Centre for Internet and Society

Take-away from the I&J Project Workshop at the UN Internet Governance Forum 2015

praskrishna — 2015-11-30T14:09:57Z

The Internet & Jurisdiction Project organized the workshop “Transnational due process: A case study in multi-stakeholder cooperation” at the Internet Governance Forum convened by the United Nations on November 13, 2015.

This was published on Internet & Jurisdiction website.

The 4-day conference convened over 2000 high-level participants from states, major global Internet companies, technical Internet operators, international organizations, civil society groups and academia.

Video

The workshop organized by the I&J Project discussed how to address the tension between the cross-border nature of the Internet and a patchwork of national jurisdictions by enabling multi-stakeholder cooperation. Sunil Abraham, the Director of CIS India, stressed the limits of traditional modes of inter-state legal cooperation on the Internet:

The MLAT system is completely broken […] both from the demand side and also from the supply side.

The US Cyber Coordinator of the State Department, Christopher Painter, stated the need to streamline procedures of Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties, but also highlighted the importance of pursuing in parallel more innovative approaches, such as the Internet & Jurisdiction process:

MLATS are not always the right answer. There are other answers between law enforcement channels in terms of joint investigations and there are also creative solutions that might take some of the burden off that MLAT process and I think that those are worthy of exploration.

Representing the Canadian ccTLD .ca, Mark Bull reflected upon how to develop such solutions to maintain the global nature of the Internet.

We are talking about incredibly complex issues here and I believe that complexity necessitates a multi-stakeholder process to identify solutions. And that is what I think the beauty of the Internet & Jurisdiction Project is. And it’s why because of the multi-stakeholder structure, that’s why we believe it is the best and the most effective form for discussing issues this complex.

Panelist Eileen Donahoe, the Director of Global Affairs at Human Rights Watch applauded the progress the Internet & Jurisdiction process made since 2012:

Let me say that the work of the I&J Project has been relentless and it is really important. This is one of the most complex spaces in Internet governance

The jurisdiction topic has become one of the most pressing Internet governance challenges, as I&J Project Director and Co-Founder Bertrand de La Chapelle pointed out:

There is a real element of urgency. The jurisdiction issue is at the core of many Internet governance problems. And it has been said in many workshops here in the IGF, but also outside of it. The problem is really getting worse. The jurisdiction problem is probably one of the biggest threats to the fabric of the Internet as we know it.

The objective of the workshop was to gather participants in the global Internet & Jurisdiction process from different stakeholder groups to report on progress and achievements. Furthermore, the workshop deepened the understanding of how to address jurisdictional tensions around the Internet and establish innovative legal cooperation mechanisms to prevent its fragmentation along national territorial boundaries.Council of Europe’s Elvana Thaci reminded participants of the importance to develop harmonized procedures across borders, as

Harmonization of substance is very difficult because the understanding of unlawfulness of content is very diverse.

Facebook’s Head of Policy Development, Matt Perault, talked about the need for appropriate procedures:

I am here because I believe the I&J Project is devoted to figuring out how to think about mechanisms for a race to the top on the issue of jurisdiction.

The pioneering Internet & Jurisdiction process has engaged more than 100 key entities around the world, creating a unique neutral space to build trust and catalyze operational solutions. As Will Hudson, Google’s Senior Advisor for International Policy, said:

We need to find solutions that work for all parties. It is one of the great strengths of the I&J Project, that it is looking at this challenge head on. We need to do things in this multi-stakeholder manner, and talk as a community because everyone has a stake in this and we cannot do this alone.

Participants

ANNE CARBLANC, Head of Division, Directorate for Science, Technology and Industry, OECD
BYRON HOLLAND, President and CEO, CIRA (Canadian ccTLD)
CHRISTOPHER PAINTER, Coordinator for Cyber Issues, US Department of State
EILEEN DONAHOE, Director Global Affairs, Human Rights Watch
EVANA THACI, Administrator, Council of Europe
MATT PERAULT, Head of Policy Development, Facebook
SUNIL ABRAHAM, Executive Director, CIS India
WILL HUDSEN, Senior Advisor for International Policy, Google

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/take-away-from-the-i-j-project-workshop-at-the-un-internet-governance-forum-2015

Report on CIS' Workshop at the IGF:'An Evidence Based Framework for Intermediary Liability'

jyoti — 2014-09-24T10:47:30Z

An evidence based framework for intermediary liability' was organised to present evidence and discuss ongoing research on the changing definition, function and responsibilities of intermediaries across jurisdictions.

The discussion from the workshop will contribute to a comprehensible framework for liability, consistent with the capacity of the intermediary and with international human-rights standards.

Electronic Frontier Foundation (USA), Article 19 (UK) and Centre for Internet and Society (India) have come together towards the development of best practices and principles related to the regulation of online content through intermediaries. The nine principles are: Transparency, Consistency, Clarity, Mindful Community Policy Making, Necessity and Proportionality in Content Restrictions, Privacy, Access to Remedy, Accountability, and Due Process in both Legal and Private Enforcement. The workshop discussion will contribute to a comprehensible framework for liability that is consistent with the capacity of the intermediary and with international human-rights standards. The session was hosted by Centre for Internet and Society (India) and Centre for Internet and Society, Stanford (USA) and attended by 7 speakers and 40 participants.

Jeremy Malcolm, Senior Global Policy Analyst EFF kicked off the workshop highlighting the need to develop a liability framework for intermediaries that is derived out of an understanding of their different functions, their role within the economy and their impact on human rights. He went on to structure the discussion which would follow to focus on ongoing projects and examples that highlight central issues related to gathering and presenting evidence to inform the policy space.

Martin Husovec from the International Max Planck Research School for Competition and Innovation, began his presentation, tracking the development of safe harbour frameworks within social contract theory. Opining that safe harbour was created as a balancing mechanism between a return of investments of the right holders and public interest for Internet as a public space, he introduced emerging claims that technological advancement have altered this equilibrium. Citing injunctions and private lawsuits as instruments, often used against law abiding intermediaries, he pointed to the problem within existing liability frameoworks, where even intermediaries, who diligently deal with illegitimate content on their services, can be still subject to a forced cooperation to the benefit of right holders. He added that for liability frameworks to be effective, they must keep pace with advances in technology and are fair to right holders and the public interest.

He also pointed that in any liability framework because the ‘law’ that prescribes an interference, must be always sufficiently clear and foreseeable, as to both the meaning and nature of the applicable measures, so it sufficiently outlines the scope and manner of exercise of the power of interference in the exercise of the rights guaranteed. He illustrated this with the example of the German Federal Supreme Court attempts with Wi-Fi policy-making in 2010. He also raised issues of costs of uncertainty in seeking courts as the only means to balance rights as they often, do not have the necessary information. Similarly, society also does not benefit from open ended accountability of intermediaries and called for a balanced approach to regulation.

The need for consistency in liability regimes across jurisdictions, was raised by Giancarlo Frosio, Intermediary Liability Fellow at Stanford's Centre for Internet and Society. He introduced the World Intermediary Liability Map, a project mapping legislation and case law across 70 countries towards creating a repository of information that informs policymaking and helps create accountability. Highlighting key takeaways from his research, he stressed the necessity of having clear definitions in the field of intermediary liability and the need to develop taxonomy of issues to deepen our understanding of the issues at stake towards an understanding of type of liability appropriate for a particular jurisdiction.

Nicolo Zingales, Assistant Professor of Law at Tilburg University highlighted the need for due process and safeguards for human rights and called for more user involvement in systems that are in place in different countries to respond to requests of takedown. Presenting his research findings, he pointed to the imbalance in the way notice and takedown regimes are structured, where content is taken down presumptively, but the possibility of restoring user content is provided only at a subsequent stage or not at all in many cases. He cited several examples of enhancing user participation in liability mechanisms including notice and notice, strict litigation sanction inferring the knowledge that the content might have been legal and shifting the presumption in favor of the users and the reverse notice and takedown procedure. He also raised the important question, if multistakeholder cooperation is sufficient or adequate to enable the users to have a say and enter as part of the social construct in this space? Reminding the participants of the failure of the multistakeholder agreement process regarding the cost for the filters in the UK, that would be imposed according to judicial procedure, he called for strengthening our efforts to enable users to get more involved in protecting their rights online.

Gabrielle Guillemin from Article 19 presented her research on the types of intermediaries and models of liability in place across jurisdictions. Pointing to the problems associated with intermediaries having to monitor content and determine legality of content, she called for procedural safeguards and stressed the need to place the dispute back in the hands of users and content owners and the person who has written the content rather than the intermediary. She goes on to provide some useful and practically-grounded solutions to strengthen existing takedown mechanisms including, adding details to the notices, introducing fees in order to extend the number of claims that are made and defining procedure regards criminal content.

Elonnai Hickok introduced CIS' research to the UNESCO report Fostering Freedom Online: the Role of Internet Intermediaries, comparing a range of liability models in different stages of development and provisions across jurisdictions. She argued for a liability framework that tackles procedural and regulatory uncertainty, lack of due process, lack of remedy and varying content criteria.

Francisco Vera, Advocacy Director, Derechos Digitales from Chile raised issues related to mindful community policy-making expounding on Chile's implementation of intermediary liability obligation with the USA, the introduction of judicial oversight under Chilean legislation which led to US objection to Chile on grounds of not fulfilling their standards in terms of Internet property protection. He highlighted the tensions that arise in balancing the needs of the multiple communities and interests engaged over common resources and stressed the need for evidence in policy-making to balance the needs of rights holders and public interest. He stressed the need for evidence to inform policy-making and ensure it keeps pace with technological developments citing the example of the ongoing Transpacific Partnership Agreement negotiations that call for exporting provisions DMCA provisions to 11 countries even though there is no evidence of the success of the system for public interest. He concluded by cautioning against the development of frameworks that are or have the potential to be used as anti-competitive mechanisms that curtail innovation and therby do not serve public interest.

Malcolm Hutty associated with the European Internet Service Providers Association, Chair of the Intermediary Reliability Committee and London Internet Exchange brought in the intermediaries' perspective into the discussion. He argued for challenging the link between liability and forced cooperation, understated the problems arising from distinction without a difference and incentives built in within existing regimes. He raised issues arising from the expectancy on the part of those engaged in pre-emptive regulation of unwanted or undesirable content for intermediaries to automate content. Pointing to the increasing impact of intermediaries in our lives he underscored how exposing vast areas of people's lives to regulatory enforce, which enhances power of the state to implement public policy in the public interest and expect it to be executed, can have both positive and negative implications on issues such as privacy and freedom of expression.

He called out practices in regulatory regimes that focus on one size fits all solutions such as seeking automating filters on a massive scale and instead called for context and content specific solutions, that factor the commercial imperatives of intermediaries. He also addressed the economic consequences of liability frameworks to the industry including cost effectiveness of balancing rights, barriers to investments that arise in heavily regulated or new types of online services that are likely to be the targeted for specific enforcement measures and the long term costs of adapting old enforcement mechanisms that apply, while networks need to be updated to extend services to users.

The workshop presented evidence of a variety of approaches and the issues that arise in applying those approaches to impose liability on intermediaries. Two choices emerged towards developing frameworks for enforcing responsibility on intermediaries. We could either rely on a traditional approach, essentially court-based and off-line mechanisms for regulating behaviour and disputes. The downside of this is it will be slow and costly to the public purse. In particular, we will lose a great deal of the opportunity to extend regulation much more deeply into people's lives so as to implement the public interest.

Alternatively, we could rely on intermediaries to develop and automate systems to control our online behaviour. While this approach does not suffer from efficiency problems of the earlier approach it does lack, both in terms of hindering the developments of the Information Society, and potentially yielding up many of the traditionally expected protections under a free and liberal society. The right approach lies somewhere in the middle and development of International Principles for Intermediary Liability, announced at the end of the workshop, is a step closer to the developing a balanced framework for liability.

See the transcript on IGF website.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/report-on-cis-workshop-at-igf

Who is Following Me: Tracking the Trackers (IGF2012)

praskrishna — 2012-12-07T17:17:32Z

The Internet Society and the Council of Europe are co-organising a workshop at the IGF (Baku - 8 November 2012 - 09:00 - 10:30) regarding online tracking. Malavika Jayaram is a speaker.

Interest in online tracking as a policy issue spiked with the release of the Preliminary Federal Trade Commission Staff Report in December 2010 entitled Protecting Consumer Privacy in an Era of Rapid Change – A Proposed Framework for Businesses and Policymakers calling for a “do not track” mechanism, the launch of the W3C Tracking Protection Workng Group and the recent entry into force of the so-called European “Cookie Directive” provisions. However, the actual and potential observation of individuals’ interactions online has long been a concern for privacy advocates and others.

Much of the policy attention is currently focused on cookies used to track users to build profiles for more targeted advertising, but some of the more difficult issues are:

How to deal with less-observable tracking (e.g. browser and/or device fingerprinting, monitoring of publicly disclosed information)
How to develop laws that accommodate different tracking scenarios – for example:
- different entities (law enforcement, companies, etc.);
- different and sometimes multiple purposes (security, personalising user experience, targeting advertising, malicious activity; etc.);
- first-party and third-party tracking o single site and multiple site tracking
Transparency (particularly on small mobile devices)
Whether a traditional consent model is sufficient and effective

The panel:

Wendy Seltzer, Policy Council, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
Kimon Zorbas, Vice President, Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB) Europe
Cornelia Kutterer, Director of Regulatory Policy, Corporate Affairs, LCA, Microsoft EMEA
Malavika Jayaram, partner at Jayaram & Jayaram, Bangalore
Shaundra Watson, Counsel for international consumer protection, USA Federal Trade Commission
Rob van Eijk, Council of Europe expert, Leiden University (PhD student)

The moderators:

Christine Runnegar, Internet Society
Sophie Kwasny, Council of Europe

The remote moderator:

James Lawson, Council of Europe

This workshop will explore:

Current and emerging trends in online tracking (and their related purposes)
How to give individuals full knowledge of the tracking that occurs when they go online
Mechanisms to give individuals greater control over tracking and data use
The respective roles of all actors (government, law enforcement, Internet intermediaries, businesses, browser vendors, application developers, advertisers, data brokers, users, Internet technical community, etc.)
Whether effective data protection online can be ensured solely by law.
Whether self-regulation and voluntary consensus standards offer better options for tuning privacy choice to the rapidly advancing technology environment.

Please read our background paper and update

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/who-is-following-me

Understanding and Mitigating Online Hate Speech and Youth Radicalisation

praskrishna — 2015-10-01T01:59:24Z

The tenth annual IGF meeting will be held in João Pessoa, Brazil, on November 10 - 13, 2015. IGF's MAG has decided to retain the title “Evolution of Internet Governance: Empowering Sustainable Development” as the overarching theme. UNESCO as part of the IGF event is organizing a workshop on hate speech and youth radicalisation. Sunil Abraham will be a panelist for this workshop.

Co-organizers: Council of Europe, Oxford University; OHCHR, Google, ISOC

From socializing and entertainment to homework, the Internet is an essential part of life for young people today, opening vast new opportunities for connecting and learning. At the same time, the Internet provides violent extremists with powerful tools to propagate hatred and violence and to identify and groom potential recruits, creating global online communities that promote radicalization.

The emergence and diffusion of hate speech online is a new and fast evolving phenomenon and collective efforts are needed to understand its significance and consequences, as well as to develop effective responses.

UNESCO takes this session to share the initial outcome from its commissioned research on online hate speech including practical recommendations on combating against online hate speech through understanding the challenges, mobilizing civil society, lobbying private sectors and intermediaries and educating individuals with Media and Information Literacy. In related to this, the workshop would also discuss how to help empower youth to address online radicalization and extremism, and realize their aspirations to contribute to a more peaceful and sustainable world.

Chaired by Ms Lidia Brito, Director for UNESCO Office in Montevideo
Frank La Rue, Former Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression
Lillian Nalwoga, President ISOC Uganda and rep CIPESA, Technical community
Bridget O’Loughlin, CoE, IGO
Gabrielle Guillemin, Article 19
Iyad Kallas, Radio Souriali
Sunil Abraham executive director of Center for Internet and Society, Bangalore, India
Eve Salomon, global Chairman of the Regulatory Board of RICS (the self-regulatory body for surveyors)
Javier Lesaca Esquiroz, University of Navarra
Representative GNI
Remote Moderator: Xianhong Hu, UNESCO
Rapporteur: Guilherme Canela De Souza Godoi, UNESCO

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/understanding-and-mitigating-online-hate-speech-and-youth-radicalisation

Transnational Due Process: A Case Study in Multi-stakeholder Cooperation

praskrishna — 2015-11-07T15:47:41Z

The Internet & Jurisdiction Project is organizing the workshop “Transnational due process: A case study in multi-stakeholder cooperation” at the Internet Governance Forum convened by the United Nations on November 10-13, 2015. Sunil Abraham will be a speaker in this event.

Multi-stakeholder cooperation is necessary to develop and implement operational solutions to Internet Governance challenges. One such challenge is the tension between the cross-border nature of the Internet and diverse national jurisdictions. As a result, direct requests are increasingly addressed by public authorities and courts in one country to Internet platforms and DNS operators in other jurisdictions for domain seizures, content takedowns and user identification.

Since 2012, the Internet & Jurisdiction Project facilitates a multi-stakeholder dialogue process on this issue. More than 80 entities have collaboratively produced a draft transnational due process framework.

The roundtable at the Internet Governance Forum 20125 will gather participants in the I&J Project from different stakeholder groups to report on the progress of the Internet & Jurisdiction process and talk about:

the method employed to develop this framework, challenges encountered and solutions found
the potential distribution of roles among the respective stakeholders in the operation of the diverse framework components

Participants

ANNE CARBLANC, Head of Division, Directorate for Science, Technology and Industry, OECD
EILEEN DONAHUE, Director Global Affairs, Human Rights Watch
BYRON HOLLAND, President and CEO, CIRA (Canadian ccTLD)
CHRISTOPHER PAINTER, Coordinator for Cyber Issues, US Department of State
SUNIL ABRAHAM, Executive Director, CIS India
ALICE MUNYUA, Lead dotAfrica Initiative and GAC representative, African Union Commission
Speaker tbc, Google
FRANK LaRUE, Former UN Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression
Speaker tbc, German Federal Foreign Office
HARTMUT GLASER, Executive Secretary, Brazilian Internet Steering Committee
MATT PERAULT, Head of Policy Development, Facebook

This was published on the website of Internet & Jurisdiction Also see this on IGF website.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/transnational-due-process-a-case-study-in-multi-stakeholder-cooperation

Civil Society Organisations and Internet Governance in Asia - Open Review

sumandro — 2015-11-13T05:54:33Z

This is a book section written for the third volume (2000-2010) of the Asia Internet History series edited by Prof. Kilnam Chon. The pre-publication text of the section is being shared here to invite suggestions for addition and modification. Please share your comments via email sent to raw[at]cis-india[dot]org with 'Civil Society Organisations and Internet Governance in Asia - Comments' as the subject line. This text is published under Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International license.

You are most welcome to read the pre-publication drafts of other sections of the Asia Internet History Vol. 3, and share your comments: https://sites.google.com/site/internethistoryasia/book3.

Preparations for the World Summit on the Information Society

The World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) conferences organized by the United Nations in Geneva (2003) and Tunis (2005) initiated crucial platforms and networks, some temporary and some continued, for various non-governmental actors to intensively and periodically take part in the discussions of governance of Internet and various related activities towards the goals of inclusive development and human rights. Many of the civil society organizations taking part in the WSIS conferences, as well as the various regional and thematic preparatory meetings and seminars, had little prior experience in the topic of Internet governance. They were entering these conversations from various perspectives, such as local developmental interventions, human and cultural rights activism, freedom and diversity of media, and gender and social justice. With backgrounds in such forms of applied practice and theoretical frameworks, members of these civil society organizations often faced a difficult challenge in articulating their experiences, insights, positions, and suggestions in terms of the (then) emerging global discourse of Internet governance and that of information and communication technologies (ICTs) as instruments of development. At the WSIS: An Asian Response Meeting in 2002, Susanna George, (then) Executive Director of Isis International, Manila, succinctly expressed this challenge being faced by the members of civil society organizations:

For some feminist activists however, including myself, it has felt like trying to squeeze my concerns into a narrow definition of what gender concerns in ICTs are. I would like it to Cinderella’s ugly sister cutting off her toe to fit into the dainty slipper of gender concerns in ICTs. The development ball, it seems, can only accommodate some elements of what NGO activists, particularly those from the South, are concerned about in relation to new information and communications technologies. (George 2002)

The above mentioned seminar, held in Bangkok, Thailand, on November 22-24, 2002, was a crucial early meeting for the representatives from Asian civil society organizations to share and shape their understanding and positions before taking part in the global conversations during the following years. The meeting was organised by Bread for All (Switzerland), Communication Rights in the Information Society Campaign (Netherlands), Forum-Asia (Thailand), and World Association for Christian Communication (United Kingdom), as a preparatory meeting before the Asia-Pacific Regional Conference of WSIS, with 34 organizations from 16 Asian countries taking part in it. The Final Document produced at the end of this seminar was quite a remarkable one. It highlighted the simultaneity of Asia as one of the global centres of the information economy and the everyday reality of wide-spread poverty across the Asian countries, and went on to state that the first principle for the emerging global information society should be that the '[c]ommunication rights are fundamental to democracy and human development' (The World Summit on the Information Society: An Asian Response 2002). It proposed the following action items for the efforts towards a global inclusive information society: 1) strengthen community, 2) ensure access, 3) enhance the creation of appropriate content, 4) invigorate global governance, 5) uphold human rights, 6) extend the public domain, 7) protect and promote cultural and linguistic diversity, and 8) ensure public investment in infrastructure (ibid.).

Immediately after this Conference, several Asian civil society organizations attended the Asian Civil Society Forum, organised as part of the Conference of Non-governmental Organizations in Consultative Relations with the United Nations (CONGO), held in Bangkok, Thailand, during December 9-13, 2002. Representatives of Dhaka Ahsania Mission (Bangladesh), OneWorld South Asia (India), GLOCOM (Japan), Foundation for Media Alternative (Philippines), Korean Progressive Network – JINBONET (Republic of Korea), Friedrich Naumann Foundation (Singapore), International Federation of University Women (Switzerland), and Forum Asia (Regional) drafted a Joint Statement emphasising that a 'broad-based participation of civil society, especially from those communities which are excluded, marginalized and severely deprived, is critical in defining and building such a [true communicative, just and peaceful] society' (Aizu 2002). In the very next month, the Asia-Pacific Regional Conference was held in Tokyo during January 13-15, 2003, 'to develop a shared vision and common strategies for the “Information Society' (WSIS Executive Secretariat 2003: 2). The conference saw participation of representatives from 47 national governments, 22 international organizations, 54 private sector agencies, and 116 civil society organizations across the Asia-Pacific region. The Tokyo Declaration, the final document prepared at the conclusion of the Conference, recognized that:

[T]he Information Society must ... facilitate full utilization of information and communication technologies (ICT) at all levels in society and hence enable the sharing of social and economic benefits by all, by means of ubiquitous access to information networks, while preserving diversity and cultural heritage. (Ibid.: 2)

Further, it highlighted the following priority areas of action: 1) infrastructure development, 2) securing affordable, universal access to ICTs, 3) preserving linguistic and cultural diversity and promoting local content, 4) developing human resources, 5) establishing legal, regulatory and policy frameworks, 6) ensuring balance between intellectual property rights (IPR) and public interest, 7) ensuring the security of ICTs, and 8) fostering partnerships and mobilizing resources. It is not difficult to see how the focus of necessary actions shifted from an emphasis on concerns of community and human rights, and public investments and commons, towards those of legal and policy mechanisms, multi-partner delivery of services, and intellectual property rights. Civil society organizations, expectedly, felt sidelined in this Conference, and decided to issue a join statement of Asian civil society organizations to ensure that their positions are effectively presented. The first two topics mentioned in this document were: 1) '[c]ommunication rights should be fully recognized as a fundamental and universal human right to be protected and promoted in the information society,' and 2) '[t]he participation of civil society in the information society at all levels should be ensured and sustained, from policy planning to implementation, monitoring and evaluation' (UNSAJ et al 2003). The joint statement was endorsed by 30 civil society organizations: UDDIPAN (Bangladesh); COMFREL (Cambodia); ETDA (East Timor); The Hong Kong Council of Social Services (Hong Kong); Food India, IT for Change (India); Indonesian Infocom Society (Indonesia); Active Learning, CPSR, Forum for Citizens' Television and Media, JTEC, Kyoto Journal, Ritsumeikan University Media Literacy Project, UNSAJ (Japan); Computer Association Nepal, Rural Area Development Programme (Nepal); APC Women's Networking Support Programme, Foundation for Media Alternatives, ISIS International (Philippines); Citizens' Action Network, Korean Progressive Network – Jinbonet, Labor News Production, ZAK (Republic of Korea); e-Pacificka Consulting (Samoa); National University of Singapore (Singapore); Public Television Service, Taiwan Association for Human Rights (Taiwan); Asian-South Pacific Bureau for Adult Education, FORUM ASIA, and TVE Asia Pacific (Regional) (Ibid.).

Participation in the WSIS Process

The first WSIS conference was held in Geneva in December 2003. Through the processes of organizing this conference, and the second one in Tunis in November 2005, United Nations expressed a clear intention of great participation of actors from the private companies, civil society, academia, and media, along with the governmental organizations. During the first meeting of the WSIS Preparatory Committee (PrepCom-1) in Geneva, during July 1-5, 2002, the civil society organizations demanded that they should be allowed to co-shape the key topics to be discussed during the first conference (2003). There was already an Inter-Governmental Subcommittee on Contents and Themes, but no equivalent platform for the civil society organizations was available. With the approval of the Civil Society Plenary (CSP), the Civil Society Subcommittee on Content and Themes (WSIS-SCT) was instituted during PrepCom-1 (WSIS-SCT 2003b). At the second WSIS Preparatory Committee meeting (PrepCom-2) in Geneva, during February 17-28, 2003, the WSIS-SCT produced a summary of the views of its members titled 'Vision and Principles of Information and Communication Societies,' and also a one page brief titled 'Seven Musts: Priority Principles Proposed by Civil Society' to be used for lobbying purposes (Ibid.). This brief mentioned seven key principles of Internet governance identified by the civil society organization taking part in the WSIS process: (1) sustainable development, (2) democratic governance, (3) literacy, education, and research, (4) human rights, (5) global knowledge commons, (6) cultural and linguistic diversity, and (7) information security (WSIS-SCT 2003a).

Asian civil society organizations that took part in the PrepCom-2 meeting included United Nations Association of China (China); CASP - Centre for Adivasee Studies and Peace, C2N - Community Communications Network (India); ICSORC - Iranian Civil Society Organizations Resource Center (Iran); GAWF - General Arab Women Federation (Iraq); Daisy Consortium, GLOCOM - Center for Global Communications (Japan); Association for Progressive Communication, Global Knowledge Partnership (Malaysia); Pakistan Christian Peace Foundation (Pakistan); WFEO - World Federation of Engineering Organization (Palestine); Asian South Pacific Bureau of Adult Education, Foundation for Media Alternatives, ISIS International – Manila (Philippines); Korean Progressive Network - Jinbonet (Republic of Korea); IIROSA - International Islamic Relief Organization (Saudi Arabia); and Taking IT Global (India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, and Turkey) (ITU 2003a).

All these efforts led to development of the Civil Society Declaration to the World Summit on the Information Society, which was prepared and published by the Civil Society Plenary at the Geneva conference, on December 08, 2003. The Declaration was titled 'Shaping Information Societies for Human Needs' (WSIS Civil Society Plenary 2003). The Asian civil society organization that took part in the Geneva conference were BFES - Bangladesh Friendship Education Society, Drik, ICTDPB - Information & Communication Technology Development Program, Proshika - A Center for Human Development (Bangladesh); China Society for Promotion of the Guangcai Programme, Chinese People's Association for Friendship with Foreign Countries, United Nations Association of China (China); The Hong Kong Council of Social Service (Hong Kong); CASP - Centre for Adivasee Studies and Peace, Childline India Foundation / Child Helpline International, DAWN - Development Alternatives with Women for a New Era (India); Communication Network of Women's NGOs in Iran, Green front of Iran, ICTRC - Iranian Civil Society Organizations Training and Research Center, Islamic Women's Institute of Iran, Institute for Women's Studies and Research, Organization for Defending Victims of Violence (Iran); ILAM - Center for Arab Palestinians in Israel (Israel); Citizen Digital Solutions, Forum for Citizens' Television and Media, GLOCOM - Center for Global Communications, JCAFE - Japan Computer Access for Empowerment, Soka Gakkai International (Japan); LAD-Nepal - Literary Academy for Dalit of Nepal (Nepal); Asia-Pacific Broadcasting Union, Global Knowledge Partnership (Malaysia); PAK Educational Society / Pakistan Development Network, SMEDA - Small & Medium Enterprise Development Authority (Pakistan); Palestine IT Association of Companies (Palestine); Isis International – Manila, Ugnayan ng Kababaihan sa Pulitika / Philippine Women's Network in Politics and Governance (Philippines); Citizen's Alliance for Consumer Protection of Korea, Korean Civil Society Network for WSIS (Republic of Korea); Youth Challenge (Singapore); Association for Progressive Communications (India and Philippines), CITYNET - Regional Network of Local Authorities for the Management of Human Settlements (India. Mongolia, and Philippines), Taking IT Global (India and Philippines) (ITU 2003b).

As the preparatory meetings and consultations towards the second WSIS conference advanced during the next year, the Asian civil society organizations attempted to engage more directly with the global Internet governance processes on one hand, and the national Internet and ICT policy situations on the other. Writing about their encounters at and before the second Preparatory Committee meeting of the Tunis conference, held in Geneva during February 17-25, 2005, Anita Gurumurthy and Parminder Jeet Singh made several early observations that have continued to resonate with the experiences of Asian civil society organizations throughout the decade (Gurumurthy & Singh 2005). Firstly, they indicated that the government agencies present in the dialogues tend to take diverging positions in international events and domestic contexts. Secondly, there was a marked absence of formal and informal discussions between the governmental and the civil society representatives of the same country present at the meeting. The government agencies were clearly disinterested in involving civil society organizations in the process. Thirdly, the civil society actors present in the meeting were mostly from the ICT for Development sector, and the organizations working in more 'traditional' sectors – such as education, health, governance reform, etc. – remained absent from the conversations. This is especially problematic in the case of such developing countries where there does not exist strategic linkages between civil society organizaions focusing on topics of technologized developmental interventions, and those involved in more 'traditional' development practices. Rekha Jain, in a separate report on the Indian experience of participating in the WSIS process, re-iterates some of these points (Jain 2006). She notes that '[w]hile the Secretary, [Department of Telecommunications, Government of India] was involved in (PrepCom-1) drafting the initial processes for involvement of NGOs, at the national level, this mechanism was not translated in to a process for involving the civil society or media' (Ibid.: 14).

The frequent lack of interest of national governments, especially in the Asian countries, to engage with civil society organizations on matters of policies and projects in Internet governance and ICTs for development (Souter 2007), further encouraged these organization to utilise the global discussion space opened up by the WSIS process to drive the agendas of democratisation of Internet governance processes, and protection and advancement of human rights and social justice. The second WSIS conference held in Tunis, during November 16-18, 2005, however, did not end in a positive note for the civil society organizations as a whole. The sentiment is aptly captured in the title of the Civil Society Statement issued after the Tunis Conference: 'Much more could have been achieved' (WSIS Civil Society Plenary 2005). Apart from producing this very important critical response to the WSIS process, within a month of its conclusions, the civil society organization contributed effectively in one of the more longer-term impacts of the process – the establishment of the Internet Governance Forums (IGFs). Immediately after the publication of the Report of the Working Group on Internet Governance (Desai et al) in June 2005, the Center for Global Communications (GLOCOM), Japan, acting on behalf of the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus, came forward with public support for 'the establishment of a new forum to address the broad agenda of Internet governance issues, provided it is truly global, inclusive, and multi-stakeholder in composition allowing all stakeholders from all sectors to participate as equal peers' (WSIS Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus 2005: 3).

Asian Civil Society Organizations at the IGFs

In 2006, the WSIS Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus was reformed and established as a permanent 'forum for discussion, advocacy, action, and for representation of civil society contributions in Internet governance processes' (Civil Society Internet Government Caucus 2006). Representatives from Asian civil society organizations have consistently played critical roles in the functionings of this Caucus. Youn Jung Park of the Department of Technology and Society, SUNY Korea, co-founded and co-coordined the original Caucus in 2003. Adam Peake of the Center for Global Communications (GLOCOM), International University of Japan, was co-coordinator of the original Caucus from 2003 to 2006. Parminder Jeet Sing of IT for Change, India, was elected as one of the co-cordinators of the newly reformed Caucus in 2006, with the term ending in 2008. Izumi Aizu of the Institute for HyperNetwork Society and the Institute for InfoSocinomics, Tama University, Japan served as the co-coordinator of the Caucus during 2010-2012.

The first Internet Governance Forum organized in Athens, October 30 – November 2, 2006, saw participation from a very few Asian civil society organizations, mostly from Bangladesh and Japan (IGF 2006). The second Internet Governance Forum in Rio de Janeiro, November 12-15, 2007 had a wider representation from Asian civil society organizations: Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio and Communication, BFES - Bangladesh Friendship Education Society, VOICE – Voices for Interactive Choice and Empowerment (Bangladesh); China Association for Science and Technology, Internet Society of China (China); University of Hong Kong (Hong Kong); Alternative Law Forum (via Association for Progressive Communications - Women's Networking Support Programme), Indian Institute of Technology in Delhi, IT for Change (India); GLOCOM, Kumon Center, Tama University (Japan); Sustainable Development Networking Programme (Jordan); Kuwait Information Technology Society (Kuwait); Assocation of Computer Engineers – Nepal, Rural Area Development Programme, Nepal Rural Information Technology Development Society (Nepal); Bytesforall – APC / Pakistan, Pakistan Christian Peace Foundation (Pakistan); Foundation for Media Alternatives, Philippine Resources for Sustainable Development Inc. (Philippines); and LIRNEasia (Sri Lanka). At the Open IGF Consultations in Geneva, on February 26 2008, the Internet Governance Caucus made two significant submissions: 1) that, although structuring the IGF sessions in Athens and Rio de Janeiro around the large themes of access, openness, diversity, and security have been useful to open up the multi-stakeholder dialogues, it is necessary to begin focused discussions of specific public policy issues to take the IGF process forward (Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus 2008a), and 2) that the Multi-Stakeholder Advisory Group (MAG), which drives the IGF process and events, should be made more proactive and transparent, and expanded in size so as to better include the different stakeholder groups who may self-identify their representatives for the MAG (Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus 2008b).

On one hand, the IGF Hyderabad, December 3-6, 2008, experienced a decline in the percentage of participants from civil society organizations and a rather modest increase in the percentage of participants from Asian countries (see: 6.1.5. Annexe – Tables), especially since this was the first major international Internet governance summit held in an Asian country. On the other hand, the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus succeeded to bring forth the term 'enhanced cooperation,' as mentioned in the Tunis Agenda, to be addressed and discussed in one of the main sessions of the Forum (IGF 2008). The next IGF held in Sharm El Sheikh, November 15-18, 2009, saw further decline of participation from both the representatives of civil society organizations, and the attendees from Asian countries (see: 6.1.5. Annexe – Tables). In this context, Youn Jung Park made the following statement in the Stock Taking session of the summit:

As a cofounder of WSIS Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus in 2003, I would like to remind you ... [that] Internet Governance Forum was created as a compromise between those who supported the status quo Internet governance institution under one nation's status provision, and those who requested for more balanced roles for governments under international supervision of the Internet. While IGF has achieved a great success of diluting of such political tension between those who have different views of how to institutionalize Internet governance, ironically Internet governance forum became a forum without governance... [We] have to admit [that] IGF failed to deliver another mandate of the U.N. WSIS: Continuing discussion of how to design Internet governance institutions... The current IGF continues to function as knowledge transfer of ICANN's values to other stakeholders, while those who want to discuss and negotiate on how to design Internet governance institutions should have another platform for that specific U.N. WSIS mandate. (IGF 2009)

The first Asia Pacific Regional Internet Governance Forum (APrIGF) was held in Hong Kong on June 14-16, 2010. The organising committee included three civil society / acadmic organizations – Center for Global Communications (GLOCOM), Internet Society Hong Kong, and National University of Singapore – and three indpendent experts – Kuo-Wei Wu (Taiwan), Norbert Klein (Cambodia), and Zahid Jamil (Pakistan). Though the Forum had dominant presence from government and private sector participants, several representatives from Asian civil society / academic organizations spoke at the sessions: Ang Peng Hwa (Singapore Internet Research Centre, Nanyang Technological University), Charles Mok (Internet Society Hong Kong), Christine Loh (Civic Exchange), Chong Chan Yau (Hong Kong Blind Union), Clarence Tsang (Christian Action), Ilya Eric Lee (Taiwan E-Learning and Digital Archives Program, and Research Center for Information Technology Innovation), Izumi Aizu (Institute for HyperNetwork Society, and Institute for InfoSocinomics, Kumon Center, Tama University), Oliver “Blogie” Robillo (Mindanao Bloggers Community), Parminder Jeet Singh (IT for Change), Priscilla Lui (Against Child Abuse in Hong Kong), Tan Tin Wee (Centre for Internet Research, National University of Singapore), and Yap Swee Seng (Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development). As Ang Peng Hwa noted at the beginning of the summit, its key objective was to provide a formal space for various stakeholders from the Asia-Pacific region to discuss and provide inputs to the IGF process (APrIGF 2010). The regional forum was successful in enabling newer civil society entrants from the Asia-Pacific region to familiarize themselves with the IGF process, and to contribute to it. Oliver “Blogie” Robillo, represented and submit recommendations from Southeast Asian civil society organizations at IGF Vilnius, September 14-17, 2010, which was the first time he took part in the summit series. He emphasised the following topics: 1) openness and freedom of expression are the basis of democracy, and state-driven censorship of Internet in the region is an immediate threat to such global rights, 2) coordinated international efforts need to address and resolve not only global digital divides, but also the divides at regional, national, and sub-nationals scales, 3) the right to privacy is an integral part of cybersecurity, as well as a necessary condition for exercising human rights, 4) global Internet governance efforts must ensure that national governments do not control and restrict abilities of citizens to express through digital means, and it should be aligned with the universal human rights agenda, and 5) even after 5 years of the IGF process, a wider participation of civil society organizations, especially from the Asia-Pacific regions, remains an unachieved goal, which can only be achived if specific resources are allocated and processes are implemented (IGF 2010).

Internet Censorship and Civil Society Responses

Throughout the decade of 2000-2010, censorship of Internet and restriction of digital expression remained a crucial Internet rights concern across the world, and especially the Asian countries. One of the earliest global reports on the matter was brought out by the Reporters without Borders. In 2006, it published a list of countries marked as 'Internet Enemies' that featured 16 countries, out of which 11 were from Asia: China, Iran, Maldives, Myanmar (then, Burma), Nepal, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Vietnam (Reporters without Borders 2006). The list was updated in 2007, and three of these countries – Libya, Maldives, and Nepal – were taken off (Ibid.). The unique contradictions of the Asian region were sharply foregrounded in the 2006-07 report on Internet censorship by OpenNet Initiative, which noted:

Some of the most and least connected countries in the world are located in Asia: Japan, South Korea, and Singapore all have Internet penetration rates of over 65 percent, while Afghanistan, Myanmar, and Nepal remain three of thirty countries with less than 1 percent of its citizens online. Among the countries in the world with the most restricted access, North Korea allows only a small community of elites and foreigners online. Most users must rely on Chinese service providers for connectivity, while the limited number North Korean–sponsored Web sites are hosted abroad... [T]hough India’s Internet community is the fifth largest in the world, users amounted to only about 4 percent of the country’s population in 2005. Afghanistan, Myanmar, and Nepal are among the world’s least-developed countries. Despite the constraints on resources and serious developmental and political challenges, however, citizens are showing steadily increasing demand for Internet services such as Voice-over Internet Protocol (VoIP), blogging, and chat. (Wang 2007)

The report further described the strategy used by various Asian governments of 'delegation of policing and monitoring responsibilities to ISPs, content providers, private corporations, and users themselves' (Ibid.) These mechanisms enforce self-surveillance and self-censorship in the face of threats of loss of commercial license, denial of services, and even criminal liability. Defamation suits and related civil and criminal liability have also been used by several Asian governments to silence influential critics and protesters. Direct technical filtering of Internet traffic (especially inwards traffic) and blocking of URLS via government directives sent to Internet Service Providers (ISPs) have also been common practice in key Asian countries (Ibid.). Expectedly, such experiences of oppression led to widespread campaigns and communications by the Asian civil society organizations, as can be sensed from the above mentioned submission by Oliver “Blogie” Robillo at IGF Vilnius.

Among the Asian countries, the comprehensive technologies of censorship developed and deployed by China has been studied most extensively. The Golden Shield Project was initiated by the Ministry of Public Security of China in 1998 to undertake blanket blocking of incoming Internet traffic based on specific URLs and terms. Evidences of the project getting operationalised became available in 2003 (Garden Networks for Freedom of Information 2004). Censorship of Internet in China, however, has not only been dependent on such sophisticated systems. In 2003, it was made mandatory for all residents of Lhasa, Tibet, to use a specific combination and password to access Internet, which was directly linked to their names and address. An Internet ID Card was issued by the government to implement this (International Campaign for Tibet. 2004). Tibet Action Institute has been a key civil society organization at the forefront of cyber-offensive of the Chinese government. A recent documentary by the Institute, titled 'Tibet: Frontline of the New Cyberwar,' has narrated how it has worked closely with the Citizen Lab, Munk School of Global Affairs, University of Toronto, to identify, trace, and resist the malware- and other cyber-attacks experienced by the civil society actors and websites in favor of independence of Tibet (Tibet Action Institute 2015). Not only activists supporting the Tibetan cause, digital security training emerged as an important aspect of the life of civil society organizations during the decade. Asian organizations like Bytes for All (Pakistan) and Myanmar ICT for Development Organization (Mynamar), as well as international organizations like Front Line Defenders and Citizen Lab have educated and supported civil society activities much beyond the Internet governance sphere with tools and techniques for effectively using digital channels of communications, and defending themselves for cyber-threats.

Combination of traditional forms of civil society mobilizations and digital techniques have often been used resist attempts by Asian governments to control the online communication space. Huma Yusuf has extensively studied the emergence of hybrid media strategies, using both old media channels like newspapers and new media channels like blogs and video sharing platforms, among citizen journalists and civil society activists in Pakistan as the government took harsh steps towards control of both traditional and online media during 2007-2008 (Yusuf 2009). She has carefully traced how possibilities of new forms of information and media sharing enabled by Internet were initially identified and implemented by citizen journalists and student activists, which was quickly learned and re-deployed by more formal organisation, such as print and electronic news companies, and civil society organizations like those involved in election monitoring (Ibid.). Malaysia also experienced fast-accelerating face-off between the government and the civil society during 2007-2010, as the former started intervening directly into censoring blogs and newspaper websites. On one hand, the government took legal actions against critical bloggers, either directly or indirectly, and on the other it instructed ISPs to block 'offensive content.' It also borrowed the 'Singapore-model' to mandate registration of bloggers with government authorities, if they are identifed as writing on socio-political topics. The civil society actors responded to these oppressive steps by setting up a new blog dedicated to coverage of the defamation cases (filed against prominent bloggers), and publicly sharing instructions for circumvention of the blocks imposed by ISPs. The National Alliance of Bloggers was soon formed, which organised the “Blogs and Digital Democracy” forum on October 3, 2007 (Thien 2011: 46-47). Similarly, Bloggers Against Censorship campaign took shape in India in 2006 as the government first directed ISPs to block specific blogs hosted on Blogspot, TypePad, and Yahoo! Geocities, and then went for complete blocking of Yahoo! Geocities as the ISPs failed to block specific sub-domains of the platform (Bloggers Collective Group 2006). Learning from this experience, the following year Indian government decided to work directly with Orkut to take down 'defamatory content' about a politician (The Economic Times 2007). This is common for other Asian governments too, as they have continued to develop more legally binding and technically sophisticated measures to monitor and control online expression.

In the 'Internet Enemies Report 2012,' Reporters without Borders listed 12 countries as 'enemies of the Internet,' out of which 10 were from Asia – Bahrain, China, Iran, Myanmar, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Vietnam – and it named 14 countries that are conducting surveillance on its citizens, out of which 7 were from Asia – India, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and United Arab Emirates (Reporters without Borders 2012). At the APrIGF held in Tokyo, July 18-20, 2012, a group of delegates from civil society organizations working in the South-East Asian region issued a joint statement with a clear call for global action against the shrinking space for freedom of (digital) expression in the region (Thai Netizen Network et al 2012). They specifically noted the following national acts as examples of the legislative mechanisms being used by different Asian governments to criminalize online speech and/or to harass public dissenters:

Burma – The 2004 Electronic Transactions Act
Cambodia – The 2012 Draft Cyber-Law, the 1995 Press Law, and the 2010 Penal Code
Malaysia – The 2012 Amendment to the Evidence Act and the 2011 Computing Professionals Bill
Indonesia – The 2008 Law on Information and Electronic Transaction and the 2008 Law on Pornography
The Philippines – The 2012 Data Privacy Act
Thailand – The 2007 Computer Crimes Act, the Article 112 of the Penal Code, and the 2004 Special Case Investigation Act
Vietnam – The 1999 Penal Code, the 2004 Publishing Law, the 2000 State Secrets Protection Ordinance, and the 2012 Draft Decree on Internet Management. (Ibid.)

The statement was co-signed by Thai Netizen Network, Thai Media Policy Centre, The Institute for Policy Research and Advocacy (ELSAM), Southeast Asian Press Alliance (SEAPA), Southeast Asian Centre for e-Media (SEACeM), Victorius (Ndaru) Eps, Community Legal Education Center (CLEC), Sovathana (Nana) Neang, Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA), and was endorsed by ICT Watch (Indonesian ICT Partnership Association).

Annexe – Tables

Table 1: Participation from Asian Countries and of representatives from Asian civil society organisations in IGFs, 2006-2010

Event	Participants from Asian Countries	Participants from Civil Society Organizations
IGF Athens 2006	11%	29%
IGF Rio de Janeiro 2007	13%	32%
IGF Hyderabad 2008	56% from India, and 15% from other Asian countries	25%
IGF Sharm El Sheikh 2009	17%	19%
IGF Vilnius 2010	Not Available	Not Available

Source: Reports available on Internet Governance Forum website (http://igf.wgig.org/cms).

Table 2: Internet Society Chapters in Asia

Chapter	Year of Establishment	URL
Afghanistan	In formation	Not available
Bahrain	2001	http://www.bis.org.bh/
Bangladesh	2011	http://www.isoc.org.bd/dhaka/
Hong Kong	2005	http://www.isoc.hk/
India (Bangalore)	2010	http://www.isocbangalore.org/
India (Chennai)	2007	http://www.isocindiachennai.org/
India (Delhi)	2002. Rejuvenated in 2008.	http://www.isocdelhi.in/
India (Kolkata)	2009	http://isockolkata.in/
India (Trivandrum)	2015	Not available
Indonesia	2014	http://www.isoc.or.id/
Israel	1995	http://www.isoc.org.il/
Japan	1994	http://www.isoc.jp/
Lebanon	2010	http://www.isoc.org.lb/
Malaysia	2010	http://www.isoc.my/
Nepal	2007	http://www.internetsociety.org.np/
Pakistan (Islamabad)	2013	http://www.isocibd.org.pk/
Palestine	2002	http://www.isoc.ps/
Philippines	1999. Rejuvenated in 2009.	https://www.facebook.com/isoc.ph/
Qatar	2011	http://www.isoc.qa/
Republic of Korea	2014	Not available
Singapore	2011	http://isoc.sg/
Sri Lanka	2010	http://www.isoc.lk/
Taipei	1996	http://www.isoc.org.tw/
Thailand	1996	http://www.isoc-th.org/
United Arab Emirates	2007	http://www.isocuae.com/
Yemen	2013	http://isoc.ye/

Source: Details of chapters available on Internet Society website (http://www.internetsociety.org/).

Reference

Aizu, Izumi et al. 2002. Joint Statement from Asia Civil Society Forum Participants on World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). December 13. Accessed on July 08, 2015 from http://www.wsisasia.org/wsis-acsf2002/wsis-acsfdec13f.doc.

Asia Pacific Regional Internet Governance Forum (APrIGF). 2010. APrIGF Roundtable – June 15th, 2010: Session 1 – Welcome Remarks and Introduction – Real Time Transcript. Accessed on July 08, 2015 from http://2010.rigf.asia/aprigf-roundtable-june-15th-2010-session-1/.

Bloggers Collective Group. 2006. Bloggers Against Censorship. Last updated on April 30, 2009‎. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://censorship.wikia.com/wiki/Bloggers_Against_Censorship.

Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus. 2006. Internet Governance Caucus Charter. October 14. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://igcaucus.org/old/IGC-charter_final-061014.html.

Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus. 2008a. Inputs for the Open IGF Consultation, Geneva, 26th February, 2008 – Statement II: Main Session Themes for IGF, Hyderabad. February 26. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://igcaucus.org/old/IGC%20-%20Main%20themes%20for%20IGF%20Hyd.pdf.

Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus. 2008b. Inputs for the Open IGF Consultation, Geneva, 26th February, 2008 – Statement III: Renewal / Restructuring of Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group. February 26. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://igcaucus.org/old/IGC%20-%20MAG%20Rotation.pdf.

Desai, Nitin, et al. 2005. Report of the Working Group on Internet Governance. United June. Accessed on July 08, 2015 from http://www.wgig.org/docs/WGIGREPORT.pdf.

Garden Networks for Freedom of Information. 2004. Breaking through the “Golden Shield.” Open Society Institute. November 01. Accessed on July 08, 2015 from https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/sites/default/files/china-internet-censorship-20041101.pdf.

George, Susanna. 2002. Women and New Information and Communications Technologies: The Promise of Empowerment. Presented at The World Summit on the Information Society: An Asian Response Meeting, November 22-24. Accessed on July 08, 2015 from http://www.wsisasia.org/materials/susanna.doc/.

Gurumurthy, Anita, & Parminder Jeet Singh. 2005. WSIS PrepCom 2: A South Asian Perspective. Association for Progressive Communications. April 01. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from https://www.apc.org/en/news/hr/world/wsis-prepcom-2-south-asian-perspective.

Internet Governance Forum (IGF). 2006. Athens 2006 – List of Participants. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://www.intgovforum.org/PLP.html.

Internet Governance Forum (IGF). 2008. Arrangements for Internet Governance, Global and National/Regional. IGF Hyderabad, India. December 5. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from https://web.archive.org/web/20130621205004/http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/hyderabad_prog/AfIGGN.html [Original URL: http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/hyderabad_prog/AfIGGN.html].

Internet Governance Forum (IGF). 2009. Taking Stock and Looking Forward – On the Desirability of the Continuation of the Forum, Part II. IGF Sharm El Sheikh, Egypt. November 18. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/2009/sharm_el_Sheikh/Transcripts/Sharm%20El%20Sheikh%2018%20November%202009%20Stock%20Taking%20II.txt.

Internet Governance Forum (IGF). 2010. Taking Stock of Internet Governance and the Way Forward. IGF Vilnius, Lithuania. September 17. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://igf.wgig.org/cms/component/content/article/102-transcripts2010/687-taking-stock.

International Campaign for Tibet. 2004. Chinese Authorities Institute Internet ID Card System in Tibet for Online Surveillance. April 30. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://www.savetibet.org/chinese-authorities-institute-internet-id-card-system-in-tibet-for-online-surveillance/.

International Telecommunication Union (ITU). 2003a. PrepCom-2 / 17-28 February 2003 – Final List of Participants. February 28. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://www.itu.int/wsis/participation/prepcom2/prepcom2-cl.pdf.

International Telecommunication Union (ITU). 2003b. Geneva Phase of the WSIS: List of Participants. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/summit_participants.pdf.

Jain, Rekha. 2006. Participation of Developing Countries in the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) Process: India Case Study. Association for Progressive Communications. March. Accessed on July 08, 2015 from http://rights.apc.org/documents/wsis_india.pdf.

Reporters without Borders. 2006. List of the 13 Internet Enemies. Last updated on August 28, 2007. Accessed on July 08, 2015 from http://en.rsf.org/list-of-the-13-internet-enemies-07-11-2006,19603.

Reporters without Borders. 2012. Internet Enemies Report 2012. Accessed on July 08, 2015 from http://en.rsf.org/IMG/pdf/rapport-internet2012_ang.pdf.

Souter, David. 2007. WSIS and Civil Society. In: Whose Summit? Whose Information Society? Developing Countries and Civil Society at the World Summit on the Information Society. With additional research by Abiodun Jagun. Association for Progressive Communications. Pp. 72-89. Accessed on July 08, 2015 from http://rights.apc.org/documents/whose_summit_EN.pdf.

Thai Netizen Network et al. 2012. Southeast Asian Civil Society Groups Highlight Increasing Rights Violations Online, Call for Improvements to Internet Governance Processes in the Region. Statement of Civil Society Delegates from Southeast Asia to 2012 Asia-Pacific Regional Internet Governance Forum (APrIGF). July 31. Accessed on July 08, 2015 from https://freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/AprIGF-Joint%20Statement-FINAL.pdf.

The Economic Times. 2007. Orkut's Tell-All Pact with Cops. May 01. Accessed on July 08, 2015 from http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2007-05-01/news/28459689_1_orkut-ip-addresses-google-spokesperson.

The World Summit on the Information Society: An Asian Response. 2002. Final Document. Accessed on July 08, 2015 from http://www.wsisasia.org/materials/finalversion.doc.

Thien, Vee Vian. 2011. The Struggle for Digital Freedom of Speech: The Malaysian Sociopolitical Blogosphere’s Experience. In: Ronald Deibert et al. (eds.) Access Contested. OpenNet Initiative. Pp. 43-63. Accessed on July 08, 2015 from http://access.opennet.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/accesscontested-chapter-03.pdf.

Tibet Action Institute. 2015. Tibet: Frontline of the New Cyberwar. YouTube. January 27. Accessed on July 08, 2015 from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yE3AQqbGVkk.

UNSAJ et al. 2003. Civil Society Observations and Response to the Tokyo Declaration. Asia-Pacific Regional Conference on the World Summit on the Information Society. January 15. Accessed on July 08, 2015 from http://www.wsisasia.org/wsis-tokyo/tokyo-statement.html.

Wang, Stephanie. 2007. Internet Filtering in Asia in 2006-2007. OpenNet Initiative. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from https://opennet.net/studies/asia2007.

WSIS Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus. 2005. Initial Reactions to the WGIG Report. Contribution from GLOCOM on behalf of the WSIS Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus. July 19. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from www.itu.int/wsis/%20docs2/pc3/contributions/co23.doc.

WSIS Civil Society Plenary. 2003. “Shaping Information Societies for Human Needs” – Civil Society Declaration to the World Summit on the Information Society. December 8. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/civil-society-declaration.pdf.

WSIS Civil Society Plenary. 2005. “Much more could have been achieved” – Civil Society Statement on the World Summit on the Information Society. December 18. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from https://www.itu.int/wsis/docs2/tunis/contributions/co13.pdf.

WSIS Civil Society Subcommittee on Content and Themes. 2003a. “Seven Musts”: Priority Principles Proposed by Civil Society. February 25. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://www.movimientos.org/es/foro_comunicacion/show_text.php3%3Fkey%3D1484.

WSIS Civil Society Subcommittee on Content and Themes. 2003b. Final Report on Prepcom-2 Activities of the Civil Society on Content and Themes. March 27. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/pcip/misc/cs_sct.pdf.

WSIS Executive Secretariat. 2003. Report of the Asia-Pacific Regional Conference for WSIS (Tokyo, 13-15 January 2003). WSIS. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://www.itu.int/dms_pub/itu-s/md/03/wsispc2/doc/S03-WSISPC2-DOC-0006!!PDF-E.pdf.

Yusuf, Huma. 2009. Old and New Media: Converging during the Pakistan Emergency (March 2007 - February 2008). MIT Centre for Civic Media. January 12. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from https://civic.mit.edu/blog/humayusuf/old-and-new-media-converging-during-the-pakistan-emergency-march-2007-february-2008.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/raw/civil-society-organisations-and-internet-governance-in-asia-open-review

Civil Society Organisations and Internet Governance in India - Open Review

sumandro — 2015-11-13T05:51:03Z

This is a book section written for the third volume (2000-2010) of the Asia Internet History series edited by Prof. Kilnam Chon. The pre-publication text of the section is being shared here to invite suggestions for addition and modification. Please share your comments via email sent to raw[at]cis-india[dot]org with 'Civil Society Organisations and Internet Governance in India - Comments' as the subject line. This text is published under Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International license.

You are most welcome to read the pre-publication drafts of other sections of the Asia Internet History Vol. 3, and share your comments: https://sites.google.com/site/internethistoryasia/book3.

Early Days

The overarching context of development interventions and rights-based approaches have shaped the space of civil society organizations working on the topics of information and communication technologies (ICTs) and Internet governance in India. Early members of this space came from diverse backgrounds. Satish Babu was working with the South Indian Federation of Fishermen Societies (SIFFS) in mid-1990s, when he set up a public mailing list called 'FishNet,' connected to Internet via the IndiaLink email network, (then) run by India Social Institute to inter-connect development practitioners in India. He went on to become the President of Computer Society of India during 2012-2013; and co-founded Society for Promotion of Alternative Computing and Employment (SPACE) in 2003, where he served as the Executive Secretary during 2003-2010 [Wikipedia 2015]. Anita Gurumurthy, Executive Director of IT for Change and one of the key actors from Indian civil society organizations to take part in the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) process, had previously worked extensively on topics related to public health and women's rights [ITfC b], which deeply shaped the perspectives she and IT for Change have brought into the Internet governance sphere, globally as well as nationally [Gurumurthy 2001]. Arun Mehta initiated a mailing list titled 'India-GII' in 2002 to discuss 'India's bumpy progress on the global infohighway' [India-GII 2005]. This list played a critical role in curating an early community of non-governmental actors interested in the topics of telecommunication policy, spectrum licensing, Internet governance, and consumer and communication rights. As Frederick Noronha documents, the mailing list culture grew slowly in India during the late 1990s and early 2000s. However, they had a great impact in organizing early online communities, sometimes grouped around a topical focus, sometimes functioning as a bridge among family members living abroad, and sometimes curating place-specific groups [Noronha 2002].

The inaugural conference of the Free Software Foundation of India [FSFI] in Thiruvananthapuram, on 20 July 2001, galvanized the Free/Libre and Open Source Software (FLOSS) community in India. The conference was titled 'Freedom First,' and Richard Stallman was invited as the chief guest. It was a vital gathering of actors from civil society organizations, software businesses, academia, and media, as well as the Secretary of the Department of Information Technology, Government of Kerala (the state where the conference was held). The conference laid the basis for sustained collaborations between the free software community, civil society organizations, emerging software firms in the state, and the Government of Kerala for the years to come. Two early initiatives that brought together free software developers and state government agencies were the Kerala Trasportation Project and the IT@School project, which not only were awarded to firms promoting use of FLOSS in electronic governance project, but facilitated a wider public dialogue regarding the need think critically about the making of information society in India [Kumar 2007]. The inter-connected communities and overlapping practices of the FLOSS groups, civil society organizations involved in ICT for Development initiatives, telecommunication policy analysts and advocates, and legal-administrative concerns regarding life in the information society – from digital security and privacy, to freedom of online expressions, to transparency in electronic governance infrastructures – have, hence, continued to shape the civil society space in India studying, discussing, responding, and co-shaping policies and practices around governance of Internet in India.

Key Organizations

IT for Change was established in 2000, in Bengaluru, as a non-governmental organization that 'works for the innovative and effective use of information and communication technologies (ICTs) to promote socio-economic change in the global South, from an equity, social justice and gender equality point of view' [ITfC]. It has since made important contributions in the field of ICTs for Development, especially in integrating earlier communication rights practices organised around old media forms with newer possibilities of production and distribution of electronic content using digital media and Internet [ITfC e], and in that of Internet governance, especially through their participation in the WSIS and Internet Governance Forum (IGF) processes and by co-shaping the global Souther discourse of the subject [ITfC d]. It has also done significant works in the area of women's rights in the information society, and have been a core partner in a multi-country feminist action research project on using digital media to enhance the citizenship rights and experiences of marginalized women in India, Brazil, and South Africa [ITfC c]. IT for Change has co-led the formation of Just Net Coalition in February 2014 [JNC].

Digital Empowerment Foundation (DEF) was founded by Osama Manzar, in New Delhi in 2002, with a 'deep understanding that marginalised communities living in socio-economic backwardness and information poverty can be empowered to improve their lives almost on their own, simply by providing them access to information and knowledge using digital tools' [DEF c]. DEF has contributed to setting up Community Information Resource Centres across 19 states and 53 districts in India, with computers, printers, scanners, and Internet connectivity [DEF]. DEF organises one of the biggest competitions in Asia to identify, foreground, and honour significant contributions in the area of ICT for Development [DEF d]. This annual competition series, titled 'Manthan Award' (Translation: 'manthan' means 'churning' in Sanskrit), started in 2004. It has alllowed DEF to create a detailed database of ICT for Development activities and actors in the South Asia and Asia Pacific region. Since 2011, DEF has started working with Association for Progressive Communications on a project titled 'Internet Rights' to take forward the agenda of 'internet access for all' in India [DEF b].

The Society for Knowledge Commons was formed in New Delhi 2007 by 'scientists, technologists, researchers, and activists to leverage the tremendous potential of the ‘collaborative innovation’ model for knowledge generation that has lead to the growth of the Free and Open Source Software community (FOSS) around the world' [Society for Knowledge Commons]. It has championed integration of FOSS into public sector operations in India – from electronic governance systems to use of softwares in educational institutes – and has made continuous interventions on Internet governance issues from the perspective of the critical importance of shared knowledge properties and practices for a more democratic information society. It is a part of the Free Software Movement of India [FSMI], an alliance of Indian organizations involved in advocating awareness and usage of FOSS, as well as a founding member of the Just Net Coalition [JNC].

The Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) was established in Bengaluru in 2008 with a research and advocacy focus on topics of accessibility of digital content for differently-abled persons, FOSS and policies on intellectual property rights, open knowledge and Indic Wikipedia projects, digital security and privacy, freedom of expression and Internet governance, and socio-cultural and historical studies of Internet in India [CIS]. In one of the key early projects, CIS contributed to the making of web accessibility policy for government websites in India, which was being drafted by the Department of Information Technology, Government of India [CIS 2008]. In the following years it took part in the Internet Governance Forum summits; submitted responses and suggestions to various policies being introduced by the government, especially the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008, National Identification Authority of India (NIA) Bill, 2010, and the Approach Paper for a Legislation on Privacy, 2010; produced a report on the state of open government data in India [Prakash 2011b], and undertook an extensive study on the experiences of the young people in Asia with Internet, digital media, and social change [Shah 2011].

Software Freedom Law Centre has undertaken research and advocacy interventions, since 2011, in the topics digital privacy, software patents, and cyber-surveillance [SFLC]. The Internet Democracy Project, an initiative of Point of View, has organised online and offline discussions, participated in global summits, and produced reports on the topics of freedom of expression, cyber security and human rights, and global Internet governance architecture since 2012 [IDP].

The first Internet Society chapter to be established in India was in Delhi. The chapter began in 2002, but went through a period of no activity before being revived in 2008 [Delhi]. The Chennai chapter started in 2007 [Chennai], the Kolkata one in 2009 [Kolkata], and the Bengaluru chapter came into existence in 2010 [Bangalore]. Asia Internet Symposium have been organised in India twice: 1) the Kolkata one, held on on 1 December 2014, focused on 'Internet and Human Rights: Empowering the Users,' and 2) the Chennai symposium, held on 2 December 2014, discussed 'India in the Open and Global Internet.' The newest Internet Society chapter in India is in the process of formation in Trivandrum [Trivandrum], led by the efforts of Satish Babu (mentioned above).

Global and National Events

The first World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) conference in Geneva, held on 10-12 December 2003, was not attended by many civil society organizations from India. Several Indian participants in the conference were part of the team of representatives from different global civil society organizations, like Digital Partners, Development Alternatives with Women for a New Era (DAWN), and International Centre for New Media [ITU 2003]. Between the first and the second conference, the engagement with the WSIS process increased among Indian civil society organizations increased of the WSIS process, which was especially led by IT for Change. In early 2005, before the second Preparatory Committee meeting of the Tunis conference, it organized a discussion event titled 'Gender Perspectives on the Information Society: South Asia Pre-WSIS Seminar' in partnership with DAWN and the Indian Institute of Management, Bangalore, which was supported by UNIFEM and the UNDP Asia-Pacific Development Information Programme [Gurumurthy 2006]. In a separate note, Anita Gurumurthy and Parminder Jeet Singh of IT for Change have noted their experience as a South Asian civil society organization engaging with the WSIS process [Gurumurthy 2005]. The second WSIS conference in Tunis, held on 16-18 November 2005, however, neither saw any significant participation from Indian civil society organizations, except for Ambedkar Centre for Justice and Peace, Childline India Foundation / Child Helpline International, and IT for Change [ITU 2005]. This contrasted sharply with the over 60 delegates from various Indian government agencies taking part in the conference [ITU 2005].

Two important events took place in India in early 2005 that substantially contributed to the civil society discourses in India around information technology and its socio-legal implications and possibilities. The former is the conference titled 'Contested Commons, Trespassing Publics' organized by the Sarai programme at the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies, Alternative Law Forum, and Public Service Broadcasting Trust, in Delhi on 6-8 January 2005. The conference attempted to look into the terms of intellectual property rights (IPR) debates from the perspectives of experiences in countries in Asia, Latin America, and Africa. It was based on the research carried out by the Sarai programme and Alternative Law Forum on contemporary realities of media production and distribution, and the ways in which law and legal instruments enter into the most intimate spheres of social and cultural life to operationalise the IPRs. The conference combined academic discussions with parallel demonstrations by media practitioners, and knowledge sharing by FLOSS communities [Sarai 2005]. The latter event is the first of the Asia Source workshop that took place in Bengaluru during 28 January - 4 February 2005 . It brought together more than 100 representatives from South and South-East Asian civil society organizations and technology practitioners working with them, along with several leading practitioners from Africa, Europe, North America, and Latin America, to promote adoption and usage of FLOSS across the developmental sector in the region. The workshop was organized by Mahiti (Bengaluru) and Tactical Technology Collective (Amsterdam), with intellectual and practical support from an advisory group of representatives from FLOSS communities and civil society organizations, and financial support from Hivos, the Open Society Institute, and International Open Source Network [Asia Source].

While the participation of representatives from Indian civil society organizations at the IGFs in Athens (2006) and Rio de Janeiro (2007) was minimal, the IGF Hyderabad, held on 3-6 December 2008, provided a great opportunity for Indian civil society actors to participate in and familiarize themselves with the global Internet governance process. Apart from various professionals, especially lawyers, who attended the Hyderabad conference as individuals, the leading civil society organizations participating in the event included: Ambedkar Center for Justice and Peace, Centre for Internet and Society, Centre for Science, Development and Media Studies, Digital Empowerment Foundation, Internet Society Chennai chapter, IT for Change, and Mahiti. The non-governmental participants from India at the event, however, were predominantly from private companies and academic institutes [IGF 2008].

IT for Change made a critical intervention into the discourse of global Internet governance during the Hyderabad conference by bringing back the term 'enhanced cooperation,' as mentioned in the Tunis Agenda for the Information Society [ITU 2005 b]. At IGF Sharm El Sheikh, held during 15-18 November 2009, Parminder Jeet Singh of IT for Change explained:

[E]nhanced cooperation consists of two parts. One part is dedicated to creating globally applicable policy principles, and there is an injunction to the relevant organizations to create the conditions for doing that. And I have a feeling that the two parts of that process have been conflated into one. And getting reports from the relevant organizations is going on, but we are not able to go forward to create a process which addresses the primary purpose of enhanced cooperation, which was to create globally applicable public policy principles and the proof of that is that I don't see any development of globally applicable public policy principles, which remains a very important need. [IGF 2009]

This foregrounding of the principle of 'enhanced cooperation' have since substantially contributed to rethinking not only the global Internet governance mechanisms and its reconfigurations, but also the Indian government's perspectives towards the same. It eventually led to the proposal made by a representative of Government of India at the UN General Assembly session on 26 October 2011 regarding the establishment of a UN Committee for Internet-Related Policies [Singh 2011].

Internet Policies and Censorship

One of the earliest instances of censorship of online content in India is the blocking of several websites offering Voice over IP (VoIP) softwares, which can be downloaded to make low-cost international calls, during late 1990s. The India-GII mailing list initiated by Arun Mehta, as mentioned above, started almost as a response to this blocking move by Videsh Sanchar Nigam Limited (VSNL), the government-owned Internet Service Provider (ISP). Additionally, Mehta filed a case against VSNL for blocking these e-commerce websites, which might be identified as the first case of legal activism for Internet-related rights in India [India-GII 2001]. During the war between India and Pakistan during 1999, the Indian government instructed VSNL to block various Pakistani media websites, including that of Dawn. Like in the case of websites offering VoIP services, this blocking did not involve direct intervention with the websites concerned but only the ability of Indian users to access them [Tanna 2004]. The first well-known case of the Government of India blocking digital content for political reasons occurred in 2003, when a mailing list titled 'Kynhun' was banned. Department of Telecommunications instructed all the But the previously deployed URL-blocking strategy did not work in the new situation of mailing lists. Blocking the URL of the group did not stop it from being used by members of the group to continue sharing email through it. Government of India then approached Yahoo directly to ensure that the mailing list is closed down, which Yahoo declined to implement. This resulted in imposing of a blanket blocking of all Yahoo Groups pages across ISPs in India during September 2003. By November, Yahoo decided to close down the mailing list, and the blanket blocking was repealed [Tanna 2004]. Further blocking of several blogs and websites continued through 2006 and 2007, where the government decided to work in collaboration with various platforms offering hosted blog and personal webpage services to remove access to specific sub-domains. In resistance to this series of blocking orders by the government, there emerged an important civil society campaign titled 'Bloggers Against Censorship' led by Bloggers Collective Group, a distributed network of bloggers from all across India [Bloggers 2006].

A few weeks after the IGF Hyderabad, the Government of India passed the Information Technology (Amendment) Act 2008 on 22 December 2008 [MoLaJ 2009], although it was notified and enforced much later on 27 October 2009 [MoCaIT 2009]. This amendment attempted to clarify various topics left under-defined in the Information Technology Act of 2000. However, as Pranesh Prakash of the Centre for Internet and Society noted, the casual usage of the term 'offensive content' in the amendment opened up serious threats of broad curbing of freedom of online expression under the justification that it caused 'annoyance' or 'inconvenience' [Prakash 2009]. The sections 66 and 67 of the amended Information Technology Act, which respectively address limits to online freedom of expression and legally acceptable monitoring of digital communication by government agencies, have since been severely protested against by civil society organizations across India for enabling a broad-brushed censorship and surveillance of the Internet in India. The section 66A has especially allowed the government to make a series of arrests of Internet users for posting and sharing 'offensive content' [Pahwa 2015].

In 2011, the Government of India introduced another critical piece of policy instrument for controlling online expressions – the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines) Rules, 2011 [MoCaIT 2011] – targeted at defining the functions of the intermediaries associated with Internet-related services and communication, and how they are to respond to government's directives towards taking down and temporary blocking of digital content. The draft Rules were published in early 2011 and comments were invited from the general public. One of the responses, submitted by Privacy India and the Centre for Internet and Society, explicitly highlighted the draconian implications of the (then) proposed rules:

This rule requires an intermediary to immediately take steps to remove access to information merely upon receiving a written request from “any authority mandated under the law”. Thus, for example, any authority can easily immunize itself from criticism on the internet by simply sending a written notice to the intermediary concerned. This is directly contrary to, and completely subverts the legislative intent expressed in Section 69B which lays down an elaborate procedure to be followed before any information can be lawfully blocked. [Prakash 2011]

The policy apparatus of controlling online expression in India took its full form by the beginning of the decade under study here. The 'chilling effect' of this apparatus was made insightfully evident by a study conducted by Rishabh Dara at the Centre for Internet and Society, where fake takedown notices (regarding existing digital content) were sent to 7 important Internet intermediaries operating in India, and their responses were studied. The results of this experiment demonstrated that:

[T]he Rules create uncertainty in the criteria and procedure for administering the takedown thereby inducing the intermediaries to err on the side of caution and over-comply with takedown notices in order to limit their liability; and as a result suppress legitimate expressions. Additionally, the Rules do not establish sufficient safeguards to prevent misuse and abuse of the takedown process to suppress legitimate expressions. [Dara 2012]

Reference

[Bloggers 2006] Bloggers Collective Group, Bloggers Against Censorship. Last updated on April 30, 2009‎. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://censorship.wikia.com/wiki/Bloggers_Against_Censorship.

[Dara 2012] Dara, Rishabh, Intermediary Liability in India: Chilling Effects on Free Expression on the Internet. The Centre for Internet and Society. April 27. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/chilling-effects-on-free-expression-on-internet.

[DEF] Digital Empowerment Foundation (DEF). Community Information Resource Centre. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://defindia.org/circ-2/.

[DEF b] Digital Empowerment Foundation (DEF). Internet Rights. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://internetrights.in/.

[DEF c] Digital Empowerment Foundation (DEF). Our Story. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://defindia.org/about-def/.

[DEF d] Digital Empowerment Foundation (DEF). Manthan Awards. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://defindia.org/manthan-award-south-asia-masa/.

[FSFI] Free Software Foundation of India. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://fsf.org.in/.

[FSMI] Free Software Movement of India. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://www.fsmi.in/node.

[Gurumurthy 2001] Gurumurthy, Anita, A Gender Perspective to ICTs and Development: Reflections towards Tunis. January 15. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://www.worldsummit2003.de/en/web/701.htm.

[Gurumurthy 2005] Gurumurthy, Anita, and Parminder Jeet Singh, WSIS PrepCom 2: A South Asian Perspective. Association for Progressive Communications. April 01. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from https://www.apc.org/en/news/hr/world/wsis-prepcom-2-south-asian-perspective.

[Gurumurthy 2006] Gurumuthy, Anita et al (eds.), Gender in the Information Society: Emerging Issues. UNDP Asia-Pacific Development Information Programme. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://www.genderit.org/sites/default/upload/GenderIS.pdf.

[India-GII 2001] India-GII, Status of VSNL Censorship of IP-Telephony Sites. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://members.tripod.com/~india_gii/statusof.htm.

[India-GII 2005] India-GII. 2005. Last modified on May 24. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://india-gii.org/.

[IDP] Internet Democracy Project. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://internetdemocracy.in/.

[ITU 2003] International Telecommunication Union (ITU), Geneva Phase of the WSIS: List of Participants. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/summit_participants.pdf.

[ITU 2005] International Telecommunication Union (ITU), List of Participants (WSIS) – Update 5 Dec 2005. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs2/tunis/final-list-participants.pdf.

[ITU 2005 b] International Telecommunication Union (ITU), Tunis Agenda for the Information Society. November 18. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs2/tunis/off/6rev1.pdf.

[IGF 2008] Internet Governance Forum, Hyderabad Provisional List of Participants. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/component/content/article/385-hyderabad-provisional-list-of-participants.

[IGF 2009] Internet Governance Forum, Managing Critical Resources. IGF Sharm El Sheikh, Egypt . November 16. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/2009/sharm_el_Sheikh/Transcripts/Sharm%20El%20Sheikh%2016%20November%202009%20Managing%20Critical%20Internet%20Resources.pdf.

[Bangalore] Internet Society Bangalore Chapter. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://www.isocbangalore.org/.

[Delhi] Internet Society Delhi Chapter. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://www.isocbangalore.org.

[Chennai] Internet Society Chennai Chapter. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://www.isocbangalore.org.

[Kolkata] Internet Society Kolkata Chapter. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://isockolkata.in/.

[Trivandrum] Internet Society Trivandrum Chapter. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/where-we-work/chapters/india-trivandrum-chapter.

[ITfC] IT for Change, About IT for Change. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://www.itforchange.net/aboutus.

[ITfC b] IT for Change, Anita Gurumurthy. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://www.itforchange.net/Anita.

[ITfC c] IT for Change, Gender and Citizenship in the Information Society: Southern Feminist Dialogues in Practice and Theory. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://www.gender-is-citizenship.net/.

[ITfC d] IT for Change, Internet Governance. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://www.itforchange.net/Techgovernance.

[ITfC e] IT for Change, Our Field Centre. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://www.itforchange.net/field_centre.

[JNC] Just Net Coalition (JNC). Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://justnetcoalition.org/.

[Kumar 2007] Kumar, Sasi V. 2007. The Story of Free Software in Kerala, India. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://swatantryam.blogspot.in/2007/08/story-of-free-software-in-kerala-india.html.

[MoLaJ 2009] Ministry of Law and Justice (MoLaJ), The Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008. The Gazette of India. February 05. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://deity.gov.in/sites/upload_files/dit/files/downloads/itact2000/it_amendment_act2008.pdf.

[MoCaIT 2009] Ministry of Communications and Information Technology (MoCaIT), Notification. The Gazette of India. October 27. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://deity.gov.in/sites/upload_files/dit/files/downloads/itact2000/act301009.pdf.

[MoCaIT 2011] Ministry of Communications and Information Technology (MoCaIT), Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules, 2011. The Gazette of India. April 11. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://deity.gov.in/sites/upload_files/dit/files/GSR314E_10511%281%29.pdf.

[Noronha 2002] Noronha, Frederick, Linking a Diverse Country: Mailing Lists in India. The Digital Development Network. May 22. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://www.comminit.com/ict-4-development/content/linking-diverse-country-mailing-lists-india.

[Pahwa 2015] Pahwa, Nikhil, A List of Section 66A Arrests in India through the Years. Medianama. March 24. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://www.medianama.com/2015/03/223-section-66a-arrests-in-india/.

[Prakash 2009] Prakash, Pranesh, Short Note on IT Amendment Act, 2008 . The Centre for Internet and Society. February. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/publications/it-act/short-note-on-amendment-act-2008/.

[Prakash 2011] Prakash, Pranesh, CIS Para-wise Comments on Intermediary Due Diligence Rules, 2011. The Centre for Internet and Society. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/intermediary-due-diligence.

[Prakash 2011 b] Prakash, Pranesh, et al, Open Government Data Study. The Centre for Internet and Society. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://cis-india.org/openness/blog/open-government-data-study.

[SFLC] Software Freedom Law Centre (SFLC). Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://sflc.in/.

[Shah 2011] Shah, Nishant. 2011. Digital AlterNatives with a Cause? The Centre for Internet and Society. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://cis-india.org/digital-natives/blog/dnbook.

[Singh 2011] Singh, Dushyant, India's Proposal for a United Nations Committee for Internet-Related Policies. Sixty Sixth Session of the UN General Assembly, New York. October 26. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://www.itforchange.net/sites/default/files/ItfC/india_un_cirp_proposal_20111026.pdf.

[SKC] Society for Knowledge Commons. About Us. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://www.knowledgecommons.in/about-us/.

[Asia Source] Tactical Technology Collective, Asia Source. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from https://tacticaltech.org/asiasource.

[Tanna 2004] Tanna, Ketan, Internet Censorship in India: Is It Necessary and Does It Work?. Sarai-CSDS Independent Fellowship. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://www.ketan.net/INTERNET_CENSORSHIP_IN_INDIA.html.

[CIS] The Centre for Internet and Society. About Us. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://cis-india.org/about/.

[CIS 2008] The Centre for Internet and Society. 2008. Annual Report. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://cis-india.org/accessibility/annual-report-2008.pdf.

[Sarai 2005] The Sarai Programme, Contested Commons, Trespassing Publics. January 12. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from http://sarai.net/contested-commons-trespassing-publics/.

[Wikipedia 2015] Satish Babu. Wikipedia. Last modified on June 25. Accessed on July 08, 2015, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satish_Babu.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/raw/civil-society-organisations-and-internet-governance-in-india-open-review

New Trends in Industry Self-Governance

praskrishna — 2012-10-04T11:37:54Z

Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford, UK and Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ, University of Zurich, Switzerland and Nominet, UK is organising this workshop on November 7, 2012 at the seventh annual IGF meeting to be held in Baku, Azerbaijan. This workshop will be held in Conference Room 2, from 4.30 p.m. to 6.00 p.m. Sunil Abraham is one of the panelists at this workshop.

Concise description of the proposed workshop:
Informal rule setting still plays a significant role in Internet governance. Non-governmental governance can occur at two levels: by shared rules negotiated through bodies like ICANN, and via private ordering by individual firms with significant market power. This panel will explore these two levels drawing on research into ICANN and two recent cases: the Google Books [non-] settlement, and several governments’ demands that service providers such as Research In Motion and Facebook give local law enforcement agencies access to user communications.

Google’s project to digitize, index, and later to sell access to large numbers of out-of-print books is a leading example of an Internet-triggered shift from public to private regulation and the declining authority of copyright law. It triggered a major international controversy encompassing three class action lawsuits, a proposed and subsequently amended settlement by the litigating parties, more than 400 filings by class-members and "friends of the court" (including the French and German governments), two court hearings, various conferences, innumerous blog entries and articles. A New York federal district court ultimately rejected a proposed settlement between Google and representatives of book authors and publishers, stating that the issues would be “more appropriately decided by Congress than through an agreement among private, self-interested parties."

While almost all states allow law enforcement agencies to intercept Internet communications, the growing use of encryption has restricted access to in-transit communications and social networking data. The governments of India and several Middle Eastern nations have all pressed Research In Motion to allow police access to BlackBerry encrypted messages, threatening otherwise to shut down services. RIM has installed local servers in several countries to meet these demands. The Indian government is reportedly now looking at encrypted services provided by Google and Skype. These and other online services, often hosted in the US, receive frequent requests from foreign law enforcement agencies for user data. Such requests have no statutory force, but may be voluntarily granted under US law – raising questions about user privacy and the oversight of this access.

These cases have much wider implications for other Internet services and users around the world. The proposed workshop will facilitate a multi-stakeholder exploration of these implications.

Four researchers will give precise, provocative five-minute opening statements on the key lessons for Internet rule setting from these cases. Each speaker will pose three specific questions on the accountability, viability and efficiency of these governance structures. These questions will kick-off roundtable discussion between the panelists from government, civil society, business and the technical community. The objective will be to draw out further lessons in how the public interest can best be protected in informal Internet governance processes, with contributions and questions from workshop and remote participants.representing official positions.

Background Paper:

Name of the organiser(s) of the workshop and their affiliation to various stakeholder groups:
Ian Brown, Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford
William Drake, University of Zurich Business, technical community, Civil Society, government co-sponsors in process (TBD)

Have you, or any of your co-organisers, organised an IGF workshop before?: Yes
Please provide link(s) to workshop(s) or report(s):
http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/component/chronocontact/?chronoformname=Workshopsreports2009View&curr=1&wr=84

Provide the names and affiliations of the panellists you are planning to invite:
Sunil Abraham, Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore
Ian Brown, Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford (Moderator)
William Drake, University of Zurich
Jeanette Hoffman, Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin
Emily Taylor, Independent Consultant, UK
Rolf Weber, University of Zurich
Google representative TBC
Government representative TBC

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/new-trends-in-industry-self-governance

What Frameworks for Cross-Border Online Communities and Services

praskrishna — 2012-12-05T00:10:27Z

Chinmayi Arun, Assistant Professor at National Law University India and Fellow at the CIS India, talks about the Internet Governance Forum 2012 Workshop 154 "What Frameworks for Cross-Border Online Communities and Services", which was hosted by the Internet & Jurisdiction Project on November 8, 2012.

Panelists:

Chinmayi Arun, National Law University India and Fellow at CIS India
Brian Cute, CEO at PIR (.org)
Lee Hibbard, Media and Information Society Division at Council of Europe
Konstantinos Komaitis, Policy Advisor at Internet Society
Michael Niebel, Internet Policy Development at European Commission
Patrick Ryan, Policy Councel Open Internet at Google

More information at www.internetjurisdiction.net

Video by the Internet Governance Forum

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/frameworks-for-cross-border-online-communities-and-services

CIS@IGF 2014

geetha — 2014-10-08T10:31:47Z

The ninth Internet Governance Forum (“IGF2014”) was hosted by Turkey in Istanbul from September 2 to 5, 2014.

A BestBits pre-event, which saw robust discussions on renewal of the IGF mandate, the NETmundial Initiative and other live Internet governance processes, flagged off a week of many meetings and sessions. At IGF2014, the ICANN-led processes of IANA transition and ICANN accountability found strong presence. Human rights online, access and net neutrality were also widely discussed. Centre for Internet and Society, India participated in multiple workshops and panels.

Workshops and Panel Discussions

WS206: An evidence-based framework for intermediary liability
CIS organized a workshop on developing an evidence-based framework for intermediary liability in collaboration with the Stanford Center for Internet and Society. By connecting information producers and consumers, intermediaries serve as valuable tool for growth and innovation, and also a medium for realisation of human rights. The workshop looked to a concerted approach to understanding intermediaries’ impact on human rights demands our urgent attention. Jyoti Panday of CIS was contributed to the workshop’s background paper and organisation. Elonnai Hickok of CIS was a speaker. At this workshop, a zero-draft of international principles for intermediary liability was released. The zero-draft is the interim outcome of an ongoing, global intermediary liability project, undertaken by CIS in collaboration with Article 19 and Electronic Frontier Foundation. See the video.

WS112: Implications of post-Snowden Internet localization proposals
Organised by ISOC and Center for Democracy and Technology, this panel questioned the distinctions between Internet-harmful and Internet-beneficial Internet and data localization. As a speaker at this workshop, Sunil Abraham of CIS identified state imperatives for Internet localization, such as taxation, network efficiency and security. See video.

WS63: Preserving a universal Internet: Costs of fragmentation
Internet and Jurisdiction Project organized this workshop to explore potential harms to Internet architecture, universality and openness as a result of Internet balkanisation. Sunil Abraham was one of the speakers.

WS2: Mobile, trust and privacy
Organised by GSMA, this panel discussed methods, benefits and harms of use of mobile transaction generated information and data. Sunil Abraham was a speaker. See video.

WS188: Transparency reporting as a tool for Internet governance
This GNI workshop examined transparency reporting by Internet intermediaries and companies, and sought to identify its strengths and shortcomings as a tool for Internet governance. Pranesh Prakash of CIS was a speaker. See video.

WS149: Aligning ICANN policy with the privacy rights of users
This Yale ISP panel examined ICANN’s obligations for data protection, in light of international standards and best practices. This discussion is particularly relevant as ICANN’s WHOIS policy, Registrar Accreditation Agreement, and other policies have attained the status of a global standard for the handling of personal data. Pranesh Prakash moderated this panel.

Other Participation

Launch of the GISWatch Report

Association for Progressive Communications (APC) and the Humanist Institute for Cooperation with Developing Countries (Hivos) released the Global Information Society Watch Report (GISWatch) on national and global mass surveillance. The report “explores the surveillance of citizens in today's digital age by governments with the complicity of institutions and corporations”. Elonnai Hickok of CIS contributed a thematic chapter on Intermediary Liability and Surveillance to this report.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis-at-igf-2014

An Evidence based Intermediary Liability Policy Framework: Workshop at IGF

jyoti — 2014-07-04T06:41:10Z

CIS is organising a workshop at the Internet Governance Forum 2014. The workshop will be an opportunity to present and discuss ongoing research on the changing definition of intermediaries and their responsibilities across jurisdictions and technologies and contribute to a comprehensible framework for liability that is consistent with the capacity of the intermediary and with international human-rights standards.

The Centre for Internet and Society, India and Centre for Internet and Society, Stanford Law School, USA, will be organising a workshop to analyse the role of intermediary platforms in relation to freedom of expression, freedom of information and freedom of association at the Internet Governance Forum 2014. The aim of the workshop is to highlight the increasing importance of digital rights and broad legal protections of stakeholders in an increasingly knowledge-based economy. The workshop will discuss public policy issues associated with Internet intermediaries, in particular their roles, legal responsibilities and related liability limitations in context of the evolving nature and role of intermediaries in the Internet ecosystem. distinct

Online Intermediaries: Setting the context

The Internet has facilitated unprecedented access to information and amplified avenues for expression and engagement by removing the limits of geographic boundaries and enabling diverse sources of information and online communities to coexist. Against the backdrop of a broadening base of users, the role of intermediaries that enable economic, social and political interactions between users in a global networked communication is ubiquitous. Intermediaries are essential to the functioning of the Internet as many producers and consumers of content on the internet rely on the action of some third party–the so called intermediary. Such intermediation ranges from the mere provision of connectivity, to more advanced services such as providing online storage spaces for data, acting as platforms for storage and sharing of user generated content (UGC), or platforms that provides links to other internet content.

Online intermediaries enhance economic activity by reducing costs, inducing competition by lowering the barriers for participation in the knowledge economy and fuelling innovation through their contribution to the wider ICT sector as well as through their key role in operating and maintaining Internet infrastructure to meet the network capacity demands of new applications and of an expanding base of users.

Intermediary platforms also provide social benefits, by empowering users and improving choice through social and participative networks, or web services that enable creativity and collaboration amongst individuals. By enabling platforms for self-expression and cooperation, intermediaries also play a critical role in establishing digital trust, protection of human rights such as freedom of speech and expression, privacy and upholding fundamental values such as freedom and democracy.

However, the economic and social benefits of online intermediaries are conditional to a framework for protection of intermediaries against legal liability for the communication and distribution of content which they enable.

Intermediary Liability

Over the last decade, right holders, service providers and Internet users have been locked in a debate on the potential liability of online intermediaries. The debate has raised global concerns on issues such as, the extent to which Internet intermediaries should be held responsible for content produced by third parties using their Internet infrastructure and how the resultant liability would affect online innovation and the free flow of knowledge in the information economy?

Given the impact of their services on communications, intermediaries find themselves as either directly liable for their actions, or indirectly (or “secondarily”) liable for the actions of their users. Requiring intermediaries to monitor the legality of the online content poses an insurmountable task. Even if monitoring the legality of content by intermediaries against all applicable legislations were possible, the costs of doing so would be prohibitively high. Therefore, placing liability on intermediaries can deter their willingness and ability to provide services, hindering the development of the internet itself.

Economics of intermediaries are dependent on scale and evaluating the legality of an individual post exceeds the profit from hosting the speech, and in the absence of judicial oversight can lead to a private censorship regime. Intermediaries that are liable for content or face legal exposure, have powerful incentives, to police content and limit user activity to protect themselves. The result is curtailing of legitimate expression especially where obligations related to and definition of illegal content is vague. Content policing mandates impose significant compliance costs limiting the innovation and competiveness of such platforms.

More importantly, placing liability on intermediaries has a chilling effect on freedom of expression online. Gate keeping obligations by service providers threaten democratic participation and expression of views online, limiting the potential of individuals and restricting freedoms. Imposing liability can also indirectly lead to the death of anonymity and pseudonymity, pervasive surveillance of users' activities, extensive collection of users' data and ultimately would undermine the digital trust between stakeholders.

Thus effectively, imposing liability for intermediaries creates a chilling effect on Internet activity and speech, create new barriers to innovation and stifles the Internet's potential to promote broader economic and social gains. To avoid these issues, legislators have defined 'safe harbours', limiting the liability of intermediaries under specific circumstances.

Online intermediaries do not have direct control of what information is or information are exchanged via their platform and might not be aware of illegal content per se. A key framework for online intermediaries, such limited liability regimes provide exceptions for third party intermediaries from liability rules to address this asymmetry of information that exists between content producers and intermediaries.

However, it is important to note, that significant differences exist concerning the subjects of these limitations, their scope of provisions and procedures and modes of operation. The 'notice and takedown' procedures are at the heart of the safe harbour model and can be subdivided into two approaches:

a. Vertical approach where liability regime applies to specific types of content exemplified in the US Digital Copyright Millennium Act

b. Horizontal approach based on the E-Commerce Directive (ECD) where different levels of immunity are granted depending on the type of activity at issue

Current framework

Globally, three broad but distinct models of liability for intermediaries have emerged within the Internet ecosystem:

1. Strict liability model under which intermediaries are liable for third party content used in countries such as China and Thailand

2. Safe harbour model granting intermediaries immunity, provided their compliance on certain requirements

3. Broad immunity model that grants intermediaries broad or conditional immunity from liability for third party content and exempts them from any general requirement to monitor content.

While the models described above can provide useful guidance for the drafting or the improvement of the current legislation, they are limited in their scope and application as they fail to account for the different roles and functions of intermediaries. Legislators and courts are facing increasing difficulties, in interpreting these regulations and adapting them to a new economic and technical landscape that involves unprecedented levels user generated content and new kinds of and online intermediaries.

The nature and role of intermediaries change considerably across jurisdictions, and in relation to the social, economic and technical contexts. In addition to the dynamic nature of intermediaries the different categories of Internet intermediaries‘ are frequently not clear-cut, with actors often playing more than one intermediation role. Several of these intermediaries offer a variety of products and services and may have number of roles, and conversely, several of these intermediaries perform the same function. For example , blogs, video services and social media platforms are considered to be 'hosts'. Search engine providers have been treated as 'hosts' and 'technical providers'.

This limitations of existing models in recognising that different types of intermediaries perform different functions or roles and therefore should have different liability, poses an interesting area for research and global deliberation. Establishing classification of intermediaries, will also help analyse existing patterns of influence in relation to content for example when the removal of content by upstream intermediaries results in undue over-blocking.

Distinguishing intermediaries on the basis of their roles and functions in the Internet ecosystem is critical to ensuring a balanced system of liability and addressing concerns for freedom of expression. Rather than the highly abstracted view of intermediaries as providing a single unified service of connecting third parties, the definition of intermediaries must expand to include the specific role and function they have in relation to users' rights. A successful intermediary liability regime must balance the needs of producers, consumers, affected parties and law enforcement, address the risk of abuses for political or commercial purposes, safeguard human rights and contribute to the evolution of uniform principles and safeguards.

Towards an evidence based intermediary liability policy framework

This workshop aims to bring together leading representatives from a broad spectrum of stakeholder groups to discuss liability related issues and ways to enhance Internet users’ trust.

Questions to address at the panel include:

1. What are the varying definitions of intermediaries across jurisdictions?

2. What are the specific roles and functions that allow for classification of intermediaries?

3. How can we ensure the legal framework keeps pace with technological advances and the changing roles of intermediaries?

4. What are the gaps in existing models in balancing innovation, economic growth and human rights?

5. What could be the respective role of law and industry self-regulation in enhancing trust?

6. How can we enhance multi-stakeholder cooperation in this space?

Confirmed Panel:

Technical Community: Malcolm Hutty: Internet Service Providers Association (ISPA)
Civil Society: Gabrielle Guillemin: Article19
Academic: Nicolo Zingales: Assistant Professor of Law at Tilburg University
Intergovernmental: Rebecca Mackinnon: Consent of the Networked, UNESCO project
Civil Society: Anriette Esterhuysen: Association for Progressive Communication (APC)
Civil Society: Francisco Vera: Advocacy Director: Derechos Digitale
Private Sector: Titi Akinsanmi: Policy and Government Relations Manager, Google Sub-Saharan Africa
Legal: Martin Husovec: MaxPlanck Institute

Moderator(s): Giancarlo Frosio, Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) and Jeremy Malcolm, Electronic Frontier Foundation

Remote Moderator: Anubha Sinha, New Delhi

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/igf-workshop-an-evidence-based-intermediary-liability-policy-framework

Submission to IGF 2025 Call for Thematic Inputs

Amrita Sengupta, Yesha Tshering Paul, and Pallavi Bedi — 2025-03-06T06:36:10Z

Below are CIS's inputs submitted in response to the IGF 2025 Call for Thematic Inputs. They will inform the MAG’s discussions and assist them in determining the thematic priorities of the IGF 2025 programme.

On AI governance, AI risks and AI and data:
In the past many years, there has been rapid advances in the use of AI, most recently with the use of generative AI by end users and citizens. While questions of ethical use of AI, need for fairness, accountability and transparency are not new, the very rapid scale deployment of AI across different fields and also the easy use of AI across different users, have raised questions of exacerbated harms, infringement of copyright among others and a lot of focus currently is on developing governance for AI. Somewhere, there has been an acceptance of inevitability and almost omnipresence of AI across different contexts which has furthered deliberations around harnessing AI for good. We ask that while “AI for good” as an issue is being mainstreamed, it is most critical that there are avenues to discuss and understand areas where AI should not be used (because of the outsized harms as compared to its benefits) or can be used through limited use of resources (given the wide ranging environmental impacts associated with AI and the resource intensive areas of computational power and data centers) and mechanisms to actualize that. This means that not only do we discuss AI governance in the context of where it is already deployed but also discuss conditions in which it should not be deployed.
There also needs to be greater and more specific regional conversations around data use for AI, especially for developing predictive AI systems, in sensitive settings such as healthcare and financial services. The challenges of using different data for different geographical settings have been well documented (consider for example training data from global north to develop and deploy AI diagnostics for a country in global south). There needs to be more specific conversations and transparency around data sources that are being used and how they can be both ethically sourced but also made contextually relevant. IGF can support these conversations by inviting specific inputs from the multi-stakeholder community on these specific issues.

On digital identity:
There is growing interest in digital public infrastructure and its use for public service delivery and has potential to offer benefits and meaningful governance, if done well, as certain examples may suggest. However, the implementation of digital ID systems for example, particularly when they are the sole means of identification, raises critical questions. Such systems must have robust legislative backing, including privacy and data protection frameworks, if not regulations, along with sufficient legislative and judicial oversight to ensure accountability. Concerns about mission creep—where systems initially introduced for specific purposes gradually expand to other uses without adequate scrutiny—highlight the need for clearly defined objectives and legal safeguards. These systems should proactively assess and mitigate risks and harms before implementation. Furthermore, given that many of these systems rely heavily on private companies with limited oversight, it is crucial to ensure meaningful community participation and accountability throughout the entire process to prioritize public interest over private gains. As we think about DPIs, we urge that its applicability, necessary infrastructural availability, assessment of risks are adequately considered and detailed through the themes and sessions at IGF.

On data governance and youth engagement:
Personal data is being captured by different actors in an unprecedented manner, and at times without any legislative backing or grievance redressal mechanism. With the advent of generative AI- there are also concerns regarding the extent to which data which is publicly available is being used and for what purposes. These concerns are exacerbated when children’s data is being used for generative AI purposes; in most cases without the knowledge or consent of the children. In an increasingly digitised world, how should children navigate the digital world; what is the appropriate age for children to access the internet and should there be age-gating, and if yes, how should that be implemented? What are the mechanisms to determine parental verification? As we have more and more young people online, it will be essential to define and develop frameworks for children’s use and experience of the internet, including having young people participate in these discussions.

We request some steps to be taken at the IGF annual meeting and during its intersessional work:
-Reduce duplication of processes and efforts when it comes to implementation of GDC and continue to look at existing arenas like the WSIS+20 and IGF. Greater coordination and collaboration among various UN bodies.
-Robust support for civil society participation at the IGF and other internet governance processes, especially so from Global South.
-Creation of well resourced working groups that look through the GDC implementation work where relevant.

Given the diverse set of stakeholders and the wide ranging nature topics discussed, it is understandable that the IGF covers a lot of ground. It would be beneficial if there might be deeper reflections on fewer issues if possible, so that there is greater depth in conversations as opposed to a much wider coverage. We understand that this might be difficult given what IGF sets out to do, but a more focused approach might help stakeholders have a better understanding of priorities and areas of focus. It will also be very helpful if all sessions have space for Q&A, even if it is for 10 minutes. It allows for listeners to reflect and also ask questions, where possible.

For all inputs, please visit: https://intgovforum.org/en/igf-2025-proposed-issues (CIS's inputs are under ID322)

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/submission-to-igf-2025-call-for-thematic-inputs

Cloudy Jurisdiction: Addressing the thirst for Cloud Data in Domestic Legeal Processes

praskrishna — 2012-12-09T01:00:49Z

Elonnai Hickok was a panelist at this workshop held at the IGF in Baku, Azerbaijan on November 7, 2012. The workshop was co-organised by Electronic Frontier Foundation (Peru) and University of Ottawa.

The use of cloud services is rising globally. Cloud computing and storage are uniquely tailored to take full advantage of our increasingly networked environment. However, a move to the cloud also entails tangible challenges as vast repositories of information once kept within the sacrosanct safety of the home computer are placed on a remote server in the control of a third party. While the protections of home storage and processing can be replicated in the cloud, legal norms have been slow to adopt. Jurisdiction, the classic internet governance question, is raised in particularly stark contrast in the move to the cloud, as placing user data can subject that data to the legal access laws of any (or even many) jurisdictions in the world.

While there are indicators that such data is being accessed at increasing and alarming rates, globally, yet even the dimensions of the problem remain obscure. What is needed is a set of shared international norms relating to transparency, data sovereignty and lawful access to private information. In recent years, however, International forums have appeared much more eager to adopt international standards for data access (be it to combat cybercrime, secure critical infrastructure, or help intellectual property holders uncover alleged infringers of their rights) than for data sovereignty. Standards need to be developed that will provide a basis for the special challenges to cross-jurisdictional privacy that the move to the cloud highlights. This panel will examine the need for such a cross-jurisdictional framework, what one might look like, and, importantly, how one might bring such a framework about where the issue appears to be a low priority for many national governments.

Agenda
The objective of this panel is to attempt to resolve some of the trans-border threats to civil liberties that are posed by the move to the cloud. If a baseline of privacy protection can be assured at the international level, concerns over limiting data flows on the basis of jurisdiction will be alleviated. This panel will be divided into two parts. The first part will discuss some of the challenges raised by the cloud environment for traditional civil liberties paradigms. The discussion in part two will be solution-driven—what rules can be put in place at the international level to alleviate the heightened risk to privacy and other civil liberties raised by a cloud-centric model.

Part 1: Cloud-based threats to cross-border civil liberties (45 mins)
This part will discuss some of the challenges to civil liberties arising from a cross-border cloud-based environment. The panel will be further sub-divided into 25-30 minutes of panelist input, followed by 15-20 minutes of general discussion. Panelists will be asked to spend 3-5 minutes highlighting what they view as the most pressing of these challenges may be.

This might include specific recurring problems that have arisen in many comparable online contexts, as they relate to the cloud such as, for example:

legal obligations to build in intercept capacity into Internet services (compare CALEA 2.0 efforts in US, Lawful Access in Canada, and domestic server obligations such as those imposed on RIM by India and others in order to facilitate access to data that is encrypted in transit).
Concerns that many legal regimes permit voluntary conduct without adequate safeguards for political pressure on companies, particularly smaller businesses, to comply with requests.
Inability to challenge surveillance laws because the programs are shrouded in secrecy, because individuals are never made aware they have been surveilled, because of standing issues, etc.
Ability for ‘one-stop access’: cloud centralizes mass amounts of data in one place. This concentration as well as a general erosion of traditional criteria designed to ensure surveillance is targeted in a way that impacts minimally on the general populace.
Nascent suggestions of informal information sharing arrangements through MLATs and less transparent more informal arrangements.

Part 2: Adopting protections at the International level (45 mins.)
The discussion in Part 2 will focus on how some of these problems can be addressed at the international level by adoption of a set of principled protections designed to meet the realities of online and specifically cloud services. The focus is on problem resolution.

Format for Part 2 will mirror that of Part 1. Panelists will be provided with 3-5 minutes each and asked to present their views on one or two solutions that can be adopted at the international level to the problems presented in part 1. The remainder (20-25 minutes) will be dedicated to general discussion.

It is hoped that the discussion will explore specific protections that might be adopted at the international level, how to advance those solutions, and what strategies can generally advance these objectives, on the advocacy front, by use of transparency tools to increase awareness of some of the issues.

Questions to think about:

Historically, interception of communications received the strongest protection at law, but it relied to a great extent on the act of interception coinciding with the communication itself. Should we be expanding this to other means of communications?
Do we have effective mechanisms to immunize private organizations from political pressure to voluntarily share information? Particularly, a lot of small companies can now have a lot of information. Are they well equipped to resist political pressure
Does the content/traffic data distinction still hold? Do we need a new framework for analysing the types of data produced as a natural byproduct of our online activities?
Can the MLAT regime form the basis for ensuring fundamental rights are respected in legitimate cross-border surveillance activities? If so, what would it take to have it reflect a baseline of protections?
Is it feasible to develop and formally adopt detailed limitations on state access at the international or regional level?
Is cloud-based info susceptible to unauthorized state access in new ways? Is this something the law can fix (mandate encryption in storage or other safeguards)? Social engineering concerns?

Background Reading:

The Draft International Principles on Surveillance & Human Rights: http://necessaryandproportionate.org/
Global Network Initiative, "Principles on Freedom of Expression and Privacy", http://www.globalnetworkinitiative.org/sites/default/files/GNI_-_Principles_1_.pdf
I. Brown & D. Korff, “Digital Freedoms in International Law”, GNI 2012, http://wsms1.intgovforum.org/sites/default/files/Digital%20Freedoms%20in%20International%20Law.pdf
J. McNamee, “Internet Intermediaries: The New Cyberpolice?”, GIS Watch, http://www.giswatch.org/sites/default/files/gisw_-_internet_intermediaries_-_the_new_cyber_police_.pdf
A. Escudero-Pascal & G. Hosein, "The Hazards of Technology-Neutral Policy: Questioning Lawful Access to Traffic Data", (2004) 47(3) ACM 77, http://web.it.kth.se/~aep/PhD/docs/paper6-acm-1905-reviewed_20021022.pdf
HRC, “Protect, Respect and Remedy: A Framework for Business and Human Rights”, April 2008, A/HRC/8/5, http://198.170.85.29/Ruggie-report-7-Apr-2008.pdf
HRC, “Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Implementing the United Nations ‘Protect, Respect and Remedy” Framework”, March 2011, A/HRC/7/31, http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Business/A-HRC-17-31_AEV.pdf
ACLU, “New Justice Department Documents Show Huge Increase in Warrantless Electronic Surveillance”, Sept 2012, http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security-technology-and-liberty/new-justice-department-documents-show-huge-increase

Organiser(s) Name:

Katitza Rodriguez, International Rights Director, Electronic Frontier Foundation (Peru)
Tamir Israel, Staff Lawyer, Samuelson-Glushko Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC), University of Ottawa (Canada)

Previous Workshop(s):

Submitted Workshop Panelists:

Chair: Katitza Rodriguez, International Rights Director, Electronic Frontier Foundation; (US/Peru) (Civil Society) / Confirmed

Ian Brown, Senior Research Fellow, Oxford Internet Institute (EU) (Academic) / Confirmed
Bertrand de la Chapelle, Program Director at International Diplomatic Academy (EU) (Civil Society) / Confirmed
Marc Crandall, Global Compliance, Google (US) (Private Sector)
Elonnai Hickok, Policy Associate, Centre for Internet & Society (India) (Civil Society) /Confirmed
Sophie Kwasny, Head of Data Protection Unit, Data Protection & Cybercrime Division, Council of Europe (IGO) / Confirmed
Bruce Schneier, Chief Security Technology Officer of BT (US) (Private Sector) / Confirmed
Wendy Seltzer, Policy Counsel, W3C (US) (Technical Community) / Confirmed

Name of Remote Moderator(s): Paul Muchene, iHub Nairobi (Kenya) (Private Sector) Assigned Panellists: de La Chapelle - Bertrand Rodriguez - Katitza Brown - Ian Schneier - Bruce KWASNY - Sophie Seltzer - Wendy Crandall - Marc

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/cloudy-jurisdiction-addressing-the-thirst-for-cloud-data-in-domestic-legeal-processes

Centre for Internet and Society joins the Dynamic Coalition for Platform Responsibility

jyoti — 2014-10-07T10:54:03Z

The Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) has joined the multistakeholder cooperative engagement amidst stakeholders towards creating Due Diligence Recommendations for online platforms and Model Contractual Provisions to be enshrined in ToS. This blog provides a brief background of the role of dynamic coalitions within the IGF structure, establishes the need for the coalition and provides an update on the action plan and next steps for interested stakeholders.

"Identify emerging issues, bring them to the attention of the relevant bodies and the general public, and, where appropriate, make recommendations."
Tunis Agenda (Para 72.g)

The first United Nations Internet Governance Forum (IGF), in 2006 saw the emergence of the concept of Dynamic Coalition and a number of coalitions have been established over the years. The IGF is structured to bring together multistakeholder groups to,

"Discuss public policy issues related to key elements of Internet governance in order to foster the sustainability, robustness, security, stability and development of the Internet."
Tunis Agenda (Para 72.a)

While IGF workshops allow various stakeholders to jointly analyse "hot topics" or to examine progress that such issues have undertaken since the previous IGF, dynamic coalitions are informal, issue-specific groups comprising members of various stakeholder groups. With no strictures upon the objects, structure or processes of dynamic coalitions claiming association with the IGF, and no formal institutional affiliation, nor any access to the resources of the IGF Secretariat, IGF Dynamic Coalitions allow collaboration of anyone interested in contributing to their discussions. Currently, there are eleven active dynamic coalitions at the IGF and can be divided into three distinct types—networks, working groups and Birds of Feather (BOFs).

Workshops at the IGF are content specific events that, though valuable in informing participants, are limited in their impact by being confined to the launch of a report or by the issues raised within the conference room. The coalitions on the other hand are expected to have a broader function, acting as a coalescing point for interested stakeholders to gather and analyse progress around identified issues and plan next steps. The coalitions can also make recommendations around issues, however, no mechanism has been developed so far, by which the recommendations can be considered by the plenary body. The long-term nature of coalition is perhaps, most suited to engage stakeholders in heterogeneous groups, towards understanding and cooperating around emerging issues and to make recommendations to inform policy making.

Platform Responsibility

Social networks and other interactive online services, give rise to 'cyber-spaces' where individuals gather, express their personalities and exchange information and ideas. The transnational and private nature of such platforms means that they are regulated through contractual provisions enshrined in the platforms' Terms of Service (ToS). The provisions delineated in the ToS not only extend to users in spite of their geographical location, the private decisions undertaken by platform providers in implementing the ToS are not subject to constitutional guarantees framed under national jurisdictions.

While ToS serve as binding agreement online, an absence of binding international rules in this area despite the universal nature of human rights represented is a real challenge, and makes it necessary to engage in a multistakeholder effort to produce model contractual provisions that can be incorporated in ToS. The concept of 'platform responsibility' aims to stimulate behaviour in platform providers to provide intelligible and solid mechanisms, in line with the principles laid out by the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and equip platform users with common and easy-to-grasp tools to guarantee the full enjoyment of their human rights online. The utilisation of model contractual provisions in ToS may prove instrumental in fostering trust in online services for content production, use and dissemination, increasing demand of services and ultimately consumer demand may drive the market towards human rights compliant solutions.

The Dynamic Coalition on Platform Responsibility

To nurture a multi-stakeholder endeavour aimed at the elaboration of model contractual-provisions, Mr. Luca Belli, Council of Europe / Université Paris II, Ms Primavera De Filippi, CNRS / Berkman Center for Internet and Society and Mr Nicolo Zingales, Tilburg University / Center for Technology and Society Rio, initiated and facilitated the creation of the Dynamic Coalition on Platform Responsibility (DCPR). DCPR has over fifty individual and organisational members from civil society organisations, academia, private sector organisations and intergovernmental organisations and held its first meeting at the IGF in Istanbul. The meeting began with an overview of the concept of platform responsibility, highlighting relevant initiatives from Council of Europe, Global Network Initiative, Ranking Digital Rights and the Center for Democracy and Technology have undertaken in this regard. Existing issues such as difficulty in comprehension and lack of standardization of redress across rights were raised along with the fundamental lack of due process in terms of transparency across existing mechanisms.

Online platforms compliance to human rights is often framed around the duty of States to protect human rights and often, Internet companies do not sufficient consideration of the effects of their business practices on users fundamental rights undermining trust.

The meeting focused it efforts with a call to identify issues of process and substance and specific rights and challenges to be addressed by the DCPR. The procedural issues raised concerned 'responsibility' in decision-making e.g., giving users the right to be heard and an effective remedy before an impartial decision-making body, and obtaining their consent for changes in the contractual terms. The concerns raised around substantive rights such as privacy and freedom of expression eg., disclosure of personal information and content removal and need to promote 'responsibility' through establishing concrete mechanisms to deal with such issues.

It was suggested that concept of responsibility including in case of conflict between different rights could be grounded in Human Rights case law eg., from European Court of Human Rights jurisprudence. It was also established that any framework that would evolve from this coalition would consider the distinction between users (eg., adults, children, and people with or without continuous access to the Internet) and platforms (eg., in terms of size and functionality).

Action Plan

The participants at the DCPR meeting agreed to establish a multistakeholder cooperative engagement amidst stakeholders that will go beyond dialogue and produce concrete proposals. Particularly, participants suggested developing:

Due Diligence Recommendations: Recommendations to online platforms with regard to processes of compliance with internationally agreed human rights standards.
Model Contractual Provisions: Elaboration of a set of principles and provisions protecting platform users’ rights and guaranteeing transparent mechanisms to seek redress in case of violations.

DCPR will ground the development of these frameworks in the preliminary step of compilation of existing projects and initiatives dealing with the analysis of ToS compatibility with human rights standards. Members, participants and interested stakeholders are invited to highlight and share relevant initiatives by 10th October regarding:

Processes of due diligence for human rights compliance;
The evaluation of ToS cocompliance with human rights standards;

Further to this compilation, a first recommendation draft regarding online platforms' due diligence will be circulated on the mailing list by 30th October 2014. CIS will be contributing to the drafting which will be led and elaborated by the DCPR coordinators. This draft will be open for comments via the DCPR mailing list until 30th November 2014 and we encourage you to sign up to the mailing list (http://lists.platformresponsibility.info/listinfo/dcpr).

A second draft will be developed compiling the comments expressed via the mailing-list and shared for comments by 10 December 2014. The final version of the recommendation will be drafted by 30 December. Subsequently, the first set of model contractual provisions will be elaborated building upon such recommendation. A call for inputs will be issued in order to gather suggestions on the content of these provisions.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis-joins-dynamic-coalition-for-platform-responsibility

Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and Internet Economy

praskrishna — 2015-10-16T15:40:15Z

Internet Governance Forum (IGF) 2015 will be held at Jao Pessoa in Brazil from November 10 to 13, 2015. The theme of IGF 2015 is Evolution of Internet Governance: Empowering Sustainable Development. Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) is organizing a session on “Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and Internet Economy” on November 11, 2015 from 9.30 a.m. to 12.30 p.m. Sunil Abraham is participating in this session as a speaker.

The discussions at the IGF session aim to reflect the importance of Internet Economy and Internet Enablement for the fulfillment of different SDGs and also identify some best practices to inform policy makers on the ways in which Internet can serve broader and more strategic developmental objectives.

The session will include discussions on the following :

The Vision toward 2030: Sustainable Development long term opportunities and challenges
Internet Economy & Internet Role in Delivering the SDGs (Key opportunities & key Success Factors): Human Capital (a) Internet Entrepreneurship (b) Equality (c) ICT Capacity building: Applications (d) Right to Health, Education, timely Justice, environment protection, society engagement (e) Access to Information (f) Availability of Local Content Online (g) Intellectual Property Right: Access and Infrastructure - Internet Availability and Affordability: Policy and Regulatory Support and Business eco-system: To enable Access, Applications and Content development and usage, Entrepreneurship and Capacity building.
Aligning the next phase of IGF with the SDGs /Post 2015 UN Develpment Agenda: Optimizing Eco System and Multistakeholder approach

About IGF 2015

Internet Governance Forum (IGF) is a multistakeholder, democratic and transparent forum which facilitates discussions on public policy issues related to key elements of Internet governance. IGF provides enabling platform for discussions among all stakeholders in the Internet governance ecosystem, including all entities accredited by the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), as well as other institutions and individuals with proven expertise and experience in all matters related to Internet governance.

After consulting the wider Internet community and discussing the overarching theme of the 2015 IGF meeting, the Multistakeholder Advisory Group decided to retain the title “Evolution of Internet Governance: Empowering Sustainable Development”. This theme will be supported by eight sub-themes that will frame the discussions at the João Pessoa meeting

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/sustainable-development-goals-sdgs-and-internet-economy