i&gt;Turning Talk Into Action After NETmundial&lt;/i&gt;. Following this, ICANN points us to their involvement in the NETmundial Initiative. On the question of internal implementation, ICANN's response is defensive, to say the least. "ICANN is not the home for the implementation of the NETmundial Principles", they say. In any event, ICANN defends that it already implements the NETmundial Principles in its functioning, a response that comes as a surprise to us. "&lt;span&gt;Many of the NETmundial Principles are high-level statements that permeate through the &lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;work of any entity – particularly a multistakeholder entity like ICANN – that is interested &lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;in the upholding of the inclusive, multistakeholder process within the Internet governance &lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;framework", notes ICANN's response. Needless to say, ICANN's response falls short of responding to our queries. &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;&lt;span&gt;Finally, ICANN notes that our request is beyond the scope of the DIDP, as it does not relate to ICANN's operational activities. Notwithstanding that our query does in fact seek ICANN's operationalisation of the NETmundial Principles, we are now confused as to where to go to seek this information from ICANN. If the DIDP is not the effective transparency tool it is aimed to be, who in ICANN can provide answers to these questions?&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;&lt;span&gt;ICANN's response may be &lt;a href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cis-netmundial-response-27jan15-en.pdf"&gt;&lt;strong&gt;found here&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;. A short summary of our request and ICANN's response may be found &lt;a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/table-of-cis-didp-requests/at_download/file"&gt;&lt;strong&gt;in this table (Request S. no. 4)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr size="1" style="text-align: justify; " width="33%" /&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;&lt;a href="#_ftnref1"&gt;[1]&lt;/a&gt; See &lt;i&gt;NETmundial Multi-stakeholder Statement&lt;/i&gt;, &lt;a href="http://netmundial.br/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/NETmundial-Multistakeholder-Document.pdf"&gt;http://netmundial.br/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/NETmundial-Multistakeholder-Document.pdf&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;i&gt; &lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;&lt;a href="#_ftnref2"&gt;[2]&lt;/a&gt; See Chehade, &lt;i&gt;Turning Talk Into Action After NETmundial&lt;/i&gt;, &lt;a href="http://blog.icann.org/2014/05/turning-talk-into-action-after-netmundial/"&gt;http://blog.icann.org/2014/05/turning-talk-into-action-after-netmundial/&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;&lt;a href="#_ftnref3"&gt;[3]&lt;/a&gt; See &lt;i&gt;ICANN Open Forum&lt;/i&gt;, 9&lt;sup&gt;th&lt;/sup&gt; IGF 2014 (Istanbul, Turkey), &lt;a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cio31nsqK_A"&gt;https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cio31nsqK_A&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;&lt;a href="#_ftnref4"&gt;[4]&lt;/a&gt; See McCarthy, &lt;i&gt;I’m Begging You To Join&lt;/i&gt;, The Register (12 December 2014), &lt;a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/12/12/im_begging_you_to_join_netmundial_initiative_gets_desperate/"&gt;http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/12/12/im_begging_you_to_join_netmundial_initiative_gets_desperate/&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;&lt;a href="#_ftnref5"&gt;[5]&lt;/a&gt; See &lt;i&gt;ICANN Donates $50k to Internet Governance Forum Support Association&lt;/i&gt;, &lt;a href="https://www.icann.org/resources/press-material/release-2014-12-18-en"&gt;https://www.icann.org/resources/press-material/release-2014-12-18-en&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;&lt;a href="#_ftnref6"&gt;[6]&lt;/a&gt; See &lt;i&gt;NTIA IANA Functions’ Stewardship Transition &amp;amp; Enhancing ICANN Accountability Processes&lt;/i&gt;, &lt;a href="https://www.icann.org/stewardship-accountability"&gt;https://www.icann.org/stewardship-accountability&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
        &lt;p&gt;
        For more details visit &lt;a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-4-icann-and-the-netmundial-principles'&gt;https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-4-icann-and-the-netmundial-principles&lt;/a&gt;
        &lt;/p&gt;
    </description>
    <dc:publisher>No publisher</dc:publisher>
    <dc:creator>geetha</dc:creator>
    <dc:rights></dc:rights>

    
        <dc:subject>ICANN</dc:subject>
    
    
        <dc:subject>DIDP</dc:subject>
    
    
        <dc:subject>Transparency</dc:subject>
    
    
        <dc:subject>Accountability</dc:subject>
    

   <dc:date>2015-03-05T08:28:44Z</dc:date>
   <dc:type>Blog Entry</dc:type>
   </item>


    <item rdf:about="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-3-cyber-attacks-on-icann">
    <title>DIDP Request #3: Cyber-attacks on ICANN</title>
    <link>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-3-cyber-attacks-on-icann</link>
    <description>
        &lt;b&gt;CIS sent ICANN a request under its Documentary Information Disclosure Policy, seeking details of cyber-attacks on ICANN, and ICANN's internal and external responses to the same. CIS' request and ICANN's response are detailed below.&lt;/b&gt;
        &lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt; &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2 style="text-align: justify; "&gt;CIS Request&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;&lt;span&gt;24 December 2014&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;To:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Mr. Steve Crocker, Chairman of the Board&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Mr. Fadi Chehade, CEO and President&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Mr. Geoff Bickers, Team Lead, ICANN Computer Incident Response Team (CIRT) &amp;amp; Director of Security Operations&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Mr. John Crain, Chief Security, Stability and Resiliency Officer&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Members of the ICANN-CIRT &amp;amp; ICANN Security Team&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: center; "&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Sub: Details of cyber-attacks on ICANN&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;We understand that ICANN recently suffered a spear-phishing attack that compromised contact details of several ICANN staff, including their email addresses; these credentials were used to gain access to ICANN’s Centralized Zone Data System (CZDS).&lt;a href="#_ftn1"&gt;[1]&lt;/a&gt; We are glad to note that ICANN’s critical functions and IANA-related systems were not affected.&lt;a href="#_ftn2"&gt;[2]&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;The incident has, however, raised concerns of the security of ICANN’s systems. In order to understand when, in the past, ICANN has suffered similar security breaches, we request details of all cyber-attacks suffered or thought/suspected to have been suffered by ICANN (and for which, therefore, investigation was carried out within and outside ICANN), from 1999 till date. This includes, naturally, the recent spear-phishing attack.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;We request information regarding, &lt;i&gt;inter alia&lt;/i&gt;,&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;(1)  the date and nature of all attacks, as well as which ICANN systems were compromised,&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;(2)   actions taken internally by ICANN upon being notified of the attacks,&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;(3)  what departments or members of staff are responsible for security and their role in the event of cyber-attacks,&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;(4)  the role and responsibility of the ICANN-CIRT in responding to cyber-attacks (and when policies or manuals exist for the same; if so, please share them),&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;(5)   what entities external to ICANN are involved in the identification and investigation of cyber-attacks on ICANN (for instance, are the police in the jurisdiction notified and do they investigate? If so, we request copies of complaints or information reports),&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;(6)  whether and when culprits behind the ICANN cyber-attacks were identified, and&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;(7)  what actions were subsequently taken by ICANN (ex: liability of ICANN staff for security breaches should such a finding be made, lawsuits or complaints against perpetrators of attacks, etc.).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Finally, we also request information on the role of the ICANN Board and/or community in the event of such cyber-attacks on ICANN. Also, when was the ICANN-CIRT set up and how many incidents has it handled since its existence? Do there exist contingency procedures in the event of compromise of IANA systems (and if so, what)?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;We hope that our request will be processed within the stipulated time period of 30 days. Do let us know if you require any clarifications on our queries.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Thank you very much.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Warm regards,&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Geetha Hariharan&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Centre for Internet &amp;amp; Society&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;W: &lt;a href="http://cis-india.org"&gt;http://cis-india.org&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt; &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2 style="text-align: justify; "&gt;ICANN Response&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;ICANN responded to our request by noting that it is vague and broad in both time and scope. In response, ICANN has provided information regarding certain cyber-incidents already in the public domain, while noting that the term "cyber-attack" is both wide and vague. While the information provided is undoubtedly useful, it is anecdotal at best, and does not provide a complete picture of ICANN's history of vulnerability to cyber-attacks or cyber-incidents, or the manner of its internal response to such incidents, or of the involvement of external law enforcement agencies or CIRTs in combating cyber-incidents on ICANN.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;ICANN's response may be &lt;a href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cis-response-23jan15-en.pdf"&gt;&lt;b&gt;found here&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/a&gt;. A short summary our request and ICANN's response may be found &lt;a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/table-of-cis-didp-requests/at_download/file"&gt;&lt;b&gt;in this table (Request S. no. 3)&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr size="1" style="text-align: justify; " width="33%" /&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;&lt;a href="#_ftnref1"&gt;[1]&lt;/a&gt; See&lt;i&gt; ICANN targeted in spear-phishing attack&lt;/i&gt;, &lt;a href="https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2014-12-16-en"&gt;https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2014-12-16-en&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;i&gt; &lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;&lt;a href="#_ftnref2"&gt;[2]&lt;/a&gt; See &lt;i&gt;IANA Systems not compromised&lt;/i&gt;, &lt;a href="https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2014-12-19-en"&gt;https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2014-12-19-en&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
        &lt;p&gt;
        For more details visit &lt;a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-3-cyber-attacks-on-icann'&gt;https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-3-cyber-attacks-on-icann&lt;/a&gt;
        &lt;/p&gt;
    </description>
    <dc:publisher>No publisher</dc:publisher>
    <dc:creator>geetha</dc:creator>
    <dc:rights></dc:rights>

    
        <dc:subject>ICANN</dc:subject>
    
    
        <dc:subject>DIDP</dc:subject>
    
    
        <dc:subject>Transparency</dc:subject>
    
    
        <dc:subject>Accountability</dc:subject>
    

   <dc:date>2015-03-05T08:16:26Z</dc:date>
   <dc:type>Blog Entry</dc:type>
   </item>


    <item rdf:about="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-2">
    <title>DIDP Request #2: Granular Revenue/Income Statements from ICANN</title>
    <link>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-2</link>
    <description>
        &lt;b&gt;CIS sent ICANN a request under its Documentary Information Disclosure Policy, seeking current and historical details of ICANN's income/revenue from its various sources. CIS' request and ICANN's response are detailed below.&lt;/b&gt;
        &lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt; &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2 style="text-align: justify; "&gt;CIS Request&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;&lt;span style="text-decoration: underline;"&gt;22 December 2014&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;To:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Mr. Cherine Chalaby, Chair, Finance Committee of the Board&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Mr. Xavier Calvez, Chief Financial Officer&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Mr. Samiran Gupta, ICANN India&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;All other members of Staff involved in accounting and financial tasks&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: center; "&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Sub: Request for granular income/revenue statements of ICANN from 1999-2014&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Earlier this month, on 3 December 2014, Mr. Samiran Gupta presented CIS with detailed and granular information regarding ICANN’s domain names income and revenues for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2014. This was in response to several requests made over a few months. The information we received is available on our website.&lt;a href="#_ftn1"&gt;[1]&lt;/a&gt;&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;The information mentioned above was, &lt;i&gt;inter alia&lt;/i&gt;, extremely helpful in triangulating ICANN’s reported revenues, despite and in addition to certain inconsistencies between the Annual Report (FY14) and the information provided to us.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;We recognize that ICANN makes public its current and historical financial information to a certain extent. Specifically, its Operating Plan and Budget, Audited Financial Statements, Annual Reports, Federal and State Tax Filings, Board Compensation Report and ccTLD Contributions Report are available on the website.&lt;a href="#_ftn2"&gt;[2]&lt;/a&gt;&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;However, a detailed report of ICANN’s income or revenue statement, listing all vendors and customers, is not available on ICANN’s website. Our research on accountability and transparency mechanisms in Internet governance, specifically of ICANN, requires information in such granularity. &lt;strong&gt;We request, therefore, historical data re: income and revenue from domain names (1999-2014), in a manner as detailed and granular as the information referenced in FN[1]&lt;/strong&gt;. We would appreciate if such a report lists all legal entities and individuals who contribute to ICANN’s domain names income/ revenue.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;We look forward to the receipt of this information within the stipulated period of 30 days. Please feel free to contact us in the event of any doubts regarding our queries.&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Thank you very much.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Warm regards,&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Geetha Hariharan&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Centre for Internet &amp;amp; Society&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;W: &lt;a href="http://cis-india.org"&gt;http://cis-india.org&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt; &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2 style="text-align: justify; "&gt;ICANN Response&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;ICANN's response to CIS's request can be &lt;a href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cis-response-21jan15-en.pdf"&gt;&lt;strong&gt;found here&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;. A short summary of our request and ICANN's response may be found &lt;a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/table-of-cis-didp-requests/at_download/file"&gt;&lt;strong&gt;in this table (Request S. no. 2)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt; &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr size="1" style="text-align: justify; " width="33%" /&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;&lt;a href="#_ftnref1"&gt;[1]&lt;/a&gt; See &lt;i&gt;ICANN reveals hitherto undisclosed details of domain names revenues&lt;/i&gt;, &lt;a href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis-receives-information-on-icanns-revenues-from-domain-names-fy-2014"&gt;http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis-receives-information-on-icanns-revenues-from-domain-names-fy-2014&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;&lt;a href="#_ftnref2"&gt;[2]&lt;/a&gt; See &lt;i&gt;Historical Financial Information for ICANN&lt;/i&gt;, &lt;a href="https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/historical-2012-02-25-en"&gt;https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/historical-2012-02-25-en&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
        &lt;p&gt;
        For more details visit &lt;a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-2'&gt;https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-2&lt;/a&gt;
        &lt;/p&gt;
    </description>
    <dc:publisher>No publisher</dc:publisher>
    <dc:creator>geetha</dc:creator>
    <dc:rights></dc:rights>

    
        <dc:subject>ICANN</dc:subject>
    
    
        <dc:subject>DIDP</dc:subject>
    
    
        <dc:subject>Transparency</dc:subject>
    
    
        <dc:subject>Accountability</dc:subject>
    

   <dc:date>2015-03-05T08:07:02Z</dc:date>
   <dc:type>Blog Entry</dc:type>
   </item>


    <item rdf:about="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-1-icanns-expenditures-on-travel-meetings">
    <title>DIDP Request #1: ICANN's Expenditures on "Travel &amp; Meetings"</title>
    <link>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-1-icanns-expenditures-on-travel-meetings</link>
    <description>
        &lt;b&gt;CIS sent ICANN a request under its Documentary Information Disclosure Policy, seeking details of expenditure by ICANN at its Meetings. CIS' request and ICANN's response are detailed below. &lt;/b&gt;
        &lt;h2 style="text-align: justify; "&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;h2 style="text-align: justify; "&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;h2 style="text-align: justify; "&gt;CIS' Request&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;&lt;span&gt;18 December 2014&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;To:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Mr. Cherine Chalaby, Chair, Finance Committee of the Board&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Mr. Xavier Calvez, Chief Financial Officer&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Mr. Samiran Gupta, ICANN India&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;All other members of Staff involved in accounting and financial tasks&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: center; "&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Sub: Request for itemized details of expenditure by ICANN at its Meetings&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;We would like to thank Mr. Calvez and Mr. Gupta for providing information regarding ICANN’s domain name revenues for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2014.&lt;a href="#_ftn1"&gt;[1]&lt;/a&gt; We would like to request further information through the DIDP.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;In the Audited Financial Statements for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2014, the “statements of activities” provides Total Expenses (for ICANN and New gTLD) as USD 124,400,000.&lt;a href="#_ftn2"&gt;[2]&lt;/a&gt; For the fiscal year ended June 30, 2013, the Total Expenses (ICANN and New gTLD) noted is USD 150,362,000.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;According to the statement, this covers expenses for Personnel, Travel and meetings, Professional services and Administration. Quarterly Reports note that the head “Travel and meetings” includes community support requests.&lt;a href="#_ftn3"&gt;[3]&lt;/a&gt; In addition to these heads, Quarterly Reports include “Bad debt expenses” and “Depreciation expenses”. The manner of accounting for these is explained in &lt;span&gt;Note 2&lt;/span&gt; to the Notes to Financial Statements.&lt;a href="#_ftn4"&gt;[4]&lt;/a&gt; Note 2 explains that the expenses statement is prepared by “functional allocation of expenses” to identifiable programs or support services, or otherwise by methods determined by the management.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;For the purposes of our research into normative and practised transparency and accountability in Internet governance, we request, to begin with, &lt;i&gt;current and historical&lt;/i&gt; information regarding itemized, detailed expenses under the head “Travel and meetings”. We request this information from 1999 till 2014. We request that such information be categorized and sub-categorised as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Total and Individual Expenses for each meeting (categorised by meeting and year):&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;&lt;span&gt;1. Total and individual expenses for ICANN staff (differentiated by department and name of each individual attending the event, including dates/duration of attendance);&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;-    Also broken down into each individual expense (flights, accommodation, per diem or separate local transport, food and other expenses).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;-    Each ICANN staff member who attended the event to be named.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;2. &lt;span&gt;Total and individual expenses for members of ICANN Board (listed by each Board member and dates/duration of attendance);&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;-    Broken down into each individual expense (flights, accommodation, per diem or separate local transport, food and other expenses).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;-    Each Board member to be named.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;&lt;span&gt;3. Total and individual expenses for members of ICANN constituencies (ALAC, ATRT, ccNSO, GAC, GNSO, etc.)&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;-    Broken down into each individual expense (flights, accommodation, per diem or separate local transport, food and other expenses).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;-    Each attendee for whom ICANN covered expenses to be named.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;&lt;span&gt;4. Total and individual expenses for ICANN fellows&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;-    Broken down into each individual expense (flights, accommodation, per diem or separate local transport, food and other expenses).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;-    Each attendee for whom ICANN covered expenses to be named, including their region and stakeholder affiliation.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;5. &lt;span&gt;Total and individual expenses incurred for any other ICANN affiliate or liaison (ISOC, IETF, IAB, etc.)&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;-    Broken down into each individual expense (flights, accommodation, per diem or separate local transport, food and other expenses).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;-    Each attendee for whom ICANN covered expenses to be named, including their affiliation.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;6. &lt;span&gt;Total and individual expenses incurred for any other person, whether or not directly affiliated with ICANN&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;-    Broken down into each individual expense (flights, accommodation, per diem or separate local transport, food and other expenses).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;-    Each attendee for whom ICANN covered expenses to be named, including their affiliation.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;&lt;span&gt;Please note that we request the above-detailed information for ICANN meetings, and also other meetings for which ICANN may provide financial support (for instance, CWG-Stewardship or CWG-Accountability). We request, as a preliminary matter, a list of &lt;/span&gt;&lt;i&gt;all meetings&lt;/i&gt;&lt;span&gt; to which ICANN provides and has, in the past, provided financial support (1999-2014).&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;We note that some information of this nature is available in the Travel Support Reports.&lt;a href="#_ftn5"&gt;[5]&lt;/a&gt; However, the Travel Support Reports are available only from 2008 (Cairo meeting), and are not available for ICANN48 to ICANN51. Further, the Travel Support Reports do not exhibit the level of granularity necessary for research and scrutiny. As explained above, we request granular information for all meetings.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;In our view, providing such information will not violate any individual or corporate rights of ICANN, its Staff, Board, Affiliates/Liaisons or any other individual. Public corporations and even private organisations performing public functions may be subjected to or accept an increased level of transparency and accountability. We believe this is of especial importance to ICANN, as it is involved in a process to enhance its accountability, intrinsically related to IANA Stewardship Transition. We expressed similar views in our initial comment to “Enhancing ICANN Accountability”.&lt;a href="#_ftn6"&gt;[6]&lt;/a&gt; Increased transparency from ICANN may also address accountability concerns present across stakeholder-groups both within and outside ICANN.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;We await your favorable response and the requested information within the prescribed time limit. Please do not hesitate to contact us should you require any clarifications.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Thank you very much.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;&lt;span&gt;Warm regards,&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Geetha Hariharan&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Centre for Internet &amp;amp; Society&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;W: &lt;a href="http://cis-india.org"&gt;http://cis-india.org&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt; &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;ICANN's Response&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;ICANN responded to the above request for information within the stipulated time of 30 days. &lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cis-response-17jan15-en.pdf"&gt;ICANN’s response is here&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;. A short summary of CIS's request and ICANN's response can be found &lt;a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/table-of-cis-didp-requests/at_download/file"&gt;&lt;strong&gt;in this table (Request S. no. 1)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt; &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="#_ftnref1"&gt;[1]&lt;/a&gt; See &lt;i&gt;ICANN reveals hitherto undisclosed details of domain names revenues&lt;/i&gt;, &lt;a href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis-receives-information-on-icanns-revenues-from-domain-names-fy-2014"&gt;http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis-receives-information-on-icanns-revenues-from-domain-names-fy-2014&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="#_ftnref2"&gt;[2]&lt;/a&gt; See &lt;i&gt;ICANN Financial Statements As of and For the years ended June 30, 2014 and 2013&lt;/i&gt;, pages 7, 19-20, &lt;a href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/financial-report-fye-30jun14-en.pdf"&gt;https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/financial-report-fye-30jun14-en.pdf&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="#_ftnref3"&gt;[3]&lt;/a&gt; For instance, see &lt;i&gt;ICANN FY14 Financial Package: For the nine months ending March 2014&lt;/i&gt;, pages 2-5, &lt;a href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/package-fy14-31mar14-en.pdf"&gt;https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/package-fy14-31mar14-en.pdf&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="#_ftnref4"&gt;[4]&lt;/a&gt; &lt;i&gt;Supra&lt;/i&gt; note 1, page 14.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="#_ftnref5"&gt;[5]&lt;/a&gt; See Community Travel Support, &lt;a href="https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/travel-support-2012-02-25-en#reports"&gt;https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/travel-support-2012-02-25-en#reports&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="#_ftnref6"&gt;[6]&lt;/a&gt; See CIS Comments on Enhancing ICANN Accountability, &lt;a href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis-comments-enhancing-icann-accountability"&gt;http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis-comments-enhancing-icann-accountability&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
        &lt;p&gt;
        For more details visit &lt;a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-1-icanns-expenditures-on-travel-meetings'&gt;https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-1-icanns-expenditures-on-travel-meetings&lt;/a&gt;
        &lt;/p&gt;
    </description>
    <dc:publisher>No publisher</dc:publisher>
    <dc:creator>geetha</dc:creator>
    <dc:rights></dc:rights>

    
        <dc:subject>ICANN</dc:subject>
    
    
        <dc:subject>DIDP</dc:subject>
    
    
        <dc:subject>Transparency</dc:subject>
    
    
        <dc:subject>Accountability</dc:subject>
    

   <dc:date>2015-03-05T08:00:36Z</dc:date>
   <dc:type>Blog Entry</dc:type>
   </item>


    <item rdf:about="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/deity-says-143-urls-blocked-in-2015">
    <title>DeitY says 143 URLs have been Blocked in 2015; Procedure for Blocking Content Remains Opaque and in Urgent Need of Transparency Measures</title>
    <link>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/deity-says-143-urls-blocked-in-2015</link>
    <description>
        &lt;b&gt;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.&lt;/b&gt;
        
&lt;p style="text-align: justify;"&gt;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 &lt;a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/response-deity.clarifying-procedures-for-blocking.pdf" class="external-link"&gt;seen here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify;"&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2 style="text-align: justify;"&gt;Section 69A and the Blocking Rules&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p align="JUSTIFY" class="western"&gt;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 (&lt;a href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/blocking-websites.pdf/at_download/file"&gt;download PDF&lt;/a&gt;, 2.037MB).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align="JUSTIFY" class="western"&gt;There are &lt;em&gt;three key aspects&lt;/em&gt; of the blocking rules that need to be kept under consideration:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h3 align="JUSTIFY" class="western"&gt;Officers and committees handling requests&lt;/h3&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify;"&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Designated Officer (DO)&lt;/strong&gt; – Appointed by the Central government, officer not below the rank of Joint Secretary.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Nodal Officer (NO)&lt;/strong&gt; – Appointed by organizations including Ministries or Departments of the State governments and Union Territories and any agency of the Central Government. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Intermediary contact&lt;/strong&gt;–Appointed by every intermediary to receive and handle blocking directions from the DO.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Committee for Examination of Request (CER)&lt;/strong&gt; – 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. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Review Committee (RC) &lt;/strong&gt;– 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).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h3 style="text-align: justify;"&gt;Provisions outlining the procedure for blocking&lt;/h3&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Rules 6, 9 and 10 create three distinct blocking procedures, which must commence within 7 days of the DO receiving the request.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify;"&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify;"&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify;"&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify;" class="western"&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify;" class="western"&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify;" class="western"&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h3 style="text-align: justify;" class="western"&gt;Confidentiality clause&lt;/h3&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify;"&gt;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 &lt;a href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/is-india2019s-website-blocking-law-constitutional-2013-i-law-procedure"&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Response on blocking from the Ministry of Communication and Information Technology&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify;"&gt;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 &lt;a href="https://ccgnludelhi.wordpress.com/2015/04/24/governments-response-to-fundamental-questions-regarding-the-internet-in-india/"&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align="JUSTIFY" class="western"&gt;The governments response as quoted by CCG, clarifies under rule 9—the Government has issued directions for emergency blocking of &lt;em&gt;a total number of 216 URLs from 1st January, 2014 till date &lt;/em&gt;and that &lt;em&gt;a total of 255 URLs were blocked in 2014 and no URLs has been blocked in 2015 (till 31 March 2015)&lt;/em&gt; 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&lt;sup&gt;st&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;sup&gt; &lt;/sup&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align="JUSTIFY" class="western"&gt;We have prepared a table explaining the information released by the government and to highlight the inconsistency in their response.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table class="grid listing"&gt;
&lt;colgroup&gt; &lt;col width="331"&gt; &lt;col width="90"&gt; &lt;col width="91"&gt; &lt;col width="119"&gt; &lt;/colgroup&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td rowspan="2"&gt;
&lt;p align="LEFT"&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Applicable rule and procedure outlined under the Blocking Rules&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;td colspan="3"&gt;
&lt;p align="CENTER"&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Number of websites&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;
&lt;p align="CENTER"&gt;&lt;em&gt;2014&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;td&gt;
&lt;p align="CENTER"&gt;&lt;em&gt;2015&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;td&gt;
&lt;p align="CENTER"&gt;&lt;em&gt;Total&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;
&lt;p align="LEFT"&gt;Rule 6 - Blocking requests from NO and others&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;td&gt;
&lt;p align="CENTER"&gt;255&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;td&gt;
&lt;p align="CENTER"&gt;None&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;td&gt;
&lt;p align="CENTER"&gt;255&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;
&lt;p align="LEFT"&gt;Rule 9 - Blocking under emergency circumstances&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;td&gt;
&lt;p align="CENTER"&gt;-&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;td&gt;
&lt;p align="CENTER"&gt;-&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;td&gt;
&lt;p align="CENTER"&gt;216&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;
&lt;p align="LEFT"&gt;Rule 10 - Blocking orders from Court&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;td&gt;
&lt;p align="CENTER"&gt;2091&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;td&gt;
&lt;p align="CENTER"&gt;143&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;td&gt;
&lt;p align="CENTER"&gt;2234&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;
&lt;p align="LEFT"&gt;Requests from individuals and orgs forwarded to CERT-In&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;td&gt;
&lt;p align="CENTER"&gt;-&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;td&gt;
&lt;p align="CENTER"&gt;-&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;td&gt;
&lt;p align="CENTER"&gt;-&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;
&lt;p align="LEFT"&gt;Recommendations to not block by CER&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;td&gt;
&lt;p align="CENTER"&gt;-&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;td&gt;
&lt;p align="CENTER"&gt;-&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;td&gt;
&lt;p align="CENTER"&gt;19&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;
&lt;p align="LEFT"&gt;Number of blocking requests revoked&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;td&gt;
&lt;p align="CENTER"&gt;-&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;td&gt;
&lt;p align="CENTER"&gt;-&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;td&gt;
&lt;p align="CENTER"&gt;251&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a &lt;a href="http://sflc.in/deity-says-2341-urls-were-blocked-in-2014-refuses-to-reveal-more/"&gt;response &lt;/a&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Shreya Singhal v. Union of India&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify;"&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify;"&gt;The rules may indicate that there is a requirement to identify and contact the originator of information, though as an expert &lt;a href="http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/but-what-about-section-69a/"&gt;has pointed out&lt;/a&gt;, 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 &lt;a href="https://indconlawphil.wordpress.com/2015/03/25/the-supreme-courts-it-act-judgment-and-secret-blocking/"&gt;view&lt;/a&gt; that this, by implication, requires that requests cannot be confidential. However, such a reading down of rule 16 is yet to be tested.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify;"&gt;Further, Sunil Abraham has &lt;a href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/economic-and-political-weekly-sunil-abraham-april-11-2015-shreya-singhal-and-66a"&gt;pointed&lt;/a&gt; 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 &lt;a href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/analysing-blocked-sites-riots-communalism"&gt;analysed&lt;/a&gt; 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.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify;"&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Response to RTI filed by CIS&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p align="JUSTIFY" class="western"&gt;Our first question sought clarification on the websites blocked on 30&lt;sup&gt;th&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;sup&gt; &lt;/sup&gt;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 &lt;em&gt;18-12-2014 and as of 09-01-2015&lt;/em&gt;, after obtaining an undertaking from website owners, stating their compliance with the Government and Indian laws, the sites were unblocked.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align="JUSTIFY" class="western"&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align="JUSTIFY" class="western"&gt;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”.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align="JUSTIFY" class="western"&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align="JUSTIFY" class="western"&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align="JUSTIFY" class="western"&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align="JUSTIFY" class="western"&gt;The revocation of rule 16 needs urgent clarification for two reasons:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ol&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Under Section 22 of the RTI Act provisions thereof, override all conflicting provisions in any other legislation.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li style="text-align: justify;"&gt;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 &lt;a href="http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1712542/"&gt;A&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1712542/"&gt;rticle 226&lt;/a&gt; of the Constitution of India.&lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify;"&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;

        &lt;p&gt;
        For more details visit &lt;a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/deity-says-143-urls-blocked-in-2015'&gt;https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/deity-says-143-urls-blocked-in-2015&lt;/a&gt;
        &lt;/p&gt;
    </description>
    <dc:publisher>No publisher</dc:publisher>
    <dc:creator>jyoti</dc:creator>
    <dc:rights></dc:rights>

    
        <dc:subject>Censorship</dc:subject>
    
    
        <dc:subject>Freedom of Speech and Expression</dc:subject>
    
    
        <dc:subject>RTI</dc:subject>
    
    
        <dc:subject>Intermediary Liability</dc:subject>
    
    
        <dc:subject>Accountability</dc:subject>
    
    
        <dc:subject>Featured</dc:subject>
    
    
        <dc:subject>69A</dc:subject>
    
    
        <dc:subject>Internet Governance</dc:subject>
    
    
        <dc:subject>Chilling Effect</dc:subject>
    
    
        <dc:subject>Transparency</dc:subject>
    
    
        <dc:subject>Homepage</dc:subject>
    
    
        <dc:subject>Blocking</dc:subject>
    

   <dc:date>2015-04-30T07:37:40Z</dc:date>
   <dc:type>Blog Entry</dc:type>
   </item>


    <item rdf:about="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/contestations-of-data-ecj-safe-harbor-ruling-and-lessons-for-india">
    <title>Contestations of Data, ECJ Safe Harbor Ruling and Lessons for India	</title>
    <link>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/contestations-of-data-ecj-safe-harbor-ruling-and-lessons-for-india</link>
    <description>
        &lt;b&gt;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. &lt;/b&gt;
        
&lt;p align="justify"&gt;The European Court of Justice
(ECJ) has invalidated a European Commission (EC) decision&lt;a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote1anc" href="#sdfootnote1sym"&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
which had previously concluded that the 'Safe Harbor Privacy
Principles'&lt;a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote2anc" href="#sdfootnote2sym"&gt;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
provide adequate protections for European citizens’ privacy rights&lt;a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote3anc" href="#sdfootnote3sym"&gt;&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
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&lt;a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote4anc" href="#sdfootnote4sym"&gt;&lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
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.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align="justify"&gt;
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&lt;a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote5anc" href="#sdfootnote5sym"&gt;&lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
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.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align="justify"&gt;
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.&lt;a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote6anc" href="#sdfootnote6sym"&gt;&lt;sup&gt;6&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align="justify"&gt;
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.&lt;a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote7anc" href="#sdfootnote7sym"&gt;&lt;sup&gt;7&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
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&lt;a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote8anc" href="#sdfootnote8sym"&gt;&lt;sup&gt;8&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
of the internet in the future.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align="justify"&gt;
&lt;em&gt;US-EU Data Protection Regime &lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align="justify"&gt;
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&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;
&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt;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.&lt;a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote9anc" href="#sdfootnote9sym"&gt;&lt;sup&gt;9&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align="justify"&gt;
The agreement was due to be
renewed by May 2015&lt;a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote10anc" href="#sdfootnote10sym"&gt;&lt;sup&gt;10&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
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).&lt;a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote11anc" href="#sdfootnote11sym"&gt;&lt;sup&gt;11&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
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&lt;a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote12anc" href="#sdfootnote12sym"&gt;&lt;sup&gt;12&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/a&gt;.
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.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align="justify"&gt;
&lt;em&gt;Towards Harmonization &lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align="justify"&gt;
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'.&lt;a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote13anc" href="#sdfootnote13sym"&gt;&lt;sup&gt;13&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
The recommendations revealed two critical initiatives at the EU
level—first was the revision of the EU-US safe harbor agreement&lt;a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote14anc" href="#sdfootnote14sym"&gt;&lt;sup&gt;14&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
and second the adoption of the 'EU-US Umbrella Agreement&lt;a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote15anc" href="#sdfootnote15sym"&gt;&lt;sup&gt;15&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/a&gt;'—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.&lt;a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote16anc" href="#sdfootnote16sym"&gt;&lt;sup&gt;16&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
The Agreement has gained momentum in the wake of recent cases around
issues of territorial duties of providers, enforcement jurisdictions
and data localisation.&lt;a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote17anc" href="#sdfootnote17sym"&gt;&lt;sup&gt;17&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
However, the adoption of the Umbrella Act depends on US Congress
adoption of the&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;
&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt;Judicial Redress
Act (JRA) as law.&lt;a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote18anc" href="#sdfootnote18sym"&gt;&lt;sup&gt;18&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align="justify"&gt;
&lt;em&gt;Judicial Redress Act &lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align="justify"&gt;
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.&lt;a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote19anc" href="#sdfootnote19sym"&gt;&lt;sup&gt;19&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align="justify"&gt;
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.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align="justify"&gt;
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&lt;a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote20anc" href="#sdfootnote20sym"&gt;&lt;sup&gt;20&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
case point to accelerated developments in the broader EU privacy
landscape.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align="justify"&gt;
&lt;em&gt;Consequences  &lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align="justify"&gt;
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.”&lt;a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote21anc" href="#sdfootnote21sym"&gt;&lt;sup&gt;21&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align="justify"&gt;
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&lt;a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote22anc" href="#sdfootnote22sym"&gt;&lt;sup&gt;22&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/a&gt;,
effectively requiring data localization in Europe.&lt;a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote23anc" href="#sdfootnote23sym"&gt;&lt;sup&gt;23&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
Others have pointed out that it is unclear how this decision sits
with other trade treaties such as the TPP that ban data
localisation.&lt;a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote24anc" href="#sdfootnote24sym"&gt;&lt;sup&gt;24&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
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.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align="justify"&gt;&lt;em&gt;The Opportunity for India&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align="justify"&gt;
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.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align="justify"&gt;
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.”&lt;a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote25anc" href="#sdfootnote25sym"&gt;&lt;sup&gt;25&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
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.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align="justify"&gt;
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.&lt;a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote26anc" href="#sdfootnote26sym"&gt;&lt;sup&gt;26&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
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&lt;a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote27anc" href="#sdfootnote27sym"&gt;&lt;sup&gt;27&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
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.&lt;a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote28anc" href="#sdfootnote28sym"&gt;&lt;sup&gt;28&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
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.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align="justify"&gt;
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,&lt;a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote29anc" href="#sdfootnote29sym"&gt;&lt;sup&gt;29&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
 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.&lt;a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote30anc" href="#sdfootnote30sym"&gt;&lt;sup&gt;30&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
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.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align="justify"&gt;
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.&lt;a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote31anc" href="#sdfootnote31sym"&gt;&lt;sup&gt;31&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
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.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div id="sdfootnote1"&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
	&lt;a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote1sym" href="#sdfootnote1anc"&gt;1&lt;/a&gt;
	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.) &lt;em&gt;Official
	Journal L 215 , 25/08/2000 P. 0007 -0047 &lt;/em&gt;
	2000/520/EC:
	&lt;u&gt;&lt;a href="http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32000D0520:EN:HTML"&gt;http&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32000D0520:EN:HTML"&gt;://&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32000D0520:EN:HTML"&gt;eur&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32000D0520:EN:HTML"&gt;-&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32000D0520:EN:HTML"&gt;lex&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32000D0520:EN:HTML"&gt;.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32000D0520:EN:HTML"&gt;europa&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32000D0520:EN:HTML"&gt;.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32000D0520:EN:HTML"&gt;eu&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32000D0520:EN:HTML"&gt;/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32000D0520:EN:HTML"&gt;LexUriServ&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32000D0520:EN:HTML"&gt;/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32000D0520:EN:HTML"&gt;LexUriServ&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32000D0520:EN:HTML"&gt;.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32000D0520:EN:HTML"&gt;do&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32000D0520:EN:HTML"&gt;?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32000D0520:EN:HTML"&gt;uri&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32000D0520:EN:HTML"&gt;=&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32000D0520:EN:HTML"&gt;CELEX&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32000D0520:EN:HTML"&gt;:32000&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32000D0520:EN:HTML"&gt;D&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32000D0520:EN:HTML"&gt;0520:&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32000D0520:EN:HTML"&gt;EN&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32000D0520:EN:HTML"&gt;:&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32000D0520:EN:HTML"&gt;HTML&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/u&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div id="sdfootnote2"&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
	&lt;a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote2sym" href="#sdfootnote2anc"&gt;2&lt;/a&gt;
	Safe Harbour Privacy Principles Issued by the U.S. Department of
	Commerce on July 21, 2000
	&lt;u&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.export.gov/safeharbor/eu/eg_main_018475.asp"&gt;http&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.export.gov/safeharbor/eu/eg_main_018475.asp"&gt;://&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.export.gov/safeharbor/eu/eg_main_018475.asp"&gt;www&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.export.gov/safeharbor/eu/eg_main_018475.asp"&gt;.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.export.gov/safeharbor/eu/eg_main_018475.asp"&gt;export&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.export.gov/safeharbor/eu/eg_main_018475.asp"&gt;.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.export.gov/safeharbor/eu/eg_main_018475.asp"&gt;gov&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.export.gov/safeharbor/eu/eg_main_018475.asp"&gt;/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.export.gov/safeharbor/eu/eg_main_018475.asp"&gt;safeharbor&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.export.gov/safeharbor/eu/eg_main_018475.asp"&gt;/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.export.gov/safeharbor/eu/eg_main_018475.asp"&gt;eu&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.export.gov/safeharbor/eu/eg_main_018475.asp"&gt;/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.export.gov/safeharbor/eu/eg_main_018475.asp"&gt;eg&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.export.gov/safeharbor/eu/eg_main_018475.asp"&gt;_&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.export.gov/safeharbor/eu/eg_main_018475.asp"&gt;main&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.export.gov/safeharbor/eu/eg_main_018475.asp"&gt;_018475.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.export.gov/safeharbor/eu/eg_main_018475.asp"&gt;asp&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/u&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div id="sdfootnote3"&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
	&lt;a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote3sym" href="#sdfootnote3anc"&gt;3&lt;/a&gt;
	Megan Graham, &lt;a href="https://www.justsecurity.org/26651/adding-nuance-ecj-safe-harbor-decision/"&gt;Adding&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://www.justsecurity.org/26651/adding-nuance-ecj-safe-harbor-decision/"&gt;Some&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://www.justsecurity.org/26651/adding-nuance-ecj-safe-harbor-decision/"&gt;Nuance&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://www.justsecurity.org/26651/adding-nuance-ecj-safe-harbor-decision/"&gt;on&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://www.justsecurity.org/26651/adding-nuance-ecj-safe-harbor-decision/"&gt;the&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://www.justsecurity.org/26651/adding-nuance-ecj-safe-harbor-decision/"&gt;European&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://www.justsecurity.org/26651/adding-nuance-ecj-safe-harbor-decision/"&gt;Court&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://www.justsecurity.org/26651/adding-nuance-ecj-safe-harbor-decision/"&gt;’&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://www.justsecurity.org/26651/adding-nuance-ecj-safe-harbor-decision/"&gt;s&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://www.justsecurity.org/26651/adding-nuance-ecj-safe-harbor-decision/"&gt;Safe&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://www.justsecurity.org/26651/adding-nuance-ecj-safe-harbor-decision/"&gt;Harbor&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://www.justsecurity.org/26651/adding-nuance-ecj-safe-harbor-decision/"&gt;Decision&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://www.justsecurity.org/26651/adding-nuance-ecj-safe-harbor-decision/"&gt;,
	&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://www.justsecurity.org/26651/adding-nuance-ecj-safe-harbor-decision/"&gt;Just&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://www.justsecurity.org/26651/adding-nuance-ecj-safe-harbor-decision/"&gt;security&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
	
	&lt;u&gt;&lt;a href="https://www.justsecurity.org/26651/adding-nuance-ecj-safe-harbor-decision/"&gt;https&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://www.justsecurity.org/26651/adding-nuance-ecj-safe-harbor-decision/"&gt;://&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://www.justsecurity.org/26651/adding-nuance-ecj-safe-harbor-decision/"&gt;www&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://www.justsecurity.org/26651/adding-nuance-ecj-safe-harbor-decision/"&gt;.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://www.justsecurity.org/26651/adding-nuance-ecj-safe-harbor-decision/"&gt;justsecurity&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://www.justsecurity.org/26651/adding-nuance-ecj-safe-harbor-decision/"&gt;.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://www.justsecurity.org/26651/adding-nuance-ecj-safe-harbor-decision/"&gt;org&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://www.justsecurity.org/26651/adding-nuance-ecj-safe-harbor-decision/"&gt;/26651/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://www.justsecurity.org/26651/adding-nuance-ecj-safe-harbor-decision/"&gt;adding&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://www.justsecurity.org/26651/adding-nuance-ecj-safe-harbor-decision/"&gt;-&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://www.justsecurity.org/26651/adding-nuance-ecj-safe-harbor-decision/"&gt;nuance&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://www.justsecurity.org/26651/adding-nuance-ecj-safe-harbor-decision/"&gt;-&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://www.justsecurity.org/26651/adding-nuance-ecj-safe-harbor-decision/"&gt;ecj&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://www.justsecurity.org/26651/adding-nuance-ecj-safe-harbor-decision/"&gt;-&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://www.justsecurity.org/26651/adding-nuance-ecj-safe-harbor-decision/"&gt;safe&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://www.justsecurity.org/26651/adding-nuance-ecj-safe-harbor-decision/"&gt;-&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://www.justsecurity.org/26651/adding-nuance-ecj-safe-harbor-decision/"&gt;harbor&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://www.justsecurity.org/26651/adding-nuance-ecj-safe-harbor-decision/"&gt;-&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://www.justsecurity.org/26651/adding-nuance-ecj-safe-harbor-decision/"&gt;decision&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://www.justsecurity.org/26651/adding-nuance-ecj-safe-harbor-decision/"&gt;/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/u&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div id="sdfootnote4"&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
	&lt;a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote4sym" href="#sdfootnote4anc"&gt;4&lt;/a&gt;
	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
	&lt;u&gt;&lt;a href="http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2015-09/cp150106en.pdf"&gt;http&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2015-09/cp150106en.pdf"&gt;://&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2015-09/cp150106en.pdf"&gt;curia&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2015-09/cp150106en.pdf"&gt;.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2015-09/cp150106en.pdf"&gt;europa&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2015-09/cp150106en.pdf"&gt;.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2015-09/cp150106en.pdf"&gt;eu&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2015-09/cp150106en.pdf"&gt;/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2015-09/cp150106en.pdf"&gt;jcms&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2015-09/cp150106en.pdf"&gt;/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2015-09/cp150106en.pdf"&gt;upload&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2015-09/cp150106en.pdf"&gt;/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2015-09/cp150106en.pdf"&gt;docs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2015-09/cp150106en.pdf"&gt;/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2015-09/cp150106en.pdf"&gt;application&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2015-09/cp150106en.pdf"&gt;/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2015-09/cp150106en.pdf"&gt;pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2015-09/cp150106en.pdf"&gt;/2015-09/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2015-09/cp150106en.pdf"&gt;cp&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2015-09/cp150106en.pdf"&gt;150106&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2015-09/cp150106en.pdf"&gt;en&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2015-09/cp150106en.pdf"&gt;.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2015-09/cp150106en.pdf"&gt;pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/u&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div id="sdfootnote5"&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
	&lt;a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote5sym" href="#sdfootnote5anc"&gt;5&lt;/a&gt;
	Jennifer Baker, ‘EU desperately pushes just-as-dodgy safe harbour
	alternatives’, The Register, October 7, 2015
	&lt;u&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/10/07/eu_pushes_safe_harbour_alternatives/"&gt;http&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/10/07/eu_pushes_safe_harbour_alternatives/"&gt;://&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/10/07/eu_pushes_safe_harbour_alternatives/"&gt;www&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/10/07/eu_pushes_safe_harbour_alternatives/"&gt;.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/10/07/eu_pushes_safe_harbour_alternatives/"&gt;theregister&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/10/07/eu_pushes_safe_harbour_alternatives/"&gt;.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/10/07/eu_pushes_safe_harbour_alternatives/"&gt;co&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/10/07/eu_pushes_safe_harbour_alternatives/"&gt;.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/10/07/eu_pushes_safe_harbour_alternatives/"&gt;uk&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/10/07/eu_pushes_safe_harbour_alternatives/"&gt;/2015/10/07/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/10/07/eu_pushes_safe_harbour_alternatives/"&gt;eu&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/10/07/eu_pushes_safe_harbour_alternatives/"&gt;_&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/10/07/eu_pushes_safe_harbour_alternatives/"&gt;pushes&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/10/07/eu_pushes_safe_harbour_alternatives/"&gt;_&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/10/07/eu_pushes_safe_harbour_alternatives/"&gt;safe&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/10/07/eu_pushes_safe_harbour_alternatives/"&gt;_&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/10/07/eu_pushes_safe_harbour_alternatives/"&gt;harbour&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/10/07/eu_pushes_safe_harbour_alternatives/"&gt;_&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/10/07/eu_pushes_safe_harbour_alternatives/"&gt;alternatives&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/10/07/eu_pushes_safe_harbour_alternatives/"&gt;/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/u&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div id="sdfootnote6"&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
	&lt;a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote6sym" href="#sdfootnote6anc"&gt;6&lt;/a&gt;
	Draft Report, General Data Protection Regulation, Committee on Civil
	Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, European Parliament, 2009-2014
	&lt;a href="http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/libe/pr/922/922387/922387en.pdf"&gt;http&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/libe/pr/922/922387/922387en.pdf"&gt;://&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/libe/pr/922/922387/922387en.pdf"&gt;www&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/libe/pr/922/922387/922387en.pdf"&gt;.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/libe/pr/922/922387/922387en.pdf"&gt;europarl&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/libe/pr/922/922387/922387en.pdf"&gt;.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/libe/pr/922/922387/922387en.pdf"&gt;europa&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/libe/pr/922/922387/922387en.pdf"&gt;.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/libe/pr/922/922387/922387en.pdf"&gt;eu&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/libe/pr/922/922387/922387en.pdf"&gt;/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/libe/pr/922/922387/922387en.pdf"&gt;meetdocs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/libe/pr/922/922387/922387en.pdf"&gt;/2009_2014/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/libe/pr/922/922387/922387en.pdf"&gt;documents&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/libe/pr/922/922387/922387en.pdf"&gt;/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/libe/pr/922/922387/922387en.pdf"&gt;libe&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/libe/pr/922/922387/922387en.pdf"&gt;/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/libe/pr/922/922387/922387en.pdf"&gt;pr&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/libe/pr/922/922387/922387en.pdf"&gt;/922/922387/922387&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/libe/pr/922/922387/922387en.pdf"&gt;en&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/libe/pr/922/922387/922387en.pdf"&gt;.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/libe/pr/922/922387/922387en.pdf"&gt;pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div id="sdfootnote7"&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
	&lt;a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote7sym" href="#sdfootnote7anc"&gt;7&lt;/a&gt;
	Dana Polatin-Reuben, Joss Wright, ‘An Internet with BRICS
	Characteristics: Data Sovereignty and the Balkanisation of the
	Internet’, University of Oxford, July 7, 2014
	&lt;u&gt;&lt;a href="https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/foci14/foci14-polatin-reuben.pdf"&gt;https&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/foci14/foci14-polatin-reuben.pdf"&gt;://&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/foci14/foci14-polatin-reuben.pdf"&gt;www&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/foci14/foci14-polatin-reuben.pdf"&gt;.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/foci14/foci14-polatin-reuben.pdf"&gt;usenix&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/foci14/foci14-polatin-reuben.pdf"&gt;.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/foci14/foci14-polatin-reuben.pdf"&gt;org&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/foci14/foci14-polatin-reuben.pdf"&gt;/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/foci14/foci14-polatin-reuben.pdf"&gt;system&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/foci14/foci14-polatin-reuben.pdf"&gt;/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/foci14/foci14-polatin-reuben.pdf"&gt;files&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/foci14/foci14-polatin-reuben.pdf"&gt;/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/foci14/foci14-polatin-reuben.pdf"&gt;conference&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/foci14/foci14-polatin-reuben.pdf"&gt;/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/foci14/foci14-polatin-reuben.pdf"&gt;foci&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/foci14/foci14-polatin-reuben.pdf"&gt;14/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/foci14/foci14-polatin-reuben.pdf"&gt;foci&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/foci14/foci14-polatin-reuben.pdf"&gt;14-&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/foci14/foci14-polatin-reuben.pdf"&gt;polatin&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/foci14/foci14-polatin-reuben.pdf"&gt;-&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/foci14/foci14-polatin-reuben.pdf"&gt;reuben&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/foci14/foci14-polatin-reuben.pdf"&gt;.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/foci14/foci14-polatin-reuben.pdf"&gt;pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/u&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div id="sdfootnote8"&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
	&lt;a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote8sym" href="#sdfootnote8anc"&gt;8&lt;/a&gt;
	Sasha
	Meinrath, The Future of the Internet: Balkanization and Borders,
	Time, October 2013
	&lt;u&gt;&lt;a href="http://ideas.time.com/2013/10/11/the-future-of-the-internet-balkanization-and-borders/"&gt;http&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://ideas.time.com/2013/10/11/the-future-of-the-internet-balkanization-and-borders/"&gt;://&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://ideas.time.com/2013/10/11/the-future-of-the-internet-balkanization-and-borders/"&gt;ideas&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://ideas.time.com/2013/10/11/the-future-of-the-internet-balkanization-and-borders/"&gt;.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://ideas.time.com/2013/10/11/the-future-of-the-internet-balkanization-and-borders/"&gt;time&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://ideas.time.com/2013/10/11/the-future-of-the-internet-balkanization-and-borders/"&gt;.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://ideas.time.com/2013/10/11/the-future-of-the-internet-balkanization-and-borders/"&gt;com&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://ideas.time.com/2013/10/11/the-future-of-the-internet-balkanization-and-borders/"&gt;/2013/10/11/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://ideas.time.com/2013/10/11/the-future-of-the-internet-balkanization-and-borders/"&gt;the&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://ideas.time.com/2013/10/11/the-future-of-the-internet-balkanization-and-borders/"&gt;-&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://ideas.time.com/2013/10/11/the-future-of-the-internet-balkanization-and-borders/"&gt;future&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://ideas.time.com/2013/10/11/the-future-of-the-internet-balkanization-and-borders/"&gt;-&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://ideas.time.com/2013/10/11/the-future-of-the-internet-balkanization-and-borders/"&gt;of&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://ideas.time.com/2013/10/11/the-future-of-the-internet-balkanization-and-borders/"&gt;-&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://ideas.time.com/2013/10/11/the-future-of-the-internet-balkanization-and-borders/"&gt;the&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://ideas.time.com/2013/10/11/the-future-of-the-internet-balkanization-and-borders/"&gt;-&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://ideas.time.com/2013/10/11/the-future-of-the-internet-balkanization-and-borders/"&gt;internet&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://ideas.time.com/2013/10/11/the-future-of-the-internet-balkanization-and-borders/"&gt;-&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://ideas.time.com/2013/10/11/the-future-of-the-internet-balkanization-and-borders/"&gt;balkanization&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://ideas.time.com/2013/10/11/the-future-of-the-internet-balkanization-and-borders/"&gt;-&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://ideas.time.com/2013/10/11/the-future-of-the-internet-balkanization-and-borders/"&gt;and&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://ideas.time.com/2013/10/11/the-future-of-the-internet-balkanization-and-borders/"&gt;-&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://ideas.time.com/2013/10/11/the-future-of-the-internet-balkanization-and-borders/"&gt;borders&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://ideas.time.com/2013/10/11/the-future-of-the-internet-balkanization-and-borders/"&gt;/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/u&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div id="sdfootnote9"&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
	&lt;a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote9sym" href="#sdfootnote9anc"&gt;9&lt;/a&gt;
	Safe Harbour Privacy Principles, Issued by the U.S. Department of
	Commerce, July 2001
	&lt;u&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.export.gov/safeharbor/eu/eg_main_018475.asp"&gt;http&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.export.gov/safeharbor/eu/eg_main_018475.asp"&gt;://&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.export.gov/safeharbor/eu/eg_main_018475.asp"&gt;www&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.export.gov/safeharbor/eu/eg_main_018475.asp"&gt;.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.export.gov/safeharbor/eu/eg_main_018475.asp"&gt;export&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.export.gov/safeharbor/eu/eg_main_018475.asp"&gt;.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.export.gov/safeharbor/eu/eg_main_018475.asp"&gt;gov&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.export.gov/safeharbor/eu/eg_main_018475.asp"&gt;/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.export.gov/safeharbor/eu/eg_main_018475.asp"&gt;safeharbor&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.export.gov/safeharbor/eu/eg_main_018475.asp"&gt;/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.export.gov/safeharbor/eu/eg_main_018475.asp"&gt;eu&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.export.gov/safeharbor/eu/eg_main_018475.asp"&gt;/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.export.gov/safeharbor/eu/eg_main_018475.asp"&gt;eg&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.export.gov/safeharbor/eu/eg_main_018475.asp"&gt;_&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.export.gov/safeharbor/eu/eg_main_018475.asp"&gt;main&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.export.gov/safeharbor/eu/eg_main_018475.asp"&gt;_018475.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.export.gov/safeharbor/eu/eg_main_018475.asp"&gt;asp&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/u&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div id="sdfootnote10"&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
	&lt;a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote10sym" href="#sdfootnote10anc"&gt;10&lt;/a&gt;
	Facebook
	case may force European firms to change data storage practices, The
	Guardian, September 23, 2015
	&lt;u&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/sep/23/us-intelligence-services-surveillance-privacy"&gt;http&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/sep/23/us-intelligence-services-surveillance-privacy"&gt;://&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/sep/23/us-intelligence-services-surveillance-privacy"&gt;www&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/sep/23/us-intelligence-services-surveillance-privacy"&gt;.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/sep/23/us-intelligence-services-surveillance-privacy"&gt;theguardian&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/sep/23/us-intelligence-services-surveillance-privacy"&gt;.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/sep/23/us-intelligence-services-surveillance-privacy"&gt;com&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/sep/23/us-intelligence-services-surveillance-privacy"&gt;/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/sep/23/us-intelligence-services-surveillance-privacy"&gt;us&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/sep/23/us-intelligence-services-surveillance-privacy"&gt;-&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/sep/23/us-intelligence-services-surveillance-privacy"&gt;news&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/sep/23/us-intelligence-services-surveillance-privacy"&gt;/2015/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/sep/23/us-intelligence-services-surveillance-privacy"&gt;sep&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/sep/23/us-intelligence-services-surveillance-privacy"&gt;/23/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/sep/23/us-intelligence-services-surveillance-privacy"&gt;us&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/sep/23/us-intelligence-services-surveillance-privacy"&gt;-&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/sep/23/us-intelligence-services-surveillance-privacy"&gt;intelligence&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/sep/23/us-intelligence-services-surveillance-privacy"&gt;-&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/sep/23/us-intelligence-services-surveillance-privacy"&gt;services&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/sep/23/us-intelligence-services-surveillance-privacy"&gt;-&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/sep/23/us-intelligence-services-surveillance-privacy"&gt;surveillance&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/sep/23/us-intelligence-services-surveillance-privacy"&gt;-&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/sep/23/us-intelligence-services-surveillance-privacy"&gt;privacy&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/u&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div id="sdfootnote11"&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
	&lt;a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote11sym" href="#sdfootnote11anc"&gt;11&lt;/a&gt;
	Privacy Tracker,  US-EU Safe Harbor Under Pressure, August 2, 2013
	&lt;u&gt;&lt;a href="https://iapp.org/news/a/us-eu-safe-harbor-under-pressure"&gt;https&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://iapp.org/news/a/us-eu-safe-harbor-under-pressure"&gt;://&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://iapp.org/news/a/us-eu-safe-harbor-under-pressure"&gt;iapp&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://iapp.org/news/a/us-eu-safe-harbor-under-pressure"&gt;.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://iapp.org/news/a/us-eu-safe-harbor-under-pressure"&gt;org&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://iapp.org/news/a/us-eu-safe-harbor-under-pressure"&gt;/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://iapp.org/news/a/us-eu-safe-harbor-under-pressure"&gt;news&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://iapp.org/news/a/us-eu-safe-harbor-under-pressure"&gt;/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://iapp.org/news/a/us-eu-safe-harbor-under-pressure"&gt;a&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://iapp.org/news/a/us-eu-safe-harbor-under-pressure"&gt;/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://iapp.org/news/a/us-eu-safe-harbor-under-pressure"&gt;us&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://iapp.org/news/a/us-eu-safe-harbor-under-pressure"&gt;-&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://iapp.org/news/a/us-eu-safe-harbor-under-pressure"&gt;eu&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://iapp.org/news/a/us-eu-safe-harbor-under-pressure"&gt;-&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://iapp.org/news/a/us-eu-safe-harbor-under-pressure"&gt;safe&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://iapp.org/news/a/us-eu-safe-harbor-under-pressure"&gt;-&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://iapp.org/news/a/us-eu-safe-harbor-under-pressure"&gt;harbor&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://iapp.org/news/a/us-eu-safe-harbor-under-pressure"&gt;-&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://iapp.org/news/a/us-eu-safe-harbor-under-pressure"&gt;under&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://iapp.org/news/a/us-eu-safe-harbor-under-pressure"&gt;-&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://iapp.org/news/a/us-eu-safe-harbor-under-pressure"&gt;pressure&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/u&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div id="sdfootnote12"&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
	&lt;a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote12sym" href="#sdfootnote12anc"&gt;12&lt;/a&gt;
	Kieren
	McCarthy, Privacy, net neutrality, security, encryption ... Europe
	tells Obama, US Congress to back off, The Register, 23 September,
	2015
	&lt;u&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/09/23/european_politicians_to_congress_back_off/"&gt;http&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/09/23/european_politicians_to_congress_back_off/"&gt;://&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/09/23/european_politicians_to_congress_back_off/"&gt;www&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/09/23/european_politicians_to_congress_back_off/"&gt;.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/09/23/european_politicians_to_congress_back_off/"&gt;theregister&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/09/23/european_politicians_to_congress_back_off/"&gt;.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/09/23/european_politicians_to_congress_back_off/"&gt;co&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/09/23/european_politicians_to_congress_back_off/"&gt;.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/09/23/european_politicians_to_congress_back_off/"&gt;uk&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/09/23/european_politicians_to_congress_back_off/"&gt;/2015/09/23/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/09/23/european_politicians_to_congress_back_off/"&gt;european&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/09/23/european_politicians_to_congress_back_off/"&gt;_&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/09/23/european_politicians_to_congress_back_off/"&gt;politicians&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/09/23/european_politicians_to_congress_back_off/"&gt;_&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/09/23/european_politicians_to_congress_back_off/"&gt;to&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/09/23/european_politicians_to_congress_back_off/"&gt;_&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/09/23/european_politicians_to_congress_back_off/"&gt;congress&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/09/23/european_politicians_to_congress_back_off/"&gt;_&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/09/23/european_politicians_to_congress_back_off/"&gt;back&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/09/23/european_politicians_to_congress_back_off/"&gt;_&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/09/23/european_politicians_to_congress_back_off/"&gt;off&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/09/23/european_politicians_to_congress_back_off/"&gt;/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/u&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div id="sdfootnote13"&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
	&lt;a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote13sym" href="#sdfootnote13anc"&gt;13&lt;/a&gt;
	Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the
	Council, Rebuilding Trust in EU-US Data Flows, European Commission,
	November 2013
	&lt;u&gt;&lt;a href="http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/files/com_2013_846_en.pdf"&gt;http&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/files/com_2013_846_en.pdf"&gt;://&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/files/com_2013_846_en.pdf"&gt;ec&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/files/com_2013_846_en.pdf"&gt;.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/files/com_2013_846_en.pdf"&gt;europa&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/files/com_2013_846_en.pdf"&gt;.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/files/com_2013_846_en.pdf"&gt;eu&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/files/com_2013_846_en.pdf"&gt;/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/files/com_2013_846_en.pdf"&gt;justice&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/files/com_2013_846_en.pdf"&gt;/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/files/com_2013_846_en.pdf"&gt;data&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/files/com_2013_846_en.pdf"&gt;-&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/files/com_2013_846_en.pdf"&gt;protection&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/files/com_2013_846_en.pdf"&gt;/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/files/com_2013_846_en.pdf"&gt;files&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/files/com_2013_846_en.pdf"&gt;/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/files/com_2013_846_en.pdf"&gt;com&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/files/com_2013_846_en.pdf"&gt;_2013_846_&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/files/com_2013_846_en.pdf"&gt;en&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/files/com_2013_846_en.pdf"&gt;.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/files/com_2013_846_en.pdf"&gt;pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/u&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div id="sdfootnote14"&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
	&lt;a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote14sym" href="#sdfootnote14anc"&gt;14&lt;/a&gt;
	Safe
	Harbor on trial in the European Union, Access Blog, September 2014
	&lt;u&gt;&lt;a href="https://www.accessnow.org/blog/2014/11/13/safe-harbor-on-trial-in-the-european-union"&gt;https&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://www.accessnow.org/blog/2014/11/13/safe-harbor-on-trial-in-the-european-union"&gt;://&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://www.accessnow.org/blog/2014/11/13/safe-harbor-on-trial-in-the-european-union"&gt;www&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://www.accessnow.org/blog/2014/11/13/safe-harbor-on-trial-in-the-european-union"&gt;.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://www.accessnow.org/blog/2014/11/13/safe-harbor-on-trial-in-the-european-union"&gt;accessnow&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://www.accessnow.org/blog/2014/11/13/safe-harbor-on-trial-in-the-european-union"&gt;.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://www.accessnow.org/blog/2014/11/13/safe-harbor-on-trial-in-the-european-union"&gt;org&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://www.accessnow.org/blog/2014/11/13/safe-harbor-on-trial-in-the-european-union"&gt;/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://www.accessnow.org/blog/2014/11/13/safe-harbor-on-trial-in-the-european-union"&gt;blog&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://www.accessnow.org/blog/2014/11/13/safe-harbor-on-trial-in-the-european-union"&gt;/2014/11/13/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://www.accessnow.org/blog/2014/11/13/safe-harbor-on-trial-in-the-european-union"&gt;safe&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://www.accessnow.org/blog/2014/11/13/safe-harbor-on-trial-in-the-european-union"&gt;-&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://www.accessnow.org/blog/2014/11/13/safe-harbor-on-trial-in-the-european-union"&gt;harbor&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://www.accessnow.org/blog/2014/11/13/safe-harbor-on-trial-in-the-european-union"&gt;-&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://www.accessnow.org/blog/2014/11/13/safe-harbor-on-trial-in-the-european-union"&gt;on&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://www.accessnow.org/blog/2014/11/13/safe-harbor-on-trial-in-the-european-union"&gt;-&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://www.accessnow.org/blog/2014/11/13/safe-harbor-on-trial-in-the-european-union"&gt;trial&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://www.accessnow.org/blog/2014/11/13/safe-harbor-on-trial-in-the-european-union"&gt;-&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://www.accessnow.org/blog/2014/11/13/safe-harbor-on-trial-in-the-european-union"&gt;in&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://www.accessnow.org/blog/2014/11/13/safe-harbor-on-trial-in-the-european-union"&gt;-&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://www.accessnow.org/blog/2014/11/13/safe-harbor-on-trial-in-the-european-union"&gt;the&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://www.accessnow.org/blog/2014/11/13/safe-harbor-on-trial-in-the-european-union"&gt;-&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://www.accessnow.org/blog/2014/11/13/safe-harbor-on-trial-in-the-european-union"&gt;european&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://www.accessnow.org/blog/2014/11/13/safe-harbor-on-trial-in-the-european-union"&gt;-&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://www.accessnow.org/blog/2014/11/13/safe-harbor-on-trial-in-the-european-union"&gt;union&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/u&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div id="sdfootnote15"&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
	&lt;a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote15sym" href="#sdfootnote15anc"&gt;15&lt;/a&gt;
	European
	Commission - Fact Sheet Questions and Answers on the EU-US data
	protection "Umbrella agreement", September 8, 2015
	&lt;u&gt;&lt;a href="http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-15-5612_en.htm"&gt;http&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-15-5612_en.htm"&gt;://&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-15-5612_en.htm"&gt;europa&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-15-5612_en.htm"&gt;.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-15-5612_en.htm"&gt;eu&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-15-5612_en.htm"&gt;/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-15-5612_en.htm"&gt;rapid&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-15-5612_en.htm"&gt;/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-15-5612_en.htm"&gt;press&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-15-5612_en.htm"&gt;-&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-15-5612_en.htm"&gt;release&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-15-5612_en.htm"&gt;_&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-15-5612_en.htm"&gt;MEMO&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-15-5612_en.htm"&gt;-15-5612_&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-15-5612_en.htm"&gt;en&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-15-5612_en.htm"&gt;.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-15-5612_en.htm"&gt;htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/u&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div id="sdfootnote16"&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
	&lt;a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote16sym" href="#sdfootnote16anc"&gt;16&lt;/a&gt;
	McGuire Woods, ‘EU and U.S. reach “Umbrella Agreement” on data
	transfers’, Lexology, September 14, 2015
	&lt;u&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=422bca41-2d54-4648-ae57-00d678515e1f"&gt;http&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=422bca41-2d54-4648-ae57-00d678515e1f"&gt;://&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=422bca41-2d54-4648-ae57-00d678515e1f"&gt;www&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=422bca41-2d54-4648-ae57-00d678515e1f"&gt;.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=422bca41-2d54-4648-ae57-00d678515e1f"&gt;lexology&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=422bca41-2d54-4648-ae57-00d678515e1f"&gt;.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=422bca41-2d54-4648-ae57-00d678515e1f"&gt;com&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=422bca41-2d54-4648-ae57-00d678515e1f"&gt;/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=422bca41-2d54-4648-ae57-00d678515e1f"&gt;library&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=422bca41-2d54-4648-ae57-00d678515e1f"&gt;/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=422bca41-2d54-4648-ae57-00d678515e1f"&gt;detail&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=422bca41-2d54-4648-ae57-00d678515e1f"&gt;.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=422bca41-2d54-4648-ae57-00d678515e1f"&gt;aspx&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=422bca41-2d54-4648-ae57-00d678515e1f"&gt;?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=422bca41-2d54-4648-ae57-00d678515e1f"&gt;g&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=422bca41-2d54-4648-ae57-00d678515e1f"&gt;=422&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=422bca41-2d54-4648-ae57-00d678515e1f"&gt;bca&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=422bca41-2d54-4648-ae57-00d678515e1f"&gt;41-2&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=422bca41-2d54-4648-ae57-00d678515e1f"&gt;d&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=422bca41-2d54-4648-ae57-00d678515e1f"&gt;54-4648-&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=422bca41-2d54-4648-ae57-00d678515e1f"&gt;ae&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=422bca41-2d54-4648-ae57-00d678515e1f"&gt;57-00&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=422bca41-2d54-4648-ae57-00d678515e1f"&gt;d&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=422bca41-2d54-4648-ae57-00d678515e1f"&gt;678515&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=422bca41-2d54-4648-ae57-00d678515e1f"&gt;e&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=422bca41-2d54-4648-ae57-00d678515e1f"&gt;1&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=422bca41-2d54-4648-ae57-00d678515e1f"&gt;f&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/u&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div id="sdfootnote17"&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
	&lt;a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote17sym" href="#sdfootnote17anc"&gt;17&lt;/a&gt;
	Andrew
	Woods, Lowering the Temperature on the Microsoft-Ireland Case,
	Lawfare September, 2015
	&lt;u&gt;&lt;a href="https://www.lawfareblog.com/lowering-temperature-microsoft-ireland-case"&gt;https&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://www.lawfareblog.com/lowering-temperature-microsoft-ireland-case"&gt;://&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://www.lawfareblog.com/lowering-temperature-microsoft-ireland-case"&gt;www&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://www.lawfareblog.com/lowering-temperature-microsoft-ireland-case"&gt;.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://www.lawfareblog.com/lowering-temperature-microsoft-ireland-case"&gt;lawfareblog&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://www.lawfareblog.com/lowering-temperature-microsoft-ireland-case"&gt;.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://www.lawfareblog.com/lowering-temperature-microsoft-ireland-case"&gt;com&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://www.lawfareblog.com/lowering-temperature-microsoft-ireland-case"&gt;/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://www.lawfareblog.com/lowering-temperature-microsoft-ireland-case"&gt;lowering&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://www.lawfareblog.com/lowering-temperature-microsoft-ireland-case"&gt;-&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://www.lawfareblog.com/lowering-temperature-microsoft-ireland-case"&gt;temperature&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://www.lawfareblog.com/lowering-temperature-microsoft-ireland-case"&gt;-&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://www.lawfareblog.com/lowering-temperature-microsoft-ireland-case"&gt;microsoft&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://www.lawfareblog.com/lowering-temperature-microsoft-ireland-case"&gt;-&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://www.lawfareblog.com/lowering-temperature-microsoft-ireland-case"&gt;ireland&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://www.lawfareblog.com/lowering-temperature-microsoft-ireland-case"&gt;-&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://www.lawfareblog.com/lowering-temperature-microsoft-ireland-case"&gt;case&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/u&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div id="sdfootnote18"&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
	&lt;a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote18sym" href="#sdfootnote18anc"&gt;18&lt;/a&gt;
	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
	&lt;u&gt;&lt;a href="https://cdt.org/blog/the-eu-us-umbrella-agreement-and-the-judicial-redress-act-small-steps-forward-for-eu-citizens-privacy-rights/"&gt;https&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://cdt.org/blog/the-eu-us-umbrella-agreement-and-the-judicial-redress-act-small-steps-forward-for-eu-citizens-privacy-rights/"&gt;://&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://cdt.org/blog/the-eu-us-umbrella-agreement-and-the-judicial-redress-act-small-steps-forward-for-eu-citizens-privacy-rights/"&gt;cdt&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://cdt.org/blog/the-eu-us-umbrella-agreement-and-the-judicial-redress-act-small-steps-forward-for-eu-citizens-privacy-rights/"&gt;.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://cdt.org/blog/the-eu-us-umbrella-agreement-and-the-judicial-redress-act-small-steps-forward-for-eu-citizens-privacy-rights/"&gt;org&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://cdt.org/blog/the-eu-us-umbrella-agreement-and-the-judicial-redress-act-small-steps-forward-for-eu-citizens-privacy-rights/"&gt;/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://cdt.org/blog/the-eu-us-umbrella-agreement-and-the-judicial-redress-act-small-steps-forward-for-eu-citizens-privacy-rights/"&gt;blog&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://cdt.org/blog/the-eu-us-umbrella-agreement-and-the-judicial-redress-act-small-steps-forward-for-eu-citizens-privacy-rights/"&gt;/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://cdt.org/blog/the-eu-us-umbrella-agreement-and-the-judicial-redress-act-small-steps-forward-for-eu-citizens-privacy-rights/"&gt;the&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://cdt.org/blog/the-eu-us-umbrella-agreement-and-the-judicial-redress-act-small-steps-forward-for-eu-citizens-privacy-rights/"&gt;-&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://cdt.org/blog/the-eu-us-umbrella-agreement-and-the-judicial-redress-act-small-steps-forward-for-eu-citizens-privacy-rights/"&gt;eu&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://cdt.org/blog/the-eu-us-umbrella-agreement-and-the-judicial-redress-act-small-steps-forward-for-eu-citizens-privacy-rights/"&gt;-&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://cdt.org/blog/the-eu-us-umbrella-agreement-and-the-judicial-redress-act-small-steps-forward-for-eu-citizens-privacy-rights/"&gt;us&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://cdt.org/blog/the-eu-us-umbrella-agreement-and-the-judicial-redress-act-small-steps-forward-for-eu-citizens-privacy-rights/"&gt;-&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://cdt.org/blog/the-eu-us-umbrella-agreement-and-the-judicial-redress-act-small-steps-forward-for-eu-citizens-privacy-rights/"&gt;umbrella&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://cdt.org/blog/the-eu-us-umbrella-agreement-and-the-judicial-redress-act-small-steps-forward-for-eu-citizens-privacy-rights/"&gt;-&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://cdt.org/blog/the-eu-us-umbrella-agreement-and-the-judicial-redress-act-small-steps-forward-for-eu-citizens-privacy-rights/"&gt;agreement&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://cdt.org/blog/the-eu-us-umbrella-agreement-and-the-judicial-redress-act-small-steps-forward-for-eu-citizens-privacy-rights/"&gt;-&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://cdt.org/blog/the-eu-us-umbrella-agreement-and-the-judicial-redress-act-small-steps-forward-for-eu-citizens-privacy-rights/"&gt;and&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://cdt.org/blog/the-eu-us-umbrella-agreement-and-the-judicial-redress-act-small-steps-forward-for-eu-citizens-privacy-rights/"&gt;-&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://cdt.org/blog/the-eu-us-umbrella-agreement-and-the-judicial-redress-act-small-steps-forward-for-eu-citizens-privacy-rights/"&gt;the&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://cdt.org/blog/the-eu-us-umbrella-agreement-and-the-judicial-redress-act-small-steps-forward-for-eu-citizens-privacy-rights/"&gt;-&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://cdt.org/blog/the-eu-us-umbrella-agreement-and-the-judicial-redress-act-small-steps-forward-for-eu-citizens-privacy-rights/"&gt;judicial&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://cdt.org/blog/the-eu-us-umbrella-agreement-and-the-judicial-redress-act-small-steps-forward-for-eu-citizens-privacy-rights/"&gt;-&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://cdt.org/blog/the-eu-us-umbrella-agreement-and-the-judicial-redress-act-small-steps-forward-for-eu-citizens-privacy-rights/"&gt;redress&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://cdt.org/blog/the-eu-us-umbrella-agreement-and-the-judicial-redress-act-small-steps-forward-for-eu-citizens-privacy-rights/"&gt;-&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://cdt.org/blog/the-eu-us-umbrella-agreement-and-the-judicial-redress-act-small-steps-forward-for-eu-citizens-privacy-rights/"&gt;act&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://cdt.org/blog/the-eu-us-umbrella-agreement-and-the-judicial-redress-act-small-steps-forward-for-eu-citizens-privacy-rights/"&gt;-&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://cdt.org/blog/the-eu-us-umbrella-agreement-and-the-judicial-redress-act-small-steps-forward-for-eu-citizens-privacy-rights/"&gt;small&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://cdt.org/blog/the-eu-us-umbrella-agreement-and-the-judicial-redress-act-small-steps-forward-for-eu-citizens-privacy-rights/"&gt;-&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://cdt.org/blog/the-eu-us-umbrella-agreement-and-the-judicial-redress-act-small-steps-forward-for-eu-citizens-privacy-rights/"&gt;steps&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://cdt.org/blog/the-eu-us-umbrella-agreement-and-the-judicial-redress-act-small-steps-forward-for-eu-citizens-privacy-rights/"&gt;-&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://cdt.org/blog/the-eu-us-umbrella-agreement-and-the-judicial-redress-act-small-steps-forward-for-eu-citizens-privacy-rights/"&gt;forward&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://cdt.org/blog/the-eu-us-umbrella-agreement-and-the-judicial-redress-act-small-steps-forward-for-eu-citizens-privacy-rights/"&gt;-&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://cdt.org/blog/the-eu-us-umbrella-agreement-and-the-judicial-redress-act-small-steps-forward-for-eu-citizens-privacy-rights/"&gt;for&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://cdt.org/blog/the-eu-us-umbrella-agreement-and-the-judicial-redress-act-small-steps-forward-for-eu-citizens-privacy-rights/"&gt;-&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://cdt.org/blog/the-eu-us-umbrella-agreement-and-the-judicial-redress-act-small-steps-forward-for-eu-citizens-privacy-rights/"&gt;eu&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://cdt.org/blog/the-eu-us-umbrella-agreement-and-the-judicial-redress-act-small-steps-forward-for-eu-citizens-privacy-rights/"&gt;-&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://cdt.org/blog/the-eu-us-umbrella-agreement-and-the-judicial-redress-act-small-steps-forward-for-eu-citizens-privacy-rights/"&gt;citizens&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://cdt.org/blog/the-eu-us-umbrella-agreement-and-the-judicial-redress-act-small-steps-forward-for-eu-citizens-privacy-rights/"&gt;-&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://cdt.org/blog/the-eu-us-umbrella-agreement-and-the-judicial-redress-act-small-steps-forward-for-eu-citizens-privacy-rights/"&gt;privacy&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://cdt.org/blog/the-eu-us-umbrella-agreement-and-the-judicial-redress-act-small-steps-forward-for-eu-citizens-privacy-rights/"&gt;-&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://cdt.org/blog/the-eu-us-umbrella-agreement-and-the-judicial-redress-act-small-steps-forward-for-eu-citizens-privacy-rights/"&gt;rights&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://cdt.org/blog/the-eu-us-umbrella-agreement-and-the-judicial-redress-act-small-steps-forward-for-eu-citizens-privacy-rights/"&gt;/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/u&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div id="sdfootnote19"&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
	&lt;a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote19sym" href="#sdfootnote19anc"&gt;19&lt;/a&gt;
	Ibid 18.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div id="sdfootnote20"&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
	&lt;a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote20sym" href="#sdfootnote20anc"&gt;20&lt;/a&gt;
	Landmark ECJ data protection ruling could impact Facebook and
	Google, The Guardian, 2 October, 2015
	&lt;u&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/oct/02/landmark-ecj-data-protection-ruling-facebook-google-weltimmo"&gt;http&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/oct/02/landmark-ecj-data-protection-ruling-facebook-google-weltimmo"&gt;://&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/oct/02/landmark-ecj-data-protection-ruling-facebook-google-weltimmo"&gt;www&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/oct/02/landmark-ecj-data-protection-ruling-facebook-google-weltimmo"&gt;.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/oct/02/landmark-ecj-data-protection-ruling-facebook-google-weltimmo"&gt;theguardian&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/oct/02/landmark-ecj-data-protection-ruling-facebook-google-weltimmo"&gt;.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/oct/02/landmark-ecj-data-protection-ruling-facebook-google-weltimmo"&gt;com&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/oct/02/landmark-ecj-data-protection-ruling-facebook-google-weltimmo"&gt;/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/oct/02/landmark-ecj-data-protection-ruling-facebook-google-weltimmo"&gt;technology&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/oct/02/landmark-ecj-data-protection-ruling-facebook-google-weltimmo"&gt;/2015/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/oct/02/landmark-ecj-data-protection-ruling-facebook-google-weltimmo"&gt;oct&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/oct/02/landmark-ecj-data-protection-ruling-facebook-google-weltimmo"&gt;/02/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/oct/02/landmark-ecj-data-protection-ruling-facebook-google-weltimmo"&gt;landmark&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/oct/02/landmark-ecj-data-protection-ruling-facebook-google-weltimmo"&gt;-&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/oct/02/landmark-ecj-data-protection-ruling-facebook-google-weltimmo"&gt;ecj&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/oct/02/landmark-ecj-data-protection-ruling-facebook-google-weltimmo"&gt;-&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/oct/02/landmark-ecj-data-protection-ruling-facebook-google-weltimmo"&gt;data&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/oct/02/landmark-ecj-data-protection-ruling-facebook-google-weltimmo"&gt;-&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/oct/02/landmark-ecj-data-protection-ruling-facebook-google-weltimmo"&gt;protection&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/oct/02/landmark-ecj-data-protection-ruling-facebook-google-weltimmo"&gt;-&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/oct/02/landmark-ecj-data-protection-ruling-facebook-google-weltimmo"&gt;ruling&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/oct/02/landmark-ecj-data-protection-ruling-facebook-google-weltimmo"&gt;-&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/oct/02/landmark-ecj-data-protection-ruling-facebook-google-weltimmo"&gt;facebook&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/oct/02/landmark-ecj-data-protection-ruling-facebook-google-weltimmo"&gt;-&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/oct/02/landmark-ecj-data-protection-ruling-facebook-google-weltimmo"&gt;google&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/oct/02/landmark-ecj-data-protection-ruling-facebook-google-weltimmo"&gt;-&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/oct/02/landmark-ecj-data-protection-ruling-facebook-google-weltimmo"&gt;weltimmo&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/u&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div id="sdfootnote21"&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
	&lt;a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote21sym" href="#sdfootnote21anc"&gt;21&lt;/a&gt;
	Julia Powles, Tech companies like Facebook not above the law, says
	Max Schrems, The Guardian, Octover 9, 2015
	&lt;a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/oct/09/facebook-data-privacy-max-schrems-european-court-of-justice"&gt;http&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/oct/09/facebook-data-privacy-max-schrems-european-court-of-justice"&gt;://&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/oct/09/facebook-data-privacy-max-schrems-european-court-of-justice"&gt;www&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/oct/09/facebook-data-privacy-max-schrems-european-court-of-justice"&gt;.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/oct/09/facebook-data-privacy-max-schrems-european-court-of-justice"&gt;theguardian&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/oct/09/facebook-data-privacy-max-schrems-european-court-of-justice"&gt;.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/oct/09/facebook-data-privacy-max-schrems-european-court-of-justice"&gt;com&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/oct/09/facebook-data-privacy-max-schrems-european-court-of-justice"&gt;/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/oct/09/facebook-data-privacy-max-schrems-european-court-of-justice"&gt;technology&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/oct/09/facebook-data-privacy-max-schrems-european-court-of-justice"&gt;/2015/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/oct/09/facebook-data-privacy-max-schrems-european-court-of-justice"&gt;oct&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/oct/09/facebook-data-privacy-max-schrems-european-court-of-justice"&gt;/09/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/oct/09/facebook-data-privacy-max-schrems-european-court-of-justice"&gt;facebook&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/oct/09/facebook-data-privacy-max-schrems-european-court-of-justice"&gt;-&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/oct/09/facebook-data-privacy-max-schrems-european-court-of-justice"&gt;data&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/oct/09/facebook-data-privacy-max-schrems-european-court-of-justice"&gt;-&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/oct/09/facebook-data-privacy-max-schrems-european-court-of-justice"&gt;privacy&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/oct/09/facebook-data-privacy-max-schrems-european-court-of-justice"&gt;-&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/oct/09/facebook-data-privacy-max-schrems-european-court-of-justice"&gt;max&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/oct/09/facebook-data-privacy-max-schrems-european-court-of-justice"&gt;-&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/oct/09/facebook-data-privacy-max-schrems-european-court-of-justice"&gt;schrems&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/oct/09/facebook-data-privacy-max-schrems-european-court-of-justice"&gt;-&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/oct/09/facebook-data-privacy-max-schrems-european-court-of-justice"&gt;european&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/oct/09/facebook-data-privacy-max-schrems-european-court-of-justice"&gt;-&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/oct/09/facebook-data-privacy-max-schrems-european-court-of-justice"&gt;court&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/oct/09/facebook-data-privacy-max-schrems-european-court-of-justice"&gt;-&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/oct/09/facebook-data-privacy-max-schrems-european-court-of-justice"&gt;of&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/oct/09/facebook-data-privacy-max-schrems-european-court-of-justice"&gt;-&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/oct/09/facebook-data-privacy-max-schrems-european-court-of-justice"&gt;justice&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div id="sdfootnote22"&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
	&lt;a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote22sym" href="#sdfootnote22anc"&gt;22&lt;/a&gt;
	Adam
	Thierer,
	Unintended
	Consequences of the EU Safe Harbor Ruling, The Technology Liberation
	Front, October 6, 2015
	&lt;u&gt;&lt;a href="http://techliberation.com/2015/10/06/unintended-consequenses-of-the-eu-safe-harbor-ruling/#more-75831"&gt;http&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://techliberation.com/2015/10/06/unintended-consequenses-of-the-eu-safe-harbor-ruling/#more-75831"&gt;://&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://techliberation.com/2015/10/06/unintended-consequenses-of-the-eu-safe-harbor-ruling/#more-75831"&gt;techliberation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://techliberation.com/2015/10/06/unintended-consequenses-of-the-eu-safe-harbor-ruling/#more-75831"&gt;.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://techliberation.com/2015/10/06/unintended-consequenses-of-the-eu-safe-harbor-ruling/#more-75831"&gt;com&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://techliberation.com/2015/10/06/unintended-consequenses-of-the-eu-safe-harbor-ruling/#more-75831"&gt;/2015/10/06/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://techliberation.com/2015/10/06/unintended-consequenses-of-the-eu-safe-harbor-ruling/#more-75831"&gt;unintended&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://techliberation.com/2015/10/06/unintended-consequenses-of-the-eu-safe-harbor-ruling/#more-75831"&gt;-&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://techliberation.com/2015/10/06/unintended-consequenses-of-the-eu-safe-harbor-ruling/#more-75831"&gt;consequenses&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://techliberation.com/2015/10/06/unintended-consequenses-of-the-eu-safe-harbor-ruling/#more-75831"&gt;-&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://techliberation.com/2015/10/06/unintended-consequenses-of-the-eu-safe-harbor-ruling/#more-75831"&gt;of&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://techliberation.com/2015/10/06/unintended-consequenses-of-the-eu-safe-harbor-ruling/#more-75831"&gt;-&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://techliberation.com/2015/10/06/unintended-consequenses-of-the-eu-safe-harbor-ruling/#more-75831"&gt;the&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://techliberation.com/2015/10/06/unintended-consequenses-of-the-eu-safe-harbor-ruling/#more-75831"&gt;-&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://techliberation.com/2015/10/06/unintended-consequenses-of-the-eu-safe-harbor-ruling/#more-75831"&gt;eu&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://techliberation.com/2015/10/06/unintended-consequenses-of-the-eu-safe-harbor-ruling/#more-75831"&gt;-&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://techliberation.com/2015/10/06/unintended-consequenses-of-the-eu-safe-harbor-ruling/#more-75831"&gt;safe&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://techliberation.com/2015/10/06/unintended-consequenses-of-the-eu-safe-harbor-ruling/#more-75831"&gt;-&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://techliberation.com/2015/10/06/unintended-consequenses-of-the-eu-safe-harbor-ruling/#more-75831"&gt;harbor&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://techliberation.com/2015/10/06/unintended-consequenses-of-the-eu-safe-harbor-ruling/#more-75831"&gt;-&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://techliberation.com/2015/10/06/unintended-consequenses-of-the-eu-safe-harbor-ruling/#more-75831"&gt;ruling&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://techliberation.com/2015/10/06/unintended-consequenses-of-the-eu-safe-harbor-ruling/#more-75831"&gt;/#&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://techliberation.com/2015/10/06/unintended-consequenses-of-the-eu-safe-harbor-ruling/#more-75831"&gt;more&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://techliberation.com/2015/10/06/unintended-consequenses-of-the-eu-safe-harbor-ruling/#more-75831"&gt;-75831&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/u&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div id="sdfootnote23"&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
	&lt;a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote23sym" href="#sdfootnote23anc"&gt;23&lt;/a&gt;
	Anupam
	Chander, Tweeted ECJ&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/schrems?src=hash"&gt;
	#&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/schrems?src=hash"&gt;schrems&lt;/a&gt;
	ruling may effectively require data localization within Europe,
	&lt;u&gt;&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/AnupamChander/status/651369730754801665"&gt;https&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/AnupamChander/status/651369730754801665"&gt;://&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/AnupamChander/status/651369730754801665"&gt;twitter&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/AnupamChander/status/651369730754801665"&gt;.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/AnupamChander/status/651369730754801665"&gt;com&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/AnupamChander/status/651369730754801665"&gt;/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/AnupamChander/status/651369730754801665"&gt;AnupamChander&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/AnupamChander/status/651369730754801665"&gt;/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/AnupamChander/status/651369730754801665"&gt;status&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/AnupamChander/status/651369730754801665"&gt;/651369730754801665&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/u&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div id="sdfootnote24"&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
	&lt;a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote24sym" href="#sdfootnote24anc"&gt;24&lt;/a&gt;
	Lokman Tsui, Tweeted, “If the TPP bans data localization, but the
	ECJ ruling effectively mandates it, what does that mean for the
	internet?”
	&lt;u&gt;&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/lokmantsui/status/651393867376275456"&gt;https&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/lokmantsui/status/651393867376275456"&gt;://&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/lokmantsui/status/651393867376275456"&gt;twitter&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/lokmantsui/status/651393867376275456"&gt;.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/lokmantsui/status/651393867376275456"&gt;com&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/lokmantsui/status/651393867376275456"&gt;/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/lokmantsui/status/651393867376275456"&gt;lokmantsui&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/lokmantsui/status/651393867376275456"&gt;/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/lokmantsui/status/651393867376275456"&gt;status&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://twitter.com/lokmantsui/status/651393867376275456"&gt;/651393867376275456&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/u&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div id="sdfootnote25"&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
	&lt;a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote25sym" href="#sdfootnote25anc"&gt;25&lt;/a&gt;
	Statement from Indian Head of Delegation, Mr Ram Narain for WGPL,
	&lt;a href="https://ccgnludelhi.wordpress.com/2014/11/04/indian-statement-on-itu-and-internet-at-the-working-group-plenary/"&gt;Indian&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://ccgnludelhi.wordpress.com/2014/11/04/indian-statement-on-itu-and-internet-at-the-working-group-plenary/"&gt;statement&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://ccgnludelhi.wordpress.com/2014/11/04/indian-statement-on-itu-and-internet-at-the-working-group-plenary/"&gt;on&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://ccgnludelhi.wordpress.com/2014/11/04/indian-statement-on-itu-and-internet-at-the-working-group-plenary/"&gt;ITU&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://ccgnludelhi.wordpress.com/2014/11/04/indian-statement-on-itu-and-internet-at-the-working-group-plenary/"&gt;and&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://ccgnludelhi.wordpress.com/2014/11/04/indian-statement-on-itu-and-internet-at-the-working-group-plenary/"&gt;Internet&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://ccgnludelhi.wordpress.com/2014/11/04/indian-statement-on-itu-and-internet-at-the-working-group-plenary/"&gt;at&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://ccgnludelhi.wordpress.com/2014/11/04/indian-statement-on-itu-and-internet-at-the-working-group-plenary/"&gt;the&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://ccgnludelhi.wordpress.com/2014/11/04/indian-statement-on-itu-and-internet-at-the-working-group-plenary/"&gt;Working&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://ccgnludelhi.wordpress.com/2014/11/04/indian-statement-on-itu-and-internet-at-the-working-group-plenary/"&gt;Group&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://ccgnludelhi.wordpress.com/2014/11/04/indian-statement-on-itu-and-internet-at-the-working-group-plenary/"&gt;Plenary&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://ccgnludelhi.wordpress.com/2014/11/04/indian-statement-on-itu-and-internet-at-the-working-group-plenary/"&gt;November&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://ccgnludelhi.wordpress.com/2014/11/04/indian-statement-on-itu-and-internet-at-the-working-group-plenary/"&gt;
	4, 2014 &lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://ccgnludelhi.wordpress.com/author/asukum87/page/2/"&gt;https&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://ccgnludelhi.wordpress.com/author/asukum87/page/2/"&gt;://&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://ccgnludelhi.wordpress.com/author/asukum87/page/2/"&gt;ccgnludelhi&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://ccgnludelhi.wordpress.com/author/asukum87/page/2/"&gt;.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://ccgnludelhi.wordpress.com/author/asukum87/page/2/"&gt;wordpress&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://ccgnludelhi.wordpress.com/author/asukum87/page/2/"&gt;.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://ccgnludelhi.wordpress.com/author/asukum87/page/2/"&gt;com&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://ccgnludelhi.wordpress.com/author/asukum87/page/2/"&gt;/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://ccgnludelhi.wordpress.com/author/asukum87/page/2/"&gt;author&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://ccgnludelhi.wordpress.com/author/asukum87/page/2/"&gt;/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://ccgnludelhi.wordpress.com/author/asukum87/page/2/"&gt;asukum&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://ccgnludelhi.wordpress.com/author/asukum87/page/2/"&gt;87/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://ccgnludelhi.wordpress.com/author/asukum87/page/2/"&gt;page&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://ccgnludelhi.wordpress.com/author/asukum87/page/2/"&gt;/2/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div id="sdfootnote26"&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
	&lt;a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote26sym" href="#sdfootnote26anc"&gt;26&lt;/a&gt;
	Sounak
	Mitra, Xiaomi bets big on India despite problems, Business Standard,
	December 2014
	&lt;u&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/xiaomi-bets-big-on-india-despite-problems-114122201023_1.html"&gt;http&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/xiaomi-bets-big-on-india-despite-problems-114122201023_1.html"&gt;://&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/xiaomi-bets-big-on-india-despite-problems-114122201023_1.html"&gt;www&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/xiaomi-bets-big-on-india-despite-problems-114122201023_1.html"&gt;.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/xiaomi-bets-big-on-india-despite-problems-114122201023_1.html"&gt;business&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/xiaomi-bets-big-on-india-despite-problems-114122201023_1.html"&gt;-&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/xiaomi-bets-big-on-india-despite-problems-114122201023_1.html"&gt;standard&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/xiaomi-bets-big-on-india-despite-problems-114122201023_1.html"&gt;.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/xiaomi-bets-big-on-india-despite-problems-114122201023_1.html"&gt;com&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/xiaomi-bets-big-on-india-despite-problems-114122201023_1.html"&gt;/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/xiaomi-bets-big-on-india-despite-problems-114122201023_1.html"&gt;article&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/xiaomi-bets-big-on-india-despite-problems-114122201023_1.html"&gt;/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/xiaomi-bets-big-on-india-despite-problems-114122201023_1.html"&gt;companies&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/xiaomi-bets-big-on-india-despite-problems-114122201023_1.html"&gt;/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/xiaomi-bets-big-on-india-despite-problems-114122201023_1.html"&gt;xiaomi&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/xiaomi-bets-big-on-india-despite-problems-114122201023_1.html"&gt;-&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/xiaomi-bets-big-on-india-despite-problems-114122201023_1.html"&gt;bets&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/xiaomi-bets-big-on-india-despite-problems-114122201023_1.html"&gt;-&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/xiaomi-bets-big-on-india-despite-problems-114122201023_1.html"&gt;big&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/xiaomi-bets-big-on-india-despite-problems-114122201023_1.html"&gt;-&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/xiaomi-bets-big-on-india-despite-problems-114122201023_1.html"&gt;on&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/xiaomi-bets-big-on-india-despite-problems-114122201023_1.html"&gt;-&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/xiaomi-bets-big-on-india-despite-problems-114122201023_1.html"&gt;india&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/xiaomi-bets-big-on-india-despite-problems-114122201023_1.html"&gt;-&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/xiaomi-bets-big-on-india-despite-problems-114122201023_1.html"&gt;despite&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/xiaomi-bets-big-on-india-despite-problems-114122201023_1.html"&gt;-&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/xiaomi-bets-big-on-india-despite-problems-114122201023_1.html"&gt;problems&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/xiaomi-bets-big-on-india-despite-problems-114122201023_1.html"&gt;-114122201023_1.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/xiaomi-bets-big-on-india-despite-problems-114122201023_1.html"&gt;html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/u&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div id="sdfootnote27"&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
	&lt;a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote27sym" href="#sdfootnote27anc"&gt;27&lt;/a&gt;
	Neha
	Alawadi, Ruling on data flow between EU &amp;amp; US may impact India’s
	IT sector, Economic Times,October 7, 2015
	&lt;a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/49250738.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&amp;amp;utm_medium=text&amp;amp;utm_campaign=cppst"&gt;http&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/49250738.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&amp;amp;utm_medium=text&amp;amp;utm_campaign=cppst"&gt;://&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/49250738.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&amp;amp;utm_medium=text&amp;amp;utm_campaign=cppst"&gt;economictimes&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/49250738.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&amp;amp;utm_medium=text&amp;amp;utm_campaign=cppst"&gt;.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/49250738.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&amp;amp;utm_medium=text&amp;amp;utm_campaign=cppst"&gt;indiatimes&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/49250738.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&amp;amp;utm_medium=text&amp;amp;utm_campaign=cppst"&gt;.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/49250738.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&amp;amp;utm_medium=text&amp;amp;utm_campaign=cppst"&gt;com&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/49250738.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&amp;amp;utm_medium=text&amp;amp;utm_campaign=cppst"&gt;/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/49250738.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&amp;amp;utm_medium=text&amp;amp;utm_campaign=cppst"&gt;articleshow&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/49250738.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&amp;amp;utm_medium=text&amp;amp;utm_campaign=cppst"&gt;/49250738.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/49250738.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&amp;amp;utm_medium=text&amp;amp;utm_campaign=cppst"&gt;cms&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/49250738.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&amp;amp;utm_medium=text&amp;amp;utm_campaign=cppst"&gt;?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/49250738.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&amp;amp;utm_medium=text&amp;amp;utm_campaign=cppst"&gt;utm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/49250738.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&amp;amp;utm_medium=text&amp;amp;utm_campaign=cppst"&gt;_&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/49250738.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&amp;amp;utm_medium=text&amp;amp;utm_campaign=cppst"&gt;source&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/49250738.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&amp;amp;utm_medium=text&amp;amp;utm_campaign=cppst"&gt;=&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/49250738.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&amp;amp;utm_medium=text&amp;amp;utm_campaign=cppst"&gt;contentofinterest&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/49250738.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&amp;amp;utm_medium=text&amp;amp;utm_campaign=cppst"&gt;&amp;amp;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/49250738.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&amp;amp;utm_medium=text&amp;amp;utm_campaign=cppst"&gt;utm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/49250738.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&amp;amp;utm_medium=text&amp;amp;utm_campaign=cppst"&gt;_&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/49250738.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&amp;amp;utm_medium=text&amp;amp;utm_campaign=cppst"&gt;medium&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/49250738.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&amp;amp;utm_medium=text&amp;amp;utm_campaign=cppst"&gt;=&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/49250738.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&amp;amp;utm_medium=text&amp;amp;utm_campaign=cppst"&gt;text&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/49250738.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&amp;amp;utm_medium=text&amp;amp;utm_campaign=cppst"&gt;&amp;amp;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/49250738.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&amp;amp;utm_medium=text&amp;amp;utm_campaign=cppst"&gt;utm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/49250738.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&amp;amp;utm_medium=text&amp;amp;utm_campaign=cppst"&gt;_&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/49250738.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&amp;amp;utm_medium=text&amp;amp;utm_campaign=cppst"&gt;campaign&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/49250738.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&amp;amp;utm_medium=text&amp;amp;utm_campaign=cppst"&gt;=&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/49250738.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&amp;amp;utm_medium=text&amp;amp;utm_campaign=cppst"&gt;cppst&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div id="sdfootnote28"&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
	&lt;a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote28sym" href="#sdfootnote28anc"&gt;28&lt;/a&gt;
	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
	&lt;u&gt;&lt;a href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/data-security-laws-india.pdf"&gt;http&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/data-security-laws-india.pdf"&gt;://&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/data-security-laws-india.pdf"&gt;cis&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/data-security-laws-india.pdf"&gt;-&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/data-security-laws-india.pdf"&gt;india&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/data-security-laws-india.pdf"&gt;.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/data-security-laws-india.pdf"&gt;org&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/data-security-laws-india.pdf"&gt;/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/data-security-laws-india.pdf"&gt;a&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/data-security-laws-india.pdf"&gt;2&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/data-security-laws-india.pdf"&gt;k&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/data-security-laws-india.pdf"&gt;/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/data-security-laws-india.pdf"&gt;blogs&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/data-security-laws-india.pdf"&gt;/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/data-security-laws-india.pdf"&gt;data&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/data-security-laws-india.pdf"&gt;-&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/data-security-laws-india.pdf"&gt;security&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/data-security-laws-india.pdf"&gt;-&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/data-security-laws-india.pdf"&gt;laws&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/data-security-laws-india.pdf"&gt;-&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/data-security-laws-india.pdf"&gt;india&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/data-security-laws-india.pdf"&gt;.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/data-security-laws-india.pdf"&gt;pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/u&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div id="sdfootnote29"&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
	&lt;a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote29sym" href="#sdfootnote29anc"&gt;29&lt;/a&gt;
	Surendra
	Kumar Sinha, India wants Mutual Legal Assistance treaty with
	Bangladesh, Economic Times, October 7, 2015
	h&lt;u&gt;&lt;a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/49262294.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&amp;amp;utm_medium=text&amp;amp;utm_campaign=cppst"&gt;ttp&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/49262294.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&amp;amp;utm_medium=text&amp;amp;utm_campaign=cppst"&gt;://&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/49262294.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&amp;amp;utm_medium=text&amp;amp;utm_campaign=cppst"&gt;economictimes&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/49262294.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&amp;amp;utm_medium=text&amp;amp;utm_campaign=cppst"&gt;.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/49262294.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&amp;amp;utm_medium=text&amp;amp;utm_campaign=cppst"&gt;indiatimes&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/49262294.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&amp;amp;utm_medium=text&amp;amp;utm_campaign=cppst"&gt;.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/49262294.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&amp;amp;utm_medium=text&amp;amp;utm_campaign=cppst"&gt;com&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/49262294.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&amp;amp;utm_medium=text&amp;amp;utm_campaign=cppst"&gt;/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/49262294.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&amp;amp;utm_medium=text&amp;amp;utm_campaign=cppst"&gt;articleshow&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/49262294.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&amp;amp;utm_medium=text&amp;amp;utm_campaign=cppst"&gt;/49262294.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/49262294.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&amp;amp;utm_medium=text&amp;amp;utm_campaign=cppst"&gt;cms&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/49262294.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&amp;amp;utm_medium=text&amp;amp;utm_campaign=cppst"&gt;?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/49262294.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&amp;amp;utm_medium=text&amp;amp;utm_campaign=cppst"&gt;utm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/49262294.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&amp;amp;utm_medium=text&amp;amp;utm_campaign=cppst"&gt;_&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/49262294.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&amp;amp;utm_medium=text&amp;amp;utm_campaign=cppst"&gt;source&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/49262294.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&amp;amp;utm_medium=text&amp;amp;utm_campaign=cppst"&gt;=&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/49262294.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&amp;amp;utm_medium=text&amp;amp;utm_campaign=cppst"&gt;contentofinterest&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/49262294.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&amp;amp;utm_medium=text&amp;amp;utm_campaign=cppst"&gt;&amp;amp;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/49262294.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&amp;amp;utm_medium=text&amp;amp;utm_campaign=cppst"&gt;utm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/49262294.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&amp;amp;utm_medium=text&amp;amp;utm_campaign=cppst"&gt;_&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/49262294.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&amp;amp;utm_medium=text&amp;amp;utm_campaign=cppst"&gt;medium&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/49262294.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&amp;amp;utm_medium=text&amp;amp;utm_campaign=cppst"&gt;=&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/49262294.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&amp;amp;utm_medium=text&amp;amp;utm_campaign=cppst"&gt;text&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/49262294.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&amp;amp;utm_medium=text&amp;amp;utm_campaign=cppst"&gt;&amp;amp;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/49262294.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&amp;amp;utm_medium=text&amp;amp;utm_campaign=cppst"&gt;utm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/49262294.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&amp;amp;utm_medium=text&amp;amp;utm_campaign=cppst"&gt;_&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/49262294.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&amp;amp;utm_medium=text&amp;amp;utm_campaign=cppst"&gt;campaign&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/49262294.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&amp;amp;utm_medium=text&amp;amp;utm_campaign=cppst"&gt;=&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/49262294.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&amp;amp;utm_medium=text&amp;amp;utm_campaign=cppst"&gt;cppst&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/u&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div id="sdfootnote30"&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
	&lt;a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote30sym" href="#sdfootnote30anc"&gt;30&lt;/a&gt;
	Pablo
	Chavez, Director, Public Policy and Government Affairs, 	Testifying
	before the U.S. Senate on 	transparency 	legislation, November 3,
	2013
	&lt;u&gt;&lt;a href="http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.in/2013/11/testifying-before-us-senate-on.html"&gt;http&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.in/2013/11/testifying-before-us-senate-on.html"&gt;://&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.in/2013/11/testifying-before-us-senate-on.html"&gt;googlepublicpolicy&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.in/2013/11/testifying-before-us-senate-on.html"&gt;.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.in/2013/11/testifying-before-us-senate-on.html"&gt;blogspot&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.in/2013/11/testifying-before-us-senate-on.html"&gt;.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.in/2013/11/testifying-before-us-senate-on.html"&gt;in&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.in/2013/11/testifying-before-us-senate-on.html"&gt;/2013/11/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.in/2013/11/testifying-before-us-senate-on.html"&gt;testifying&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.in/2013/11/testifying-before-us-senate-on.html"&gt;-&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.in/2013/11/testifying-before-us-senate-on.html"&gt;before&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.in/2013/11/testifying-before-us-senate-on.html"&gt;-&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.in/2013/11/testifying-before-us-senate-on.html"&gt;us&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.in/2013/11/testifying-before-us-senate-on.html"&gt;-&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.in/2013/11/testifying-before-us-senate-on.html"&gt;senate&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.in/2013/11/testifying-before-us-senate-on.html"&gt;-&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.in/2013/11/testifying-before-us-senate-on.html"&gt;on&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.in/2013/11/testifying-before-us-senate-on.html"&gt;.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.in/2013/11/testifying-before-us-senate-on.html"&gt;htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/u&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div id="sdfootnote31"&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
	&lt;a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote31sym" href="#sdfootnote31anc"&gt;31&lt;/a&gt;
	Report
	of the Group of Experts on Privacy (Chaired by Justice A P Shah,
	Former Chief Justice, Delhi High Court), Planning Commission,
	October 2012
		&lt;u&gt;&lt;a href="http://planningcommission.nic.in/reports/genrep/rep_privacy.pdf"&gt;http&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://planningcommission.nic.in/reports/genrep/rep_privacy.pdf"&gt;://&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://planningcommission.nic.in/reports/genrep/rep_privacy.pdf"&gt;planningcommission&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://planningcommission.nic.in/reports/genrep/rep_privacy.pdf"&gt;.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://planningcommission.nic.in/reports/genrep/rep_privacy.pdf"&gt;nic&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://planningcommission.nic.in/reports/genrep/rep_privacy.pdf"&gt;.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://planningcommission.nic.in/reports/genrep/rep_privacy.pdf"&gt;in&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://planningcommission.nic.in/reports/genrep/rep_privacy.pdf"&gt;/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://planningcommission.nic.in/reports/genrep/rep_privacy.pdf"&gt;reports&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://planningcommission.nic.in/reports/genrep/rep_privacy.pdf"&gt;/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://planningcommission.nic.in/reports/genrep/rep_privacy.pdf"&gt;genrep&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://planningcommission.nic.in/reports/genrep/rep_privacy.pdf"&gt;/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://planningcommission.nic.in/reports/genrep/rep_privacy.pdf"&gt;rep&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://planningcommission.nic.in/reports/genrep/rep_privacy.pdf"&gt;_&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://planningcommission.nic.in/reports/genrep/rep_privacy.pdf"&gt;privacy&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://planningcommission.nic.in/reports/genrep/rep_privacy.pdf"&gt;.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://planningcommission.nic.in/reports/genrep/rep_privacy.pdf"&gt;pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/u&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align="justify"&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div id="sdfootnote31"&gt;
&lt;p align="justify"&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div id="sdfootnote30"&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;

        &lt;p&gt;
        For more details visit &lt;a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/contestations-of-data-ecj-safe-harbor-ruling-and-lessons-for-india'&gt;https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/contestations-of-data-ecj-safe-harbor-ruling-and-lessons-for-india&lt;/a&gt;
        &lt;/p&gt;
    </description>
    <dc:publisher>No publisher</dc:publisher>
    <dc:creator>jyoti</dc:creator>
    <dc:rights></dc:rights>

    
        <dc:subject>Access to Knowledge</dc:subject>
    
    
        <dc:subject>Digital Economy</dc:subject>
    
    
        <dc:subject>Public Accountability</dc:subject>
    
    
        <dc:subject>Privacy</dc:subject>
    
    
        <dc:subject>Platform Responsibility</dc:subject>
    
    
        <dc:subject>Data Protection</dc:subject>
    
    
        <dc:subject>Accountability</dc:subject>
    
    
        <dc:subject>Digital Security</dc:subject>
    
    
        <dc:subject>Digital India</dc:subject>
    
    
        <dc:subject>Internet Governance</dc:subject>
    

   <dc:date>2015-10-14T14:40:08Z</dc:date>
   <dc:type>Blog Entry</dc:type>
   </item>


    <item rdf:about="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis-comments-supporting-the-dns-industry-in-underserved-regions">
    <title>Comments to ICANN Supporting the DNS Industry in Underserved Regions  </title>
    <link>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis-comments-supporting-the-dns-industry-in-underserved-regions</link>
    <description>
        &lt;b&gt;Towards exploring ideas and strategies to help promote the domain name industry in regions that have typically been underserved, ICANN published a call for public comments on May 14, 2014. In particular, ICANN sought comments related to existing barriers to Registrar Accreditation and operation and suggestions on how these challenges might be mitigated. CIS contributed to the comments on this report, which will be used to determine next steps to support the domain name industry in underserved regions.&lt;/b&gt;
        &lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;&lt;b&gt; &lt;/b&gt;&lt;b&gt; &lt;/b&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;&lt;span&gt;Domain names and the DNS are used in virtually every aspect of the Internet, and without the DNS, the Internet as we know it, would not exist. The DNS root zone has economic value and  ICANN's contract with Verisign delineates the selling of domain names via only ICANN accredited registrars. By the indirect virtue of its control of the root, ICANN has the power and capacity to influence the decisions of entities involved in the management and operations of the DNS, including registrars.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;&lt;b&gt;Too far, too many?&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;We acknowledge some of the efforts for improvements, in particular with reference to barriers to participation in DNS-related business in regions such as Africa and the Middle East, including the creation of a fellowship program, and increased availability of translated materials. However, despite these efforts, the gaps in the distribution of the DNS registrars and registries across the world has become an issue of heightened concern.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;This is particularly true, in light of the distribution of registrars and given that, of the 1124 ICANN-accredited registrars, North America has a total of 765 registrars. US and Canada together, have more than double the number of registrars than the rest of the world taken collectively. To put things further into perspective, of the total number of registrars 725 are from the United States alone, and 7 from the 54 countries of Africa.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;A barrier to ICANN's capacity building initiatives has been the lack of trust, given the general view that, ICANN focuses on policies that favour entrenched incumbents from richer countries. Without adequate representation from poorer countries, and adequate representation from the rest of the world's Internet population, there is no hope of changing these policies or establishing trust. The entire region of Latin America and the Caribbean, comprising of a population of 542.4 million internet users&lt;a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Comments%20on%20Supporting%20the%20DNS%20Industry%20in%20Underserved%20Regions.doc#_ftn1"&gt;[1]&lt;/a&gt; in 2012, has only 22 registrars spread across a total of 10 countries. In Europe, covering a population of 518.5 million internet users&lt;a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Comments%20on%20Supporting%20the%20DNS%20Industry%20in%20Underserved%20Regions.doc#_ftn2"&gt;[2]&lt;/a&gt;, are 158 registrars and 94 of those are spread across Germany, UK, France, Spain and Netherlands. The figures paint the most dismal picture with respect to South Asia, in particular India, where just 16 registrars cater to the population of internet users that is expected to reach 243 million by June 2014&lt;a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Comments%20on%20Supporting%20the%20DNS%20Industry%20in%20Underserved%20Regions.doc#_ftn3"&gt;[3]&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;While we welcome ICANN's research and outreach initiatives with regard to the DNS ecosystem in underserved regions, without the crucial first step of clarifying the metrics that constitute an underserved region, these efforts might not bear their intended impact. ICANN cannot hope to identify strategies towards bridging the gaps that exist in the DNS  ecosystem, without going beyond the current ICANN community, which, while nominally being 'multistakeholder' and open to all, grossly under-represents those parts of the world that aren't North America and Western Europe.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;The lack of registries in the developing world is another significant issue that needs to be highlighted and addressed. The top 5 gTLD registries are in the USA and it is important that users and the community feels that the fees being collected are equivalent compensation for the services they provide. As registries operate in captive markets that is allocated by ICANN, we invite ICANN to improve its financial accountability, by enabling its stakeholders to assess the finances collected on these registrations.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;&lt;b&gt;Multistakeholderism—community and consensus &lt;/b&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;As an organization that holds itself a champion of the bottom-up policy development process, and, as a private corporation fulfilling a public interest function, ICANN, is in a unique position to establish new norms of managing common resources. In theory and under ICANN’s extensive governance rules, the board is a legislative body that is only supposed to approve the consensus decisions of the community and the staff wield executive control. However in reality, both board and the staff have been criticised for decisions that are not backed by the community.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;The formal negotiations between ICANN and Registrar Stakeholder Group Negotiating Team (Registrar NT) over the new Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA), is an example of processes that have a multistakeholder approach but fail on values of deliberation and pluralistic decision making.&lt;a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Comments%20on%20Supporting%20the%20DNS%20Industry%20in%20Underserved%20Regions.doc#_ftn4"&gt;[4]&lt;/a&gt; ICANN staff insisted on including a "proposed Revocation (or "blow up") Clause that would have given them the ability to unilaterally terminate all registrar accreditations" and another proposal seeking to provide ICANN Board ability to unilaterally amend the RAA (identical to proposal inserted in the gTLD registry agreement - a clause met with strong opposition not only from the Registry Stakeholder Group but from the broader ICANN community).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Both proposals undermine the multistakeholder approach of the ICANN governance framework, as they seek more authority for the Board, rather than the community or protections for registrars and more importantly, registrants. The proposed amendments to the RAA were not issues raised by Law Enforcement, GAC or the GNSO but by the ICANN staff and received considerable pushback from the Registrar Stakeholder Group Negotiating Team (Registrar NT). The bottom-up policy making process at ICANN has also been questioned with reference to the ruling on vertical integration between registries and registrars, where the community could not even approach consensus.&lt;a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Comments%20on%20Supporting%20the%20DNS%20Industry%20in%20Underserved%20Regions.doc#_ftn5"&gt;[5]&lt;/a&gt; Concerns have also been raised about the extent of the power granted to special advisory bodies handpicked by the ICANN president, the inadequacy of existing accountability mechanisms for providing a meaningful and external check on Board decisions and the lack of representation of underserved regions on these special bodies. ICANN must evolve its accountability mechanisms, to go beyond the opportunity to provide comments on proposed policy, and extend to a role for stakeholders in decision making, which is presently a privilege reserved for staff rather than bottom-up consensus.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;ICANN was created as a consensus based organisation that would enable the Internet, its stakeholders and beneficiaries to move forward in the most streamlined, cohesive manner.&lt;a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Comments%20on%20Supporting%20the%20DNS%20Industry%20in%20Underserved%20Regions.doc#_ftn6"&gt;[6]&lt;/a&gt; Through its management of the DNS, ICANN is undertaking public governance duties, and it is crucial that it upholds the democratic values entrenched in the multistakeholder framework. Bottom up policy making extends beyond passive participation and has an impact on the direction of the policy. Presently, while anyone can comment on policy issues, only a few have a say in which comments are integrated towards outcomes and action. We would like to stress not just improving and introducing checks and balances within the ICANN ecosystem, but also, integrating accountability and transparency practices at all levels of decision making.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;&lt;b&gt;Bridging the gap&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;We welcome the Africa Strategy working group and the public community process that was initiated by ICANN towards building domain name business industry in Africa, and, we are sure there will be lessons that will applicable to many other underserved regions. In the context of this report CIS, wants to examine the existing criteria of the accreditation process. As ICANN's role evolves and its revenues grow across the DNS and the larger Internet landscape, it is important in our view, that ICANN review and evolve it's processes for accreditation and see if they are as relevant today, as they were when launched.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;The relationship between ICANN and every accredited registrar is governed by the individual RAA, which set out the obligations of both parties, and, we recommend simplifying and improving them. The RAA language is complex, technical and not relevant to all regions and presently, there are no online forms for the accreditation process. While ICANN's language will be English, the present framing has an American bias—we recommend—creating an online application process and simplifying the language keeping it contextual to the region. It would also be helpful, if ICANN invested in introducing some amount of standardization across forms, this would reduce the barrier of time and effort it takes to go through complex legal documents and contribute to the growth of DNS business.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;The existing accreditation process for registrars requires applicants to procure US$70,000 or more for the ICANN accreditation to become effective. The applicants are also required to obtain and maintain for the length of accreditation process, a commercial general liability insurance with a policy limit of US$500,000 or more. The working capital and the insurance are quite high and create a barrier to entrance of underserved regions in the DNS ecosystem.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;With lack of appropriate mechanisms registrars resort to using US companies for insurance, creating more foreign currency pressures on themselves. The commercial general liability insurance requirement for the registrars is not limited to their functioning as a registrar perhaps not the most appropriate option. &lt;span&gt;ICANN should, and must, increase efforts towards helping registrars find suitable insurance providers and scaling down the working capital. Solutions may lie in exploring variable fee structures adjusted against profits, and derived after considering factors such as cost of managing domain names and sub-domain names, expansion needs, ICANN obligations and services, financial capacities of LDCs and financial help pledged to disadvantaged groups or countries.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Presently, the start-up capital required is too high for developing countries, and this is reflected in the number of registries in these areas. Any efforts to improve the DNS ecosystem in underserved regions, must tackle this by scaling down the capital in proportion to the requirements of the region.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Another potential issue that ICANN should consider, is that users getting sub-domain names from local registrars located in their own country, are usually taxed on the transaction, however, online registration through US registrars spares users from paying taxes in their country.&lt;a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Comments%20on%20Supporting%20the%20DNS%20Industry%20in%20Underserved%20Regions.doc#_ftn7"&gt;[7]&lt;/a&gt; This could create a reverse incentive for registering domain sub-names online from US registrars. ICANN should push forward on efforts to ensure that registrars are sustainable by providing incentives for registering in underserved regions and help towards maintain critical mass of the registrants. The Business Constituency (BC)—the voice of commercial Internet users within ICANN, could play a role in this and ICANN should endeavour to either, expand the BC function or create a separate constituency for the representation of  underserved regions.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr size="1" style="text-align: justify; " width="33%" /&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;&lt;a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Comments%20on%20Supporting%20the%20DNS%20Industry%20in%20Underserved%20Regions.doc#_ftnref1"&gt;[1]&lt;/a&gt; Internet Users and Population stats 2012. http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats2.htm&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;&lt;a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Comments%20on%20Supporting%20the%20DNS%20Industry%20in%20Underserved%20Regions.doc#_ftnref2"&gt;[2]&lt;/a&gt; Internet Users and Population stats 2012. http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats4.htm&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;&lt;a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Comments%20on%20Supporting%20the%20DNS%20Industry%20in%20Underserved%20Regions.doc#_ftnref3"&gt;[3]&lt;/a&gt; Times of India IAMAI Report. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/tech-news/India-to-have-243-million-internet-users-by-June-2014-IAMAI/articleshow/29563698.cms&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;&lt;a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Comments%20on%20Supporting%20the%20DNS%20Industry%20in%20Underserved%20Regions.doc#_ftnref4"&gt;[4]&lt;/a&gt; Mar/07/2013 - Registrar Stakeholder Group Negotiating Team (Registrar NT) Statement Regarding ICANN RAA Negotiations.http://www.icannregistrars.org/calendar/announcements.php&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;&lt;a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Comments%20on%20Supporting%20the%20DNS%20Industry%20in%20Underserved%20Regions.doc#_ftnref5"&gt;[5]&lt;/a&gt; Kevin Murphy, Who runs the internet? An ICANN 49 primer. http://domainincite.com/16177-who-runs-the-internet-an-icann-49-primer&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;&lt;a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Comments%20on%20Supporting%20the%20DNS%20Industry%20in%20Underserved%20Regions.doc#_ftnref6"&gt;[6]&lt;/a&gt; Stephen Ryan, Governing Cyberspace: ICANN, a Controversial Internet Standards Body http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/detail/governing-cyberspace-icann-a-controversial-internet-standards-body&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;&lt;a href="file:///C:/Users/jyoti/Desktop/Comments%20on%20Supporting%20the%20DNS%20Industry%20in%20Underserved%20Regions.doc#_ftnref7"&gt;[7]&lt;/a&gt; Open Root-Financing LDCs in the WSIS process. See: http://www.open-root.eu/about-open-root/news/financing-ldcs-in-the-wsis-process&lt;/p&gt;
        &lt;p&gt;
        For more details visit &lt;a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis-comments-supporting-the-dns-industry-in-underserved-regions'&gt;https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis-comments-supporting-the-dns-industry-in-underserved-regions&lt;/a&gt;
        &lt;/p&gt;
    </description>
    <dc:publisher>No publisher</dc:publisher>
    <dc:creator>jyoti</dc:creator>
    <dc:rights></dc:rights>

    
        <dc:subject>IG4all</dc:subject>
    
    
        <dc:subject>ICANN</dc:subject>
    
    
        <dc:subject>Internet Governance</dc:subject>
    
    
        <dc:subject>Accountability</dc:subject>
    

   <dc:date>2014-07-04T06:48:36Z</dc:date>
   <dc:type>Blog Entry</dc:type>
   </item>


    <item rdf:about="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis2019-efforts-towards-greater-financial-disclosure-by-icann">
    <title>CIS’ Efforts Towards Greater Financial Disclosure by ICANN</title>
    <link>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis2019-efforts-towards-greater-financial-disclosure-by-icann</link>
    <description>
        &lt;b&gt;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. &lt;/b&gt;
        &lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;&lt;span&gt;With the $135 million sale of .web,&lt;a href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1"&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;span&gt;[1]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/a&gt; the much protested renewal of the .net agreement&lt;a href="#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2"&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;span&gt;[2]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/a&gt; and the continued annual increase in domain name registrations,&lt;a href="#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3"&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;span&gt;[3]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/a&gt; 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.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;span&gt;1.Efforts towards disclosure of revenue break-up by ICANN&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;span&gt;- 2014&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;span&gt;- 2015&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;span&gt;- 2017&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;span&gt;2.The need for granularity regarding historical revenues&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;&lt;span&gt;-----&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;span&gt;1.Efforts towards disclosure of revenue break-up by ICANN&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;span&gt;- 2014&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;&lt;span&gt;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.&lt;a href="#_ftn4" name="_ftnref4"&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;span&gt;[4]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/a&gt; 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.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;&lt;span&gt;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.&lt;a href="#_ftn5" name="_ftnref5"&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;span&gt;[5]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/a&gt; It sought a list of individuals and entities who had contributed to ICANN’s revenues over the mentioned time period.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;&lt;span&gt;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.&lt;a href="#_ftn6" name="_ftnref6"&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;span&gt;[6]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/a&gt; 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.&lt;a href="#_ftn7" name="_ftnref7"&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;span&gt;[7]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;span&gt;- 2015&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;&lt;span&gt;In July 2015, CIS filed a request for disclosure of raw data regarding granular income for the years 1999 to 2014.&lt;a href="#_ftn8" name="_ftnref8"&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;span&gt;[8]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/a&gt; 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’.&lt;a href="#_ftn9" name="_ftnref9"&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;span&gt;[9]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/a&gt; However, it mentioned its commitment to preparing detailed reports on a go-forward basis - all of which would be uploaded on its Financials page.&lt;a href="#_ftn10" name="_ftnref10"&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;span&gt;[10]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;span&gt;- 2017&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;&lt;span&gt;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.&lt;a href="#_ftn11" name="_ftnref11"&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;span&gt;[11]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/a&gt; 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.&lt;a href="#_ftn12" name="_ftnref12"&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;span&gt;[12]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;span&gt;2.The need for granularity regarding historical revenues&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;&lt;span&gt;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.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;&lt;span&gt;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. &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;&lt;span&gt;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.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;p&gt; &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1"&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;span&gt;[1]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href="https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2016-07-28-en"&gt;&lt;span&gt;https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2016-07-28-en&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2"&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;span&gt;[2]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;span&gt; Report of Public Comment Proceeding on the .net Renewal. &lt;/span&gt;&lt;a href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-comments-net-renewal-13jun17-en.pdf"&gt;&lt;span&gt;https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-comments-net-renewal-13jun17-en.pdf&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="#_ftnref3" name="_ftn3"&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;span&gt;[3]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href="https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/cct-metrics-domain-name-registration-2016-06-27-en"&gt;&lt;span&gt;https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/cct-metrics-domain-name-registration-2016-06-27-en&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="#_ftnref4" name="_ftn4"&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;span&gt;[4]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis-receives-information-on-icanns-revenues-from-domain-names-fy-2014"&gt;&lt;span&gt;https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis-receives-information-on-icanns-revenues-from-domain-names-fy-2014&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="#_ftnref5" name="_ftn5"&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;span&gt;[5]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;span&gt; DIDP &lt;span&gt;Request no - 20141222-1, &lt;/span&gt;22 December 2014. &lt;/span&gt;&lt;a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-2"&gt;&lt;span&gt;https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-2&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="#_ftnref6" name="_ftn6"&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;span&gt;[6]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cis-response-21jan15-en.pdf"&gt;&lt;span&gt;https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cis-response-21jan15-en.pdf&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="#_ftnref7" name="_ftn7"&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;span&gt;[7]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;span&gt; Defined Conditions for Non-Disclosure - &lt;span&gt;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.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/didp-2012-02-25-en"&gt;&lt;span&gt;https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/didp-2012-02-25-en&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="#_ftnref8" name="_ftn8"&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;span&gt;[8]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;span&gt; DIDP &lt;span&gt;Request no - 20150722-2, 22 July 2015. &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-12-revenues"&gt;&lt;span&gt;https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-12-revenues&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="#_ftnref9" name="_ftn9"&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;span&gt;[9]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-response-20150722-2-21aug15-en.pdf"&gt;&lt;span&gt;https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-response-20150722-2-21aug15-en.pdf&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="#_ftnref10" name="_ftn10"&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;span&gt;[10]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-response-20150722-2-21aug15-en.pdf"&gt;&lt;span&gt;https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-response-20150722-2-21aug15-en.pdf&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;span&gt;; &lt;/span&gt;&lt;a href="https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/financials-en"&gt;&lt;span&gt;https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/financials-en&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="#_ftnref11" name="_ftn11"&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;span&gt;[11]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;span&gt; DIDP Request No. 20170613-1, 14 June 2017. &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="#_ftnref12" name="_ftn12"&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;span&gt;[12]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-20170613-1-marda-obo-cis-response-13jul17-en.pdf"&gt;&lt;span&gt;https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-20170613-1-marda-obo-cis-response-13jul17-en.pdf&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
        &lt;p&gt;
        For more details visit &lt;a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis2019-efforts-towards-greater-financial-disclosure-by-icann'&gt;https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis2019-efforts-towards-greater-financial-disclosure-by-icann&lt;/a&gt;
        &lt;/p&gt;
    </description>
    <dc:publisher>No publisher</dc:publisher>
    <dc:creator>Padma Venkataraman</dc:creator>
    <dc:rights></dc:rights>

    
        <dc:subject>ICANN</dc:subject>
    
    
        <dc:subject>Transparency</dc:subject>
    
    
        <dc:subject>Internet Governance</dc:subject>
    
    
        <dc:subject>Accountability</dc:subject>
    

   <dc:date>2017-10-31T02:10:11Z</dc:date>
   <dc:type>Blog Entry</dc:type>
   </item>


    <item rdf:about="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/icann49-public-forum-statement">
    <title>CIS Statement at ICANN 49's Public Forum</title>
    <link>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/icann49-public-forum-statement</link>
    <description>
        &lt;b&gt;This was a statement made by Pranesh Prakash at the ICANN 49 meeting (on March 27, 2014), arguing that ICANN's bias towards the North America and Western Europe result in a lack of legitimacy, and hoping that the IANA transition process provides an opportunity to address this.&lt;/b&gt;
        &lt;p&gt;Good afternoon. My name is Pranesh Prakash, and I'm with the Yale Information Society Project and the Centre for Internet and Society.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;I am extremely concerned about the accountability of ICANN to the global community.  Due to various decisions made by the US government relating to ICANN's birth, ICANN has had a troubled history with legitimacy.  While it has managed to gain and retain the confidence of the technical community, it still lacks political legitimacy due to its history.  The NTIA's decision has presented us an opportunity to correct this.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;However, ICANN can't hope to do so without going beyond the current ICANN community, which while nominally being 'multistakeholder' and open to all, grossly under-represents those parts of the world that aren't North America and Western Europe.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Of the 1010 ICANN-accredited registrars, 624 are from the United States, and 7 from the 54 countries of Africa.  In a session yesterday, a large number of the policies that favour entrenched incumbents from richer countries were discussed.  But without adequate representation from poorer countries, and adequate representation from the rest of the world's Internet population, there is no hope of changing these policies.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is true not just of the business sector, but of all the 'stakeholders' that are part of global Internet policymaking, whether they follow the ICANN multistakeholder model or another.  A look at the boardmembers of the Internet Architecture Board, for instance, would reveal how skewed the technical community can be, whether in terms of geographic or gender diversity.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Without greater diversity within the global Internet policymaking communities, there is no hope of equity, respect for human rights -- civil, political, cultural, social and economic --, and democratic funtioning, no matter how 'open' the processes seem to be, and no hope of ICANN accountability either.&lt;/p&gt;
        &lt;p&gt;
        For more details visit &lt;a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/icann49-public-forum-statement'&gt;https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/icann49-public-forum-statement&lt;/a&gt;
        &lt;/p&gt;
    </description>
    <dc:publisher>No publisher</dc:publisher>
    <dc:creator>pranesh</dc:creator>
    <dc:rights></dc:rights>

    
        <dc:subject>IANA</dc:subject>
    
    
        <dc:subject>IG4all</dc:subject>
    
    
        <dc:subject>Internet Governance</dc:subject>
    
    
        <dc:subject>Accountability</dc:subject>
    
    
        <dc:subject>ICANN</dc:subject>
    
    
        <dc:subject>North vs South</dc:subject>
    

   <dc:date>2014-06-04T05:31:44Z</dc:date>
   <dc:type>Blog Entry</dc:type>
   </item>


    <item rdf:about="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-rti-request-to-dipp-number-3-february-2015">
    <title>CIS RTI REQUEST TO DIPP - NUMBER 3 - FEBRUARY, 2015</title>
    <link>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-rti-request-to-dipp-number-3-february-2015</link>
    <description>
        &lt;b&gt;&lt;/b&gt;
        
        &lt;p&gt;
        For more details visit &lt;a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-rti-request-to-dipp-number-3-february-2015'&gt;https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-rti-request-to-dipp-number-3-february-2015&lt;/a&gt;
        &lt;/p&gt;
    </description>
    <dc:publisher>No publisher</dc:publisher>
    <dc:creator>nehaa</dc:creator>
    <dc:rights></dc:rights>

    
        <dc:subject>Government Information</dc:subject>
    
    
        <dc:subject>Access to Knowledge</dc:subject>
    
    
        <dc:subject>DIPP</dc:subject>
    
    
        <dc:subject>Intellectual Property Rights</dc:subject>
    
    
        <dc:subject>Accountability</dc:subject>
    
    
        <dc:subject>NATIONAL IPR POLICY</dc:subject>
    
    
        <dc:subject>IPR THINK TANK</dc:subject>
    

   <dc:date>2015-04-14T17:28:53Z</dc:date>
   <dc:type>File</dc:type>
   </item>


    <item rdf:about="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-rti-request-to-dipp-number-1-february-2015">
    <title>CIS RTI REQUEST TO DIPP - NUMBER 1 - FEBRUARY, 2015</title>
    <link>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-rti-request-to-dipp-number-1-february-2015</link>
    <description>
        &lt;b&gt;&lt;/b&gt;
        
        &lt;p&gt;
        For more details visit &lt;a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-rti-request-to-dipp-number-1-february-2015'&gt;https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-rti-request-to-dipp-number-1-february-2015&lt;/a&gt;
        &lt;/p&gt;
    </description>
    <dc:publisher>No publisher</dc:publisher>
    <dc:creator>nehaa</dc:creator>
    <dc:rights></dc:rights>

    
        <dc:subject>Access to Knowledge</dc:subject>
    
    
        <dc:subject>Copyright</dc:subject>
    
    
        <dc:subject>Intellectual Property Rights</dc:subject>
    
    
        <dc:subject>Accountability</dc:subject>
    
    
        <dc:subject>Patents</dc:subject>
    

   <dc:date>2015-04-14T17:17:53Z</dc:date>
   <dc:type>File</dc:type>
   </item>


    <item rdf:about="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis-comments-enhancing-icann-accountability">
    <title>CIS Comments: Enhancing ICANN Accountability</title>
    <link>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis-comments-enhancing-icann-accountability</link>
    <description>
        &lt;b&gt;On May 6, 2014, ICANN published a call for public comments on "Enhancing ICANN Accountability". This comes in the wake of the IANA stewardship transition spearheaded by ICANN and related concerns of ICANN's external and internal accountability mechanisms. Centre for Internet and Society contributed to the call for comments.&lt;/b&gt;
        &lt;h3&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Introduction:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/h3&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;On March 14, 2014, the US National Telecommunications and Information Administration &lt;a href="http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-transition-key-internet-domain-name-functions"&gt;announced its intent&lt;/a&gt; to transition key Internet domain name functions to the global multi-stakeholder Internet governance community. ICANN was tasked with the development of a proposal for transition of IANA stewardship, for which ICANN subsequently &lt;a href="https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/draft-proposal-2014-04-08-en"&gt;called for public comments&lt;/a&gt;. At NETmundial, ICANN President and CEO Fadi Chehadé acknowledged that the IANA stewardship transition and improved ICANN accountability were &lt;a href="http://www.internetcommerce.org/issuance-of-netmundial-multistakeholder-statement-concludes-act-one-of-2014-internet-governance-trifecta/"&gt;inter-related issues&lt;/a&gt;, and &lt;a href="http://blog.icann.org/2014/05/icanns-accountability-in-the-wake-of-the-iana-functions-stewardship-transition/"&gt;announced&lt;/a&gt; the impending launch of a process to strengthen and enhance ICANN accountability in the absence of US government oversight. The subsequent call for public comments on “Enhancing ICANN Accountability” may be found &lt;a href="https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/enhancing-accountability-2014-05-06-en"&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h3&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Suggestions for improved accountability:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/h3&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;In the event, Centre for Internet and Society (“CIS”) wishes to limit its suggestions for improved ICANN accountability to matters of reactive or responsive transparency on the part of ICANN to the global multi-stakeholder community. We propose the creation and implementation of a robust “freedom or right to information” process from ICANN, accompanied by an independent review mechanism.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Article III of ICANN Bye-laws note that “&lt;i&gt;ICANN and its constituent bodies shall operate to the maximum extent feasible in an open and transparent manner and consistent with procedures designed to ensure fairness&lt;/i&gt;”. As part of this, Article III(2) note that ICANN shall make publicly available information on, &lt;i&gt;inter alia&lt;/i&gt;, ICANN’s budget, annual audit, financial contributors and the amount of their contributions, as well as information on accountability mechanisms and the outcome of specific requests and complaints regarding the same. Such accountability mechanisms include reconsideration (Article IV(2)), independent review of Board actions (Article IV(3)), periodic reviews (Article IV(4)) and the Ombudsman (Article V).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Further, ICANN’s Documentary Information Disclosure Policy (“DIDP”) sets forth a process by which members of the public may request information “&lt;i&gt;not already publicly available&lt;/i&gt;”. ICANN &lt;a href="https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/didp-2012-02-25-en"&gt;may respond&lt;/a&gt; (either affirmatively or in denial) to such requests within 30 days. Appeals to denials under the DIDP are available under the reconsideration or independent review procedures, to the extent applicable.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;While ICANN has historically been prompt in its response to DIDP Requests, CIS is of the view that absent the commitments in the AoC following IANA stewardship transition, it would be desirable to amend and strengthen Response and Appeal procedures for DIDP and other, broader disclosures. Our concerns stem from the fact that, &lt;i&gt;first&lt;/i&gt;, the substantive scope of appeal under the DIDP, on the basis of documents requested, is unclear (say, contracts or financial documents regarding payments to Registries or Registrars, or a detailed, granular break-up of ICANN’s revenue and expenditures); and &lt;i&gt;second&lt;/i&gt;, that grievances with decisions of the Board Governance Committee or the Independent Review Panel cannot be appealed.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;Therefore, CIS proposes a mechanism based on “right to information” best practices, which results in transparent and accountable governance at governmental levels.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;&lt;i&gt;First&lt;/i&gt;, we propose that designated members of ICANN staff shoulder responsibility to respond to information requests. The identity of such members (information officers, say) ought to be made public, including in the response document.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;&lt;i&gt;Second&lt;/i&gt;, an independent, third party body should be constituted to sit in appeal over information officers’ decisions to provide or decline to provide information. Such body may be composed of nominated members from the global multi-stakeholder community, with adequate stakeholder-, regional- and gender-representation. However, such members should not have held prior positions in ICANN or its related organizations. During the appointed term of the body, the terms and conditions of service ought to remain beyond the purview of ICANN, similar to globally accepted principles of an independent judiciary. For instance, the Constitution of India forbids any disadvantageous alteration of privileges and allowances of judges of the &lt;a href="http://www.constitution.org/cons/india/p05125.html"&gt;Supreme Court&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href="http://www.constitution.org/cons/india/p06221.html"&gt;High Courts&lt;/a&gt; during tenure.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;&lt;i&gt;Third&lt;/i&gt;, and importantly, punitive measures ought to follow unreasonable, unexplained or illegitimate denials of requests by ICANN information officers. In order to ensure compliance, penalties should be made continuing (a certain prescribed fine for each day of information-denial) on concerned officers. Such punitive measures are accepted, for instance, in Section 20 of India’s Right to Information Act, 2005, where the review body may impose continuing penalties on any defaulting officer.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;&lt;i&gt;Finally&lt;/i&gt;, exceptions to disclosure should be finite and time-bound. Any and all information exempted from disclosure should be clearly set out (and not merely as categories of exempted information). Further, all exempted information should be made public after a prescribed period of time (say, 1 year), after which any member of the public may request for the same if it continues to be unavailable.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;CIS hopes that ICANN shall deliver on its promise to ensure and enhance its accountability and transparency to the global multi-stakeholder community. To that end, we hope our suggestions may be positively considered.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h3 style="text-align: justify; "&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Comment repository&lt;/strong&gt;:&lt;/h3&gt;
&lt;p style="text-align: justify; "&gt;All comments received by ICANN during the comment period (May 6, 2014 to June 6, 2014) may be found &lt;a href="http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-enhancing-accountability-06may14/"&gt;at this link&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
        &lt;p&gt;
        For more details visit &lt;a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis-comments-enhancing-icann-accountability'&gt;https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis-comments-enhancing-icann-accountability&lt;/a&gt;
        &lt;/p&gt;
    </description>
    <dc:publisher>No publisher</dc:publisher>
    <dc:creator>geetha</dc:creator>
    <dc:rights></dc:rights>

    
        <dc:subject>IANA</dc:subject>
    
    
        <dc:subject>Internet Governance</dc:subject>
    
    
        <dc:subject>NETmundial</dc:subject>
    
    
        <dc:subject>ICANN</dc:subject>
    
    
        <dc:subject>Accountability</dc:subject>
    

   <dc:date>2014-06-10T13:03:57Z</dc:date>
   <dc:type>Blog Entry</dc:type>
   </item>


    <item rdf:about="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">
    <title>(Updated) Information Security Practices of Aadhaar (or lack thereof): A documentation of public availability of Aadhaar Numbers with sensitive personal financial information</title>
    <link>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</link>
    <description>
        &lt;b&gt;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.
&lt;/b&gt;
        
&lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h4&gt;Read the updated report: &lt;a class="external-link" href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/information-security-practices-of-aadhaar-or-lack-thereof/" target="_blank"&gt;Download&lt;/a&gt; (pdf)&lt;/h4&gt;
&lt;h4&gt;Read the first statement of clarification (May 16, 2017): &lt;a class="external-link" href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/clarification-on-information-security-practices-of-the-aadhaar-report/" target="_blank"&gt;Download&lt;/a&gt; (pdf)&lt;/h4&gt;
&lt;h4&gt;Read the second statement of clarification (November 05, 2018): &lt;a class="external-link" href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/clarification-on-the-information-security-practices-of-aadhaar-report" target="_blank"&gt;Link to page&lt;/a&gt; (html)&lt;/h4&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;We are grateful to Yesha Paul and VG Shreeram for research support.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;

        &lt;p&gt;
        For more details visit &lt;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'&gt;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&lt;/a&gt;
        &lt;/p&gt;
    </description>
    <dc:publisher>No publisher</dc:publisher>
    <dc:creator>Amber Sinha and Srinivas Kodali</dc:creator>
    <dc:rights></dc:rights>

    
        <dc:subject>Digital ID</dc:subject>
    
    
        <dc:subject>Privacy</dc:subject>
    
    
        <dc:subject>NDSAP</dc:subject>
    
    
        <dc:subject>Data Protection</dc:subject>
    
    
        <dc:subject>Accountability</dc:subject>
    
    
        <dc:subject>Featured</dc:subject>
    
    
        <dc:subject>Data Governance</dc:subject>
    
    
        <dc:subject>Aadhaar</dc:subject>
    
    
        <dc:subject>Digitisation</dc:subject>
    
    
        <dc:subject>Homepage</dc:subject>
    
    
        <dc:subject>Internet Governance</dc:subject>
    
    
        <dc:subject>Data Management</dc:subject>
    

   <dc:date>2019-03-13T00:29:01Z</dc:date>
   <dc:type>Blog Entry</dc:type>
   </item>




</rdf:RDF>
