Centre for Internet and Society

2019 International Asia Conference

Admin — 2019-02-19T00:23:43Z

ITECHLAW organized the 2019 edition of International Asia Conference at JW Marriott hotel in Bangalore on January 31, 2019 and February 1, 2019. Sunil Abraham was a panelist in the session "Policy Making for the Emerging Tech in India".

The rush of emerging technologies of Machine Learning, Internet of Things (IoT) and Virtual Reality (VR) is revolutionising the landscape in which humans exist. Innovators of the generation are ambitious, and their contributions have significantly impacted on various fields like healthcare, media and entertainment, agriculture, and other service models. As these technology advancements are driving new business and service models, there is a need for stakeholders and governments to ensure security and stability of the market without stifling innovations, stigmatising incentives or creating obstacles. Rapid spreading technology applications are resulting in drastic changes in today’s regulatory model, posing the difficult challenges for regulators. In India, the expeditiously developing start-up ecosystem and online consumer base, has stirred the regulators.

Intermediary liability, surveillance, data and privacy, digital taxation, data governance and sovereignty are the dominating debatable topics in India. The debates are not only between regulators and stakeholders, but consumers also joining in it. As the competition between Indian and Foreign Technology intensifies in the turf, the debate on tech-policy is considerably being mentioned in run-up of political parties to the general elections as well. Over the past one year, the country has witnessed some landmark judgments and contentious government proposals related to data and privacy, implications of which have affected over-the-top (“OTT”) services, online media, social media, e-commerce platforms, IoT services etc. The Indian regulatory framework on tech-policy is becoming stricter due to a very disruptive phase last year. The tech-giants like Facebook, Google, Twitter, and Amazon are themselves realising their enormous market influence. After the episodes of lynching, hate speeches etc., they are participating in policy-making efforts related to fake news and digital malfeasance. In this process legal industry is making considerable lobbying efforts for corporations to work with government to curb the menace of digital malpractice and make the internet safer.

As the legal industry is participating in the process of creating an innovators-friendly regulatory regime, they are also striving to understand the disruptive technologies and adopt them for their own convenience. However, legal firms must understand that the technology cannot do their job for clients but can only upgrade the business model for them. The traditional law firm business model is not in sync with legal buyers. Effective deployment of technology will ameliorate the factor of its approachability to its clients.

With the growing technology-based start-ups in India, it is going to be a hub for investments by big corporations. In order to keep attracting the investors there is a need for government to remove the potential hindrances that may make investors double-think. The government should prepare a level-playing field in the market by making citizens aware of the standard tech-policies and fostering the innovators-friendly regulatory regime.

For more info see the website

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/2019-international-asia-conference

‘Future of Work’ in India’s IT/IT-eS Sector pdf

pranav — 2020-04-28T09:52:19Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/2018future-of-work2019-in-india2019s-it-it-es-sector-pdf

2012: Privacy Highlights in India

elonnai — 2013-02-12T12:39:05Z

In this blog post, Elonnai Hickok summarizes the top privacy moments of 2012 in India. In doing so she lists out the major ones like the Report of Group of Experts on Privacy, the RIM Standoff, the Nira Radia controversy, the Centralized Monitoring System, Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, NATGRID, CCTNS, the growth of CCTVs, the leaked DNA Profiling Bill, and the UID project.

The Report of Group of Experts on Privacy: In October 2012 the "Report of Group of Experts on Privacy" was published by a governmental committee chaired by Justice A.P. Shah. The report contains recommendations for comprehensive privacy legislation, including defining nine privacy principles, establishing a regulatory framework consisting of privacy commissioners at the regional and central level, and self regulatory organizations, and analyzing the present challenges to privacy in India.[1]

Before the report was published, two draft privacy bills had been leaked to the public, and a concept paper drafted in 2010. The report received mixed reviews from the media, including questions about the relationship between the Right to Information and the Right to Privacy. Before the publishing of the Report, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh recognized that disclosures under the RTI Act could, in some instances, violate individual privacy. In a statement to the public, the Prime Minister stated "citizens’ right to know should definitely be circumscribed if disclosure of information encroaches upon someone's personal privacy. But where to draw the line is a complicated question".[2]

Three months before the report was published, the EU had publicly stated that current data protection provisions in India are not sufficient enough, and that India is not considered to be 'data secure'.[3] If the recommendations in the report are turned into legislation, among other things, individuals in India will have a right to privacy and a right to redress for violations of privacy.

Governmental Interception: In early 2013 it was revealed that the Ministry of Home Affairs ordered interception of 10,000 phones and 1300 email ids during October 2012 to December 2012.[4] Continuing its efforts to access all communications, in May 2012, the Government of India gave service providers a month to develop a method for intercepting calls using VoIP services.[5] In February 2012 the Telecom Department proposed a new set of security guidelines that would allow for real time interception of communications and the tracking of the location of users. Among other things, the proposal establishes telecom security assurance and testing labs for the purpose of testing and certifying telecom equipment.[6] Additionally, in October of 2012, Bharti Airtel refused to wiretap telephones for RAW. The Department of Telecommunications eventually ordered Bharti Airtel to comply with the order, which they did.[7] The events around interception in 2012 show that the Indian government is still trying to gain access to as much information as possible. The constant push for real time access by the government is concerning, as many safeguards are missing from the Indian interception regime such as, penalty to security agencies for unauthorized interception and avenues of redress for the individual.

The RIM Standoff: Since 2008, the Indian government has been negotiating with RIM access to BlackBerry communications. Over the years, a number of solutions have been proposed by RIM and the GoI, yet a final agreement was never reached. Continuing the negotiations, In October 2012, RIM agreed to set up a server in Mumbai, which would allow security agencies to access Blackberry Messenger services.[8] Blackberry also provided a solution that would allow access to Blackberry Internet Services.[9] Following this, the Government of India mandated that Telecom Service Providers must incorporate the Blackberry interception solution, or risk being forced to shut their service by December 31, 2012. In compliance with this order, many service providers have set time frames for incorporation of the interception solution including and installed the necessary software.[10] It is important to note that the lawful access solutions provided do not extend to the Blackberry Enterprise Server.[11] Though it seems that the BlackBerry controversy might be resolved, the solution does not appear to be a long term solution, as BES communications are still not accessible, and the solution is not universal for all international providers. Thus, the Indian government will have to negotiate individually with each provider and service that they currently cannot access communications of.

The Nira Radia Controversy: Continuing the Nira Radia controversy, which began in 2008-2009, in September 2012 the Supreme Court ordered the Income Tax Department to transcribe the 5,831 recorded conversations that were originally intercepted by the department. In January this year, the Supreme Court of India ordered that a "random check" be run through the Radia Tapes to check for instances of possible criminality.[12] This case has become an important moment for privacy in India, as it intersects the dilemma between the right to privacy and public interest. Since 2010, Ratan Tata has been claiming that his right to privacy was violated by the publishing of the leaked tapes.[13] The Supreme Court’s final decision will be important for drawing another contour of how the right to privacy is shaped in India.

The Centralized Monitoring System: In 2012 the Telecom Ministry set aside Rs. 400 crore for the Central Monitoring System, which is projected to be finished by August 2014.[14] The project, which first began in 2007, is envisioned to allow security agencies to bypass service providers and intercept communications on their own. The system is designed to have regional databases and a central database which will be accessible to law enforcement and security agencies. Privacy concerns related to the project include how the system will incorporate current legal regulations for interception in India, as a system that bypasses service providers essentially means that every communication can be read by law enforcement. Furthermore, it is not clear exactly who, and on what conditions will officials be allowed and authorized to access and use the system. The exact capabilities of the system have also not been identified. For example, will the CMS be able to intercept VoIP calls, will it be able to decrypt messages, and will it employ techniques such as Deep Packet Inspection.

Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs): Since the late 90’s the Defense Research Development Organisation (DRDO) has been developing UAV’s for military purposes, and before this, India was acquiring UAV’s from Israel.[15] Since that time there has been an increase in domestic companies and institutes developing UAVs, and an increase in the procurement of the technology by state police for generic reasons purposes as crowd control, traffic management, and security. For example, in August of 2012 the city of Mumbai used the UAV "Netra", as part of their security protocol during the Raj Thackeray rally to capture and send real time images back to the police. Netra is manufactured by the company Idea Forge.[16] The Mumbai police also used the Netra in September 2012 after the Azad Maidan riots, and again on New Year’s Eve to monitor and track crime such as sexual harassment.[17] Similarly, Chennai city police are looking to procure from Anna University a UAV developed by the Madras Institute of Technology. The UAV will be used to assist in traffic monitoring and control.[18] The increased procurement and use of UAV’s by state police is concerning as there is no clear legal regulation over the deployment of the vehicles. Thus, they have shifted from being used as a tool by the military, and are being used for monitoring traffic, crowd monitoring, etc. Furthermore, the process for authorization for use of the vehicles is not clear, and it is not clear how the captured information is protected and handled. Though UAV’s are clearly a useful tool for the military, for military purposes, the permitted use of them by other actors should be defined and regulated. The use of UAV’s for generic purposes could place individual privacy at risk, because of the amount of information and the level of detail that the vehicles are able to capture without the knowledge of the individual.

The National Intelligence Grid (NATGRID): Plans for the NATGRID project, which was first piloted after the Mumbai attacks, has been continuing forward through 2012 and is envisioned to be operational sometime in 2013. During 2012, a detailed project report was submitted for the project, and in June the government approved Rs. 1,100 crore for purchase of technological equipment.[19] NATGRID is a project that envisions networking 21 databases for purposes of crime investigation including tax, health, and travel information. The information will be accessible to 11 security agencies and law enforcement agencies. Though it has been clarified that NATGRID will ensure that privacy is protected, the design of NATGRID is one that could create potential risks – as it brings together large amounts of personal data for easy access by security agencies. In doing so it could potentially eliminate the steps security agencies must take currently to access information – such as submitting a request and obtaining permission for access. Furthermore, it is unclear how current legal protections such as secrecy clauses in banking legislation will be incorporated and upheld by the NATGRID system. Other questions that the project raises include – though currently there are only eleven agencies listed that will have access to NATGRID – will this list expand? Without a policy in place how will this standard and other standards be enforced?

The Crime and Criminal Tracking Network & System (CCTNS): Though the CCTNS project has been in the works since 2009, a call for companies to develop the technology for the system was taken in early 2012, and pilot projects were launched later that year. The CCTNS is being headed by the National Crime Records Bureau, and will allow for the sharing of crime related information on a national level, in real time. In 2012, the system was allocated 2,000 crores by the government, and currently 2,000 police stations and other offices have been connected under the system.[20]

For example, police in Chhattisgarh,[21] Uttarakhand[22] and Odisha have all been connected to the CCTNS system.[23] Though it will be beneficial for the police to have access to a networked system, it has not been made clear yet what type of security system the project will adopt to ensure that the information is not compromised or accessed without authorization. It has also not been clarified what information will be placed on the database, and will all records be accessible to any individual accessing the system. Because the project is still in pilot stages it is hard to tell if it could put individual privacy at risk. Hopefully, before the project is realized in its full, many of the details will be clarified.

The Growth of CCTVs: Throughout 2012 the use of CCTV’s has continued to grow across India. For example, the Maharashtra government has undertaken a "CCTV surveillance project" in which it is in the process of taking bids for.[24] The state of Karnataka is also planning on installing CCTV cameras in Bangalore and other major cities to help detect incidents of crime.[25] While the Delhi Transport Department is contemplating installing CCTVs in buses,[26] and the Indian Rail Authorities have also decided to install CCTVs throughout stations to increase security.[27] There still does not exist regulation of the use of CCTV cameras, thus it is unclear who can operate a CCTV camera, which departments of the government can mandate for the installation of CCTVs, if public notice must be given that a CCTV camera is in use, and who can access the footage from a CCTV.

Study on Privacy Perceptions: In a study that came out in December 2012 by Ponnurangam K, among other things, it was found that 75 per cent of participants never read the privacy policy on a website – including social networking sites, participants also thought that there was a privacy legislation in place in India, and that individuals in India are most concerned about financial privacy.[28]

The National Counter Terrorism Centre (NCTC): The NCTC was originally created in response to the Mumbai terror attacks, under the Unlawful Prevention Act, 1967. The NCTC was meant to be realized in 2012, but in March, plans for the Centre were put on hold, because of the controversial nature of the project.[29] The Centre was meant to bring Indian intelligence agencies under one umbrella, and analyze and store information related to terrorism. The proposed body has been highly controversial, as states object to the powers given to the Centre and see it as intruding on their powers and jurisdiction. If passed, the NCTC will have the powers of arrest, search and seizure, and the ability to access information from other intelligence agencies.[30]

The Leaked DNA Profiling Bill: In 2012, a version of the DNA Profiling Bill, originally drafted in 2007, was leaked to the public. The Bill is being piloted by the department of biotechnology, and seeks to establish DNA databases at the regional and central level for forensic purposes, yet the Bill does not establish strong protections for the privacy of DNA samples taken and important technical standards for ensuring that DNA samples are not misused or tampered with.[31] What will happen to the Bill in 2013 is yet to be seen, but hopefully it will not be passed without the appropriate safeguards incorporated into its provisions.

The Unique Identification Project and the National Population Registrar: Throughout 2012, the UID has continued to carry out enrollments across the country, and sign MoU's with private sector companies for the adoption of the UID platform. Parallel to the UID project, the NPR project is also being implemented. The NPR seeks to provide every citizen of India with an identity that will be stored in an identity database maintained by the Registrar General and Census Commissioner of India.[32] According to the NPR scheme, individuals who had already enrolled with the UID and given their biometrics would not need to re-submit their biometrics with the NPR. Yet, this has not been the case, and instead individuals are now being required to provide their biometrics for enrollment with the UID and the NPR.[33]

Privacy has been raised as a concern of the UID since the start of the project. For both the UID and the NPR now the transaction record will be stored by agencies, and whether it will be possible to track individuals across databases using their NPR or UID identity?

[1]. The Report of Group of Experts on Privacy. See http://bit.ly/VqzKtr

[2]. Tikku, A., "RTI doesn’t trample upon privacy, says expert panel", Hindustan Times, October 29, 2012, available at http://bit.ly/TNAzRF, last accessed on January 8, 2013.

[3]. Sen, A. India protests European Union study of data laws. Economic Times. July 9, 2012, available at http://bit.ly/Y9ahHs, last accessed on January 8, 2013.

[4]. Harismran, J., Thomas, J. "Home Ministry ordered 10k wire taps in last 90 days, order tapping of 1300 email Ids", The Economic Times, January 3, 2013, available at http://bit.ly/TKk7yN, last accessed on January 7th 2013.

[5].The Economic Times, "Provide solution to intercept VoIP within a month: Govt", May 6, 2012, available at http://bit.ly/VQDQ4k, last accessed on January 7, 2013.

[6]. The Economic Times, "New policy for real time interception to security agencies", February 1, 2012, available at http://bit.ly/11DrlvB, last accessed on January 7, 2013.

[7]. The Economic Times, "RAW irked as Airtel keeps its request for phone tapping on hold", October 21, 2012, available at http://bit.ly/12IujhF, last accessed on January 7, 2013.

[8]. Reyes, D., "RIM installs BlackBerry server in Mumbai", CrackBerry, February 23, 2012, available at http://bit.ly/yBQsSo

[9]. Economic Times, "DoT makes telecom operators fall in line on Blackberry issue", December 30, 2012, available at http://bit.ly/1169ufn

[10]. Economic Times, "MTNL, BSNL fail to give dates for Blackberry interception", October 29, 2012, available at http://bit.ly/1169ufp, last accessed on January 7, 2012.

[11]. The Economic Times, "Telecom companies agreed to provide real-time intercept facilities for BlackBerry smartphones", December 31, 2012, available at http://bit.ly/Y9gjYt, last accessed on January 7, 2012.

[12]. Mahapatra, D., "SC to examine Radia tapes for criminality", Times of India, January 9, 2013, available at http://bit.ly/VD7eWX

[13]. Times of India, "Ratan Tata softens stand on Radia tapes", August 23, 2012, available at http://bit.ly/158CZxl, last accessed on January 7, 2013.

[14]. The Economic Times, "Govt. to place phone tapping system worth Rs. 400 cr by 2014", March 21, 2012, available at http://bit.ly/V2P9q6, last accessed on January 7, 2013.

[15]. Monsonis, G., "UAVs gaining currency with Indian Armed Forces", Indian Defence Review, October 30, 2012, available at http://bit.ly/KVYyIr, last accessed on January 7, 2013.

[16]. Mumbai Mirror, "Raj Thackeray’s mega rally: Unmanned Aerial Vehicle kept an eye on Azed Maidan", Economic Times, August 22, 2012, available at http://bit.ly/PYTGAG, last accessed on January 7, 2013.

[17].Ali, A. & Narayan. V., "Netra cameras to keep a close watch , over New Year’s Eve hotspots", Times of India, December 31, 2012, available at http://bit.ly/Z7orxt, last accessed on January 7, 2013.

[18]. Venugopal, V., "It flies, it swoops, it records and monitors", The Hindu, December 20, 2012, available at http://bit.ly/V89sLo, last accessed January 7, 2013.

[19]. The Economic Times, "Cabinet Committee on Security approves Rs. 1,100 crore for NATGRID", June 14, 2012.

[20]. Mohan, V., "Centre launches pilot project to track criminals", The Times of India, January 5, 2013, available at http://bit.ly/UPk2fh

[21]. The Pioneer, "Civil Lines Police Station gets connected with CCTNS", January 2012, available at http://bit.ly/VRXKGJ

[22]. CIOL Bureau, "CCTNS to be made public through internet: Dehradun DGP", January 4, 2012, available at http://bit.ly/X4JISx, last accessed on January 7, 2013.

[23]. The Hindu, "Odisha to launch CCTNS on January 12", January 7, 2013, available at http://bit.ly/Vd9Ay1, last accessed on January 7, 2013.

[24]. Padmakshan, M., "Maharashtra plans to invite new bids for CCTV surveillance project", September 18, 2012, available at http://bit.ly/VRYrQm, last accessed on January 7, 2013.

[25]. Ashoka, R., "Karnataka to install CCTV cameras in Bangalore, major cities", Economic Times. July 26, 2012, available at http://bit.ly/11Dxt6Z, last accessed on January 7, 2013.

[26]. Economic Times, "Buses to come with CCTV cameras for safety of women: Delhi government", December 17, 2012, available at http://bit.ly/158Gtjo, last accessed on January 7, 2013.

[27]. Economic Times, "Railways to step by security apparatus at stations", February 15, 2012, available at http://bit.ly/11DxSX8, last accessed on January 7, 2013.

[28]. Times of India, "Most Indians ignorant about privacy issues on Facebook, Twitter: Study", December 10, 2012, available at http://bit.ly/X4KVt1, last accessed on January 7, 2013.

[29]. Kumar, H., "Does India Need a National Counter Terrorism Center?", The New York Times, India Ink, February 28, 2012, available at http://nyti.ms/A5VU5P

[30]. Times of India. CM to attend National Counter- Terrorism Centre Meet in Delhi. May 4, 2012, available at http://bit.ly/12IDoH9, last accessed on January 8, 2012.

[31]. Hickok, E., "Rethinking DNA Profiling in India", Economic Political Weekly, October 27, 2012, available at http://bit.ly/TUrH7j, last accessed on January 7, 2013.

[32]. Department of Information Technology, "National Population Register", available at http://bit.ly/12rzyOh

[33]. Pandit, A., "NPR must even if you have Aadhar number", Times of India, October 31, 2012, available at http://bit.ly/Y9oXGq, last accessed on January 8, 2013.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/privacy-highlights-in-india

“Politics by other means”: Fostering positive contestation and charting ‘red lines’ through global governance in cyberspace

basu — 2019-10-21T15:40:38Z

The past year has been a busy one for the fermentation of global governance efforts in cyberspace with multiple actors-states, industry, and civil society spearheading a variety of initiatives. Given the multiplicity of actors, ideologies, and vested interests at play in this ecosystem, any governance initiative will be, by default, political, and desirably so.

Arindrajit Basu's essay for this year's Digital Debates: The CyFy Journal was published jointly by Global Policy and ORF. It was written in response to a framing essay by Dennis Broeders under the governance theme. The article was edited by Gurshabad Grover. Arindrajit also acknowledges the contributions of the editorial team at ORF: Trisha, Akhil and Meher.

There is no silver bullet that will magically result in universally acknowledged rules of the road. Instead, through consistent probing and prodding, the global community must create inclusive processes to galvanize consensus to ensure that individuals across the world can repose trust and confidence in their use of global digital infrastructure.^[2] This includes both ‘red lines’ applicable to clearly prohibited acts of cyberspace and softer norms for responsible state behaviour in cyberspace, that arise from an application of the tenets of International Law to cyberspace.

Infrastructure is political

Networked infrastructures typically originate when a series of technological systems with varying technical standards converge, or when a technological system achieves dominance over other self-contained technologies.^[3] Through this process of convergence, networked infrastructures must adapt to a variety of differing political conditions, legal regulations and governance practices.^[4] Internet infrastructure was never self-contained technology, but an amalgamation of systems, protocols, standards and hardware along with the standards bodies, private actors and states that define it.^[5] The architecture has always been deeply socio-technical^[6] and any attempt to severe the technology from the politics of internet governance would be a fool’s errand.

Politics catalyzed the development of the technological infrastructure that lead to the creation of the internet. During the heyday of nuclear brinkmanship between the USA and USSR, Paul Baran, an engineer with the US Department of Defense think tank RAND Corporation was tasked with building a means of communication that could continue running even if some parts were to be knocked out by a nuclear war.^[7]

As Baran’s ‘Bomb proof network’ morphed into the US Department of Defense funded ARPANET, it was initially apparent that it was not meant for either mass or commercial use, but instead saw its nurturing in the US as a tool of strategic defense.^[8]

This enabled the US to retain a disproportionate -- and till the 1990s, relatively uncontested -- influence on internet governance. As the internet rapidly expanded across the globe, various actors found that single state control over an invaluable global resource was unjust.^[9] Others (9which included US Senator Ted Cruz), argued that the internet would be safer in the hands of the United States than an international forum whose processes could be reduced to stalemate as a result of politicized conflict between democratic and non-democratic states who seek to use online spaces as an instrument of suppression.^[10] The ICANN and IANA transitions were therefore not rooted in technical considerations but much-needed geopolitical pressure from states and actors who felt ‘disregarded’^[11] in the governance of the internet. An inclusive multi-stakeholder process fueled by inclusive geopolitical contestation is far more effective in the long run and has the potential of respecting the rights of ‘disregarded’ communities all across the globe far more than a unilateral process that ignores any voices of opposition.

It is now clear that despite its continued outsized influence, the United States is no longer the only major state player in global cyber governance. China has propelled itself as a major political and economic challenger to the United States across several regimes^[12], including in the cyber domain. China’s export of the ‘information sovereignty’^[13] doctrine at various cyber norms proliferation fora, including at the United Nations-Group of Governmental Experts (GGE), and regional forums like the Shanghai Co-operation (SCO), is an example of its desire to impose its ideological clout on global conceptions of the internet.

As a rising power, China’s aspirations in global internet governance are not limited to ideology. China is at an ‘innovation imperative’, where it needs to develop new technologies to retain its status and fuel long-term growth.^[14] This locks it into direct economic, and therefore strategic competition with the United States that seeks to retain control over the same supply chains and continues to assert its economic and military superiority.

China has dominated the 5G space in an unprecedented way, and has been a product of a concerted ‘whole of government’ effort.^[15] Beijing charted out an industrial policy that enabled the deployment of 5G networks as a key national priority.^[16] China has also successfully weaponized global technical standard-setting efforts to promote its geo-economic interests.^[17] Reeling from the failure of its domestic 3G standard that was ignored globally, China realised the importance of the ‘first-movers’ advantage’ in setting standards for companies and businesses.^[18] Through an aggressive strategic push at a number of international bodies such as the International Telecommunications Union, China’s diplomatic pivot has allowed it to push standards established domestically with little external input, thereby giving Chinese companies the upper hand globally.^[19]

Politics continues to frame the technical solutions that enable cybersecurity.19 Following Snowden’s revelations, some stakeholders in the global community have shaped their politics to frame the problem as one of protecting individuals’ data from governments and private companies looking to extract and exploit it. The technical solutions developed in this frame are encryption standards and privacy enhancing technologies. However, intelligence agencies continue to frame the problem differently: they see it as an issue of collecting and aggregating data in order to identify malicious actors and threat vectors. The technical solutions they devise are increased surveillance and data analysis -- problems the first framing intended to solve. The techno-political gap, both in academic scholarship and global norms proliferation efforts continues to jeopardize attempts at framing cybersecurity governance.^[20] Instead of artificially depoliticizing technology, it is imperative that we ferment political contestation in a manner that holistically promulgates the perception that internet infrastructure can be trusted and utilised by individuals and communities around the world.

Fostering ‘red lines’ and diffusing ‘unpeace’ in cyberspace

‘Unpeace’ in cyberspace continues to ferment through ‘below the threshold’ operations that do not amount to the ‘use of force’ as per Article 2(4), or an ‘armed attack’ triggering the right of self-defense under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This makes the application of jus ad bellum (‘right to war’) inapplicable to most cyber operations.^[21] However, the application of ‘jus in bello’ (law that governs the way in which warfare is conducted) or International Humanitarian Law (IHL) does not require armed force to be of a specific intensity but seeks to protect civilians and prevent unnecessary suffering. Therefore the principles of IHL that have evolved in The Geneva Conventions should be used as red lines that limit collateral damage as a result of cyber operations.^[22] No state should conduct cyber operations that intend to harm civilians, and should us all means at its disposal to avoid this harm to civilians. It should act in line with the principles of necessity^[23] and proportionality.^[24]

Cultivating ‘red lines’ is easier said than done. The debate around the applicability of IHL to cyberspace was one of the reasons for the breakdown of the fifth UN-GGE in 2017.^[25] States have also been reluctant to state their positions on the rules developed by the International Group of Experts (IGE) in the Tallinn Manual.^[26] This is due to two main reasons. First, not endorsing the rules may allow them to retain operational advantages in cyberspace where they continue engaging in cyber operations without censure. Second, even those states who wish to apply and adhere to the rules hesitate to do so in the absence of effective processes that censure states that do not comply with the rules.

Both these issues stem from the difficulties in attributing a cyber attack to a state as cyber attacks are multi-stage, multi-step and multi-jurisdictional, which makes the attacker several degrees removed from the victim.^[27] Technical challenges to attribution, however should not take away from international efforts that adopt an integrated and multi-disciplinary approach to attribution which must be seen as a political process working in conjunction with robust technical efforts.^[28] The Cyber Peace Institute, which was set up earlier in September 2019, and adopts an ecosystem approach to studying cyber attacks, thereby improving global attribution standards may institutionally serve this function.^[29] As attribution processes become clearer and hold greater political weight, an increasing number of states are likely to show their cards and abandon their policy of silence and ambiguity -- a process that has already commenced with a handful of states releasing clear statements on the applicability of international law in cyberspace.^[30]

Below the threshold operations are likely to continue. However, the process of contestation should result in the international community drawing out norms that ensure that public trust and confidence in the security of global digital infrastructure is not eroded. This would include norms such as protecting electoral infrastructure or a prohibition on coercing private corporations to aid intelligence agencies in extraterritorial surveillance29 The development of these norms will take time and repeated prodding. However, given the entangled and interdependent nature of the global digital economy, protracted effort may result in universal consensus in some time.

The Future of Cyber Diplomacy

The recently rejuvenated UN driven norms formulation processes are examples of this protracted effort. Both the Group of Governmental Experts (GGE) and Open-Ended Working Group (OEWG) processes are pushing states towards publicly declaring their positions on multiple questions of cyber governance, which will only further certainty and predictability in this space. The GGE requires all member states to clearly chart out their position on the applicability of various questions of International Law, which will be included as an Annex to the final report and is definitely a step in the right direction.

There are multiple lessons from parliamentary diplomacy culminating in past global governance regimes that negotiators in these processes can borrow from.^[31] As in the past, the tenets of international law can influence collective expectations and serve as a facilitative mechanism for chalking out bargaining points, and driving the negotiations within an inclusive, efficient and understandable framework.^[32]

Both processes will be politicized as before with states seeking to use these as fora for furthering national interests. However, this is not necessarily a bad thing. Protracted contestation is preferable to unilateralism where a select group of states decides the future of cyber governance. The inclusive, public format of the OEWG running in parallel to the closed-door deliberations at the GGE enables concerted dialogue to continue. Most countries had voted for the resolutions setting up both these processes and while the end-game is unknown, it appears that states remain interested in cultivating cyber norms.

Of course, the USA and its NATO allies had voted against the resolution setting up the OEWG and Russia, China and the SCO allies had voted against the resolution resurrecting the GGE. However, given the economic interests of all states in a relatively stable cyberspace, it is clear that both these blocks desire global consensus on some rules of the road for responsible behaviour in cyberspace. This means that both processes may arrive at certain similar outcomes. These outcomes might over time evolve into norms or even crystallise into rules of customary international law if they are representative of the interests of a large number of states.

However, sole reliance on state-centric mechanisms to achieve a stable governance regime may be misplaced. As seen with Dupont’s contribution to the Montreal Protocol that banned the global use of Chloro-Fluoro-Carbons (CFCs)^[33] or the International Committee of the Red Cross’s concerted efforts in rallying states to sign the Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions^[34], norm-entrepreneurship and the mantle of leadership in norm-entrepreneurship need not be limited to state actors. Non-state actors often have the gifts of flexibility and strategic neutrality that make them a better fit for this role than states. Microsoft’s leadership and its ascent to this leadership mantle in the cyber governance space must therefore be taken heed off. The key role it played in charting out the CyberSecurity Tech Accords, Paris Call for Trust and Security in Cyberspace and its most recent initiative, the Cyber Peace Institute, must be commended. However, the success of its entrepreneurship relies on how well it can work both with multilateral mechanisms under the aegis of the United Nations and multi-stakeholder fora such as the Global Commission on Stability in Cyberspace. This will lead to a cohesive set of rules that adequately govern the conduct of both state and non-state actors in cyberspace.

It is unfortunate, however, that most governance efforts in cyberspace are driven by the United States or China or their allies. For example, only UK^[35], France^[36], Germany,^[37] Estonia^[38],Cuba^[39] (backed by China and Russia), and the USA^[40] have all engaged in public posturing advocating their ideological position on the applicability of International Law in cyberspace in varying degrees of detail with other countries largely remaining silent. Other emerging economies need to get into the game to make the process more representative and equitable.

More recently, India has begun to take a leadership role in the global debate on cross-border data transfers, spurred largely by their domestic political and policy ecosystem championing ‘digital nationalism.’ At the G20 summit in Osaka in July this year, India, alongside the BRICS grouping emphasized the development dimensions of data for emerging economies and pushed the notion of ‘data sovereignty’-broadly understood as the sovereign right of nations to govern data within their territories/jurisdiction in the national interest and for the welfare of its people.^[41] Resisting calls from Western allies including the United States to get on board Japan’s initiative promoting the free flow of data across borders, Vijay Gokhale also mentioned that discussions on data flows must not take place at plurilateral forums outside the World Trade Organization as this would prevent inclusive discussions.^[42]This form of posturing should be sustained by emerging economies like India and extended to the security domain as well through which the hegemony that a few powerful actors retain over the contours of cyber governance can be reduced.

To paraphrase Clausewitz, technological governance is the conduct of politics by other means. Internet infrastructure has become so deeply intertwined with the political ethos of most countries that it has become the latest front for geopolitical contestation among state and non-state actors alike. Politicizing cyber governance prevents a deracinated approach to the process that ignores simmering inequalities, power asymmetries and tensions that a limited technical lens prevents us from viewing.

The question is, not if but how cyber governance will be politicized. Will it be a politics of inclusion that protects the rights of the disregarded and adequately represents their voices in line with the requirements of International Law, or will it be a politics of convenience through which states and non-state actors utilise cyber governance for reaping strategic dividends? The global cyber policy ecosystem must continue the battle to ensure that the former remains essential.

Endnotes

^[1] Arindrajit Basu and Elonnai Hickok (2018) “Cyberspace and External Affairs: A memorandum for India”, 8-13.

^[2] In its draft definition of cyber stability, The Global Commission on the Stability of Cyberspace has adopted a bottom up user centric definition of Cyber Stability where individuals can be confident in the stability of cyberspace as opposed to an objective top-down determination of cybersecurity metrics.

^[3] PN Edwards, GC Bowker Jackson SJ, R Williams 2009. Introduction: an agenda for infrastructure studies. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst.10(5):364–74

^[4] Brian Larkin, “ The Politics and Poetics of Infrastructure” Annual Rev. Anthropol 2013,42:327-43

^[5] Ibid.

^[6] Kieron O’Hara and Wendy Hall, “Four Internets: The Geopolitics of Digital Governance” CIGI Report No.208, December 2018.

^[7] Cade Metz, “Paul Baran, the link between nuclear war and the internet” Wired, 4th Sept. 2012.

^[8] Kal Raustila (2016) “Governing the Internet” American Journal of International Law 110:3,491

^[9] Samantha Bradshaw, Laura DeNardis, Fen Osler Hampson, Eric Jardine & Mark Raymond, The Emergence of Contention in Global Internet Governance 3 (Global Comm’n on Internet Governance, Paper Series No. 17, July 2015).

^[10] Klint Finley, "The Internet Finally Belongs to Everyone”, Wired, March 18th, 2016.

^[11] Richard Stewart (2014), Remedying Disregard in Global Regulatory Governance: Accountability, Participation and Responsiveness” AJIL 108:2

^[12] Tarun Chhabra, Rush Doshi, Ryan Hass and Emilie Kimball, “Global China: Domains of strategic competition and domestic drivers” Brookings Institution, September 2019.

^[13] According to this view, a state can manage and define its ‘network frontiers; through domestic legislation or state policy and patrol information at it state borders in any way it deems fit. Yuan Yi,. “网络空间的国界在哪 ” [Where Are the National Borders of cyberspace]? 学习时报.May 19, 2016.

^[14] Anthea Roberts, Henrique Choer Moraes and Victor Ferguson (2019), “Toward a Geoeconomic Order in International Trade and Investment” (May 16, 2019).

^[15] Eurasia Group (2018), “The Geopolitics of 5G”

^[16] Ibid.( In 2013, the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT), the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) and the Ministry of Science and technology (MOST) established the IMT-2020 5G Promotion Group to push for a government all-industry alliance on 5G.)

^[17] Bjorn Fagersten&Tim Ruhlig (2019), "China’s standard power and it’s geopolitical implications for Europe” Swedish Institute for International Affairs.

^[18] Alan Beattie, “Technology: how the US, EU and China compete to set industry standards” Financial Times, Jul 14th, 2019

^[19] Laura Fitchner, Walter Pieters.,&Andre Herdero Texeira(2016). Cybersecurity as a Politikum: Implications of Security Discourses for Infrastructures. In Proceedings of the 2016 New Security Paradigms Workshop (36-48). New York: Association for Computing Machinery (ACM)

^[20] Michael Crosston,” Phreak the Speak: The Flawed Communications within cyber intelligentsia” in Jan-Frederik Kremer and Benedikt Muller,”Cyberspace and International Relations: Theory, Prospects and Challenges (2013, Springer) 253.

^[21] “Fundamental Principles of International Humanitarian Law".

^[22] Veronique Christory “Cyber warfare: IHL provides an additional layer of protection” 10 Sept. 2019.

^[23] See (The “principle of military necessity” permits measures which are actually necessary to accomplish a legitimate military purpose and are not otherwise prohibited by international humanitarian law. In the case of an armed conflict, the only legitimate military purpose is to weaken the military capacity of the other parties to the conflict.

^[24] See Proportionality; The principle of proportionality prohibits attacks against military objectives which are “expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated”

^[25] Declaration by Miguel Rodriguez, Representative of Cuba, At the final session of group of governmental experts on developments in the field of information and telecommunications in the context of international security (June 23 2017).

^[26] Dan Efrony and Yuval Shany (2018), “ A Rule Book on the Shelf? Tallinn Manual 2.0 on Cyberoperations and Subsequent State Practice” AJIL 112:4

^[27] David Clark and Susan Landau. “Untangling Attribution.” Harvard National Security Journal (Harvard University) 2 (2011

^[28] Davis, John S., Benjamin Adam Boudreaux, Jonathan William Welburn, Jair Aguirre, Cordaye Ogletree, Geoffrey McGovern and Michael S. Chase. Stateless Attribution: Toward International Accountability in Cyberspace. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, (2017). At

^[29] See “CyberPeace Institute to Support Victims Harmed by Escalating Conflicts in Cyberspace”.

^[30] Dan Efrony and Yuval Shany (2018), “ A Rule Book on the Shelf? Tallinn Manual 2.0 on Cyberoperations and Subsequent State Practice” AJIL 112:4

^[31] Arindrajit Basu and Elonnai Hickok (2018), “Conceptualizing an International Security architecture for cyberspace”.

^[32] Monica Hakimi (2017), “The Work of International Law,” Harvard International Law Journal 58:1.

^[33] James Maxwell and Forrest Briscoe (2007),” There’s money in the air: The CFC Ban and Dupont’s Regulatory Strategy” Business Strategy and the Environment 6, 276-286.

^[34] Francis Buignon (2004). “The International Committee of the Red Cross and the development of international humanitarian law.” Chi. J. Int’l L.5: 19137

^[35] Jeremy Wright, “Cyber and International Law in the 21st Century” Govt. UK.

^[36] Michael Schmitt, “France’s Major Statement on International Law and Cyber: An Assessment” Just Security, September 16th, 2019.

^[37] Nele Achten, "Germany’s Position on International Law in Cyberspace”, Lawfare, Oct 2, 2018,

^[38] Michael Schmitt, “Estonia Speaks out on Key Rules for Cyberspace” Just Security, June 10, 2019.

^[39] https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Cuban-Expert-Declaration.pdf

^[40] https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Brian-J.-Egan-International-Law-and-Stabilityin-Cyberspace-Berkeley-Nov-2016.pdf

^[41] Justin Sherman and Arindrajit Basu, "Fostering Strategic Convergence in US-India Tech Relations: 5G and Beyond”, The Diplomat, July 03, 2019.

^[42] Aditi Agrawal, "India and Tech Policy at the G20 Summit”, Medianama, Jul 1, 2019.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/arindrajit-basu-orfonline-october-21-2019-politics-by-other-means-fostering-positive-contestation-and-charting-red-lines-through-global-governance-in-cyberspace

“OTTs Eating Into Our Revenue”: Telcos in India

geetha — 2014-09-10T05:36:37Z

On August 5, 2014, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India organised a seminar on a regulatory framework for Over-The-Top services. This is a lay discussion of the Seminar and its focus on matters crucial to telecom, the Internet and the existing regulatory framework.

On Tuesday, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) held a seminar to initiate discussion on potential regulation of “over the top” services (OTTs) in India. TRAI organized the seminar to “understand perspectives of all stakeholders involved”, following grievances of telcos that OTTs are eating into their revenues and free-riding on their networks. In fact, a letter from the Cellular Operators Association of India (COAI) to TRAI outlines these concerns excellently. The letter, which I had the opportunity to see in print, objects that telcos take the trouble of laying and maintaining networks, while rapidly mushrooming OTTs eat into their revenue. Whatsapp, Skype and alternatives to paid text-and-call find particular mention in the COAI’s letter, and the COAI President Vikram Tiwathia was vociferous in his iteration of operators’ concerns. With VOIP and other OTTs replacing telco services, telcos are rapidly losing large parts of their revenue, he said.

I don’t mean to brush their concerns aside, of course. However, there is a need to consider in depth certain questions with statistical, regulatory and principled exploration. As Dr. Rajat Kathuria of ICRIER said at the Seminar’s first session, we need to evaluate whether there’s a need for regulation in the first place. This includes exploring whether the answer lies in deregulation, as Suhaan Mukerji of PLR Chambers and Subho Ray of IAMAI emphasized separately. Our solution, as Mr. Ray said, should not be to chain the free OTTs just because we are in chains ourselves. Unchaining telcos from their stringent licensing and other regulations may be more appropriate.

The Seminar was attended by telcos, OTTs, civil society and other stakeholders, and the frank exchange of views at the PHD Chamber of Commerce was heartening. While telcos in the room were broadly open to OTT innovation upon their networks (Mr. T.V. Ramachandran of Vodafone was particularly vocal on this), there exists a broadly reactionary loss-of-footing and apprehension over their current and projected revenue loss. Mr. C.S. Rao of Reliance was spot on when he said that telcos are afraid that what’s worked for them so far may not work in the future.

We’ve seen examples of such fear of incumbent operators before. In the early 1990s, the invention and spread of the Internet displaced appliancized, bundled models of telco services, and telcos were similarly unwelcoming. Indeed, AT&T went to court to fight the introduction of the Carterfone. In India, the falling demand for VAS today, and OTT-response to consumer demand, fosters such fear.

But accounting for OTTs’ lack of consumer servicing or responsibility for monetization models, what was of chief concern at the TRAI Seminar was the predominant focus on revenue. Telco profitability and their incentives for investment are important. Increasing supply side costs, with the government seeking to maximize revenue from spectrum allocation and demands of lower consumer prices, might be throttling current telco business models. We’d need to analyse data usage charges and projected mobile broadband penetration, in comparison with voice penetration, to be clear about the extent of such strangulation. But if the answer to failing telco business lies in further regulation and potential strangling of innovation, that’s a concern.

That’s in two ways. First, it isn’t merely the NetFlix or Google or Apple that populate the app economy. Raman Chima (ironically of Google) offered the example of Slideshare in Okhla, Delhi as one of the many successful Indian micro-multinationals. There are many others across India. Second, India’s current telecom regulatory model is unfit for a data/Internet content model. There’s a need, Suhaan Mukerji and Mahesh Uppal of ComFirst pointed out, to rethink our strict telecom licensing regime. We should begin to think, at least, of a vertically integrated layered model of telecom regulation that regulates on the basis of function.

These layers are integral to Internet architecture: network, transport, application. OTTs lie at the application layer, while telcos operate at the network and transport layers. It may be inefficient to utilize failures at one layer to regulate or share revenue of companies at other layers – that would stunt competition and innovation. A reconfigured licensing regime, permitting telcos to innovate more (someone at the Seminar said security clearances take years, while OTTs need no such clearance) might be more efficient and beneficial for all stakeholders involved – not least the disempowered individual consumers.

That’s my sense of the Seminar. Profitability and incentives are crucial. But they are crucial insofar as they benefit consumers – with access, choice, freedom of speech, security and privacy. Revenue sharing or partnership models, which were mentioned far too many times by multiple speakers without sufficient justification or elaboration, may not be ideal for any of us in the long term. But these are issues we – and TRAI – should consider while debating a regulatory framework.

Underlying infrastructure has an impact on our fundamental freedoms such as speech – the Supreme Court’s decisions in Sakal Papers and Express Newspapers makes that clear. Fast-paced innovation and the boundary-less benefits of a single, interoperable Internet have pushed us to favour security against freedoms. But every model we consider today – ad-based monetization, big data analytics – have implications that the NSA’s mass, cross-border surveillance has highlighted. Since TRAI is rethinking our regulatory framework for telecom and the Internet – and I envisage this going into a constructive consultation in the near future – these issues must inform its analysis and conclusions.

For more, read Nikhil Pahwa’s report over at MediaNama.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/telecom/blog/otts-eating-into-our-revenue-telcos-in-india

6th Biannual Surveillance and Society Conference

praskrishna — 2014-05-05T04:57:59Z

Malavika Jayaram is a speaker at the conference organized by Eticas Research and Consulting at the University of Barcelona and CCCB from April 24 to 26, 2014.

Malavika will present on the UID and biometrics at the session on “Surveillance: Ambiguities and Uncertainties". Malavika's talk title is "Biometrics in beta: experimenting on a nation (while normalising surveillance for 1.2 billion people)" and is being held on April 26. See the full event details on this page.

In the developing world, privacy is often portrayed as a luxury, as something alien to local culture and of interest only to the elite. This ignores the probability of the most marginalized sections of a society being disproportionately impacted by privacy intrusive technologies. The hype about ‘big data’, ‘open data’, ‘data for development’, ‘ICT4D’ and other buzzwords often ignores the fact that the global south is particularly vulnerable to data collection and processing. Literacy issues (lingual and technical), a massive digital divide, desperate socioeconomic conditions and the lack of a robust data protection law render ideas of consent or tradeoffs all but meaningless.

Techno-utopian welfare schemes present technology as progressive, neutral and frictionless – a seductive and compelling narrative in a region wracked by inequalities, corruption, lack of transparency and structural violence. This vision underpins the world’s largest biometric ID project, which has already registered the irises and fingerprints of 540 million people without even being completed. Yet the assumption that bodies can be rendered into infallible verifiers, as repositories of unchanging truth, ignores embedded biases and normative baselines within such technologies. Welfare projects are further complicated when they are architected as public-private partnerships: the collusion of governmental and corporate agendas in creating massive databases and profiles, in a manner that transforms the citizen-state relationship in profound ways, has sweeping implications for choice, autonomy, anonymity and ultimately, democracy. This is true even when the systems function as intended, without mechanical failure, data breaches, or other consequences of trading privacy for convenience, welfare and security.

I would like to discuss the risks of using technologies such as biometrics to solve socioeconomic problems, and their potential for excluding the very demographics that they seek to include. I intend to locate my presentation in the context of India’s growing surveillance state, which deliberately intends to use the unique identification number to link disparate databases. I propose to describe the new Centralised Monitoring System, the relative legal vacuum in which data is mined and harvested, and the shaky constitutional foundations on which many of these new regimes stand. In so doing, I will effectively have provided a tour of India’s Rogue’s Gallery of recent incursions into the zone of privacy, free speech, informational self-determination and dignity. I hope also to redress in some small measure the largely western focus of academic and policy debates in this field, despite the risks of developing countries seeking to commoditize and export identity schemes, normalize censorship or opportunistically benefit from the west no longer having the moral ground to resist third country surveillance practices.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/ssn-2014-sixth-biannual-surveillance-and-society-conference

4 Popular Myths about UID

Prashant Iyengar — 2012-06-20T04:37:08Z

By now, there is already a lot of material in the public domain that is critical about the UID/Aadhar project, writes Prashant Iyengar in this blog entry published in Privacy India on January 22, 2011.

(See aadhararticles.blogspot.com for an exhaustive catalogue). Much of this material has criticized the UID for the ‘big brotherly’ techno-surveillance regime that it threatens to unleash, usually under the guise of delivering assured benefits to the marginal peasant. Many commentators have questioned the haste with which a project of this scale and complexity has sought to be pushed through. Some have expressed doubts on the feasibility – financial, technical or logistical – of the scheme. Much of this material has criticized the UID for the ‘big brotherly’ techno-surveillance regime that it threatens to unleash, usually under the guise of delivering assured benefits to the marginal peasant. Many commentators have questioned the haste with which a project of this scale and complexity has sought to be pushed through. Some have expressed doubts on the feasibility – financial, technical or logistical – of the scheme.

I do not intend to rehearse these arguments in this post. Instead, I pick four somewhat obscure, but troublesome assertions made about the UID and test their veracity against documents available on the UIDIA site itself. The purpose is to cut through all the equivocation behind the claims that UID officials have been making, and arrive at some minimal clarity on what the UID is (and isn’t).

Registration is voluntary!

How does one make sense of Nandan Nilenkani’s cryptic remark, “I wouldn’t call it compulsory. I would rather say that it will become ubiquitous”?

In a sense, this is true enough. Nowhere in the entire bulk of UID documentation will you encounter the express words “mandatory” or “compulsory”. Hence, proved! But that isn’t to say, however, that there is any way you will be able to avoid getting registered.

Very rapidly, accessing basic services and your very status as a citizen will be conditional on your possessing an Aadhar number. This is owing to the complex operational structure that the UID Scheme adopts which leaves the task of enrollment entirely in the hands of third party ‘Registrars’ who include a host of Central and State social security and welfare departments (including the Ministry of Rural Development which administers the Rural employment guarantee scheme), banks and insurance companies. There is nothing in the Aadhar Scheme that forbids these Registrars from making access to their services conditional on one’s consent to UID registration. In practice, many of them have and will continue to make UID registration a preliminary formality before access is granted to their services. So your ‘freedom’ to resist UID registration will depend on your ability to forego your minimum guarantee of the right to employment, cooking gas, banking and insurance services, food rations etc.

And if miraculously you are able to subsist without these services, there is still one minor detail that is seldom mentioned in conversations about UID: without a UID number, you will not be counted as a citizen of India. This is owing to the fact that the Registrar General of India, the authority responsible for compiling the National Population Register of India under the Citizenship Act, also happens to be a ‘Registrar’ for the purposes of the UID. Which means that one’s registration in the NPR will entail automatic enrollment in the UID. The Citizenship (Registration of Citizens and Issue of National Identity Cards) Rules, 2003 makes it mandatory for everyone to be enrolled in the National Population Register. So, paradoxically, although the Aadhar number does not confer citizenship, one cannot be a citizen anymore without owning an Aadhar number.

In other words, the UID scheme avoids the charge of being compulsory, by outsourcing its compulsion entirely.

The UID Scheme will only collect a minimal set of information

A frequently made assertion about the UID scheme is that the data collected will be limited to a standard set of information like one’s name, residence, date of birth, photo, all 10 finger prints and iris image. Once again, this is only a half truth. As mentioned previously, the entire process of enrollment is carried out through Registrars who have absolute freedom to expand the categories of information collected to include data that is entirely orthogonal to the purposes of the UID. This freedom is typically guaranteed by a clause in the MOUs which the UIDAI has signed with Registrars enabling them to collect additional data that “is required for their business or service”. Thus, for instance, in Himachal Pradesh, citizens are asked to provide additional details such as information about their ration cards, PAN cards, LPG connection and bank accounts[i]

To employ a telling epithet found in one of the UID documents, the ‘Registrars own the process of enrollment’.

Privacy is guaranteed

Although the UIDAI makes repeated assertions regarding its intent to respect privacy and ensure data protection, the precise mechanism through which these objectives will be secured is extremely unclear.

To begin with, the entire responsibility for devising schemes for safeguarding information during the collection phase rests entirely on the Registrars. The UIDAI’s own responsibility for privacy begins only from the moment the information is transmitted to it by the Registrars – by which time the information has already passed through many hands including the Enrolling Agency, and the Intermediary who passes on information from the Registrar to the UIDAI.
Rather than setting out an explicit redressal mechanism and a liability regime for privacy violations, the UID’s documents stop at loosely describing the responsibility of the Registrars as a ‘fiduciary duty’ towards the resident/citizen’s information. The Registrars are tasked with maintaining records of the data collected for a minimum period of six months. No maximum period is specified and Registrars are free to make what use of the data they see fit.
In addition, the Registrars are mandated to keep copies of all documents collected from the Resident either in physical or scanned copies “till the UIDAI finalizes its document storage agency.”[ii]
The ‘Data Protection and Security Guidelines’ which the UIDAI requires all Registrars to observe merely contains pious injunctions calling on them to observe care at all stages of data collection and to develop appropriate internal policies. There is mention of the desirability of external audits and periodic reporting mechanisms, but the details of these schemes are left to the individual Registrar to draw up.
Although the Draft National Identification Authority of India Bill penalizes the intentional disclosure or dissemination of identity information collected in the course of enrollment or authentication, this does not guard against accidental leaks and does not mandate the service providers to positively employ heightened security procedures. Prosecution of offences under the Act can only proceed with the sanction of the UID Authority, which further burdens the task of criminal enforcement in these cases and would make it difficult for individuals to obtain redress quickly. The total absence of a provision for civil remedies against Registrars makes it unlikely that they will take the task of protecting privacy seriously.
In other words, the individual’s right to privacy is only as strong as the weakest link in the elaborate chain of information collection, processing and storage.

The UIDAI will not disclose any information and will only authenticate information with Yes/No answers

This is another of the frequently misleading claims made by the UID Authority. Thus, for instance, in April, 2010, in response to a question in the course of an interview, Nandan Nilekani said “UID itself has very limited fields, it has only four or five fields — name, address, date of birth, sex and all that. But it also does not supply this data to anybody. .. the only authentication you can get from our system is a yes or no. So, you can’t query and say what’s this guys name or what’s his date of birth, you can’t get all that.”[iii]

This statement is, however belied by many of the UIDAI’s own documents.

The draft NIA Bill, for instance, permits the Authority to issue regulations on the sharing of “the information of aadhaar number holders, with their written consent, with such agencies engaged in delivery of public benefits and public services as the Authority may by order direct”. In practice, prior “written consent” for sharing is obtained from the resident as a matter of course at the time of enrollment itself, and it is impossible to obtain an Aadhar number without consenting to sharing by the UID Authority.[iv] In practice, in India, a large number of forms will be filled in by assistants and the written consent box will be ticked as a matter of course without the resident understanding the full implications of her “consent”.
The draft NIA Bill permits the authority to “make any disclosure of information (including identity information) made in the interests of national security in pursuance of a direction to that effect issued by an officer not below the rank of Joint Secretary or equivalent in the Central Government after obtaining approval of the Minister in charge”. There is nothing in the Act that requires that this information be made available on an individual basis – in other words, it is possible for the data to be shared en-masse with any agency “in the interests of national security”.
There is nothing preventing “Registrars” who carry out the actual data collection functions from sharing this information with anyone they choose. Thus, for instance, the Aadhar information collected during the exercise of compiling the National Population Register will can be shared in whichever manner the Registrar General of India chooses – irrespective of what the UIDAI does with that information.

So, while ordinarily, the UIDAI would not authenticate information other than giving Yes/No responses, there are mechanisms already in place that presume that all this information will be made available, on demand, to whichever agency that happens to be interested.

[i] 2011. UID project picks up pace. Indian Express. Available at: http://www.indianexpress.com/story-print/735790 [Accessed January 22, 2011].
[ii] UIDAI – Document Storage Guidelines for Registrars Ver. 1.2, August 2010.
[iii] 2010. To issue first set of UIDs by Feb 2011: Nilekani – CNBC-TV18 -. Money Control. Available at: http://www.moneycontrol.com/news/business/to-issue-first-setuids-by-feb-2011-nilekani_449820-4.html [Accessed January 22, 2011].
[iv] For instance, a flowchart of the Resident Enrollment Process issued by the UID stipulates “Record Resident’s consent for Information Sharing” as the tenth step in the enrollment process. Unless this step is followed, the enrollment process cannot proceed!

Click to read the original here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/popular-myths-about-uid

3rd Global Congress on IP and the Public Interest & Open A.I.R. Conference on Innovation and IP in Africa

praskrishna — 2013-12-26T05:46:20Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/3rd-global-congress-ip-and-public-interest-open-air-conference-innovation-and-ip-africa.pdf

3rd Canadian Science Policy Conference

praskrishna — 2011-11-23T15:57:58Z

The Canadian Science Policy Conference (CSPC) organised the 2011 conference at the Ottawa Convention Centre from 16 to 18 November 2011. Sunil Abraham spoke in the session on Global Implications of Open and Inclusive Innovation.

Conference Objectives

The Canadian Science Policy Conference fills a critical gap in the Canadian science policy environment by providing a permanent national forum for discussing science policy issues. The main objectives of the conference were to:

to provide an inclusive forum at the national level to identify, discuss and provide insights into the current Canadian science, technology and innovation policy issues;
to forge stronger linkages and create networking opportunities among science policy stakeholders;
to provide a venue for a new generation of scientists, entrepreneurs and policy makers to interact, innovate and shape the future of Canadian science policy landscape which is required for a knowledge-driven economy;
to provide a supportive environment for innovative ideas and projects in science policy, and encourage further collaborations across sectors;
to lay the foundation for a centre dedicated to science, technology and innovation policy.

Agenda

Wednesday, November 16, 2011

8:00 am - 6:00 pm
Registration Opens
9:00 am - 3:00 pm

Optional Workshop - Science Policy 101 (additional charges apply)
Part I: Understanding the Nuts and Bolts…
This workshop will provide a general overview of science policy, both in terms of “policy for science” and “science for policy.” The introductory session assumes participants have no prior knowledge of science policy and is intended for researchers, policy analysts, journalists/communicators, students and others interested in gaining a basic understanding of science policy definitions, concepts, governance, key players, key issues, funding, science advisory mechanisms, etc. Led by experts in science policy, the workshop will underscore the importance of scientists’ understanding the impacts of science in the policy-making process and the impacts of policy-making on the research enterprise.

Part II: Career Development Workshop: So You Want to do Science Policy...
Potentially interested in science policy but not sure where to turn? Join us to explore career opportunities and job-seeking strategies at the intersection of science and policy. You'll hear from and interact with a variety of science policy professionals at various stages of their careers and who have walked quite different paths to get to where they are. The workshop will explore skills needed to succeed in science policy and describe several avenues for learning more about science policy. Whether your background is in the sciences, engineering, public policy or whatever, if you have an interest in working in science policy this is an excellent opportunity to expand your professional network. The workshop will also be your opportunity to suggest how the Canadian Science Policy Centre can best support your career development needs and aspirations in science policy.

Jeff Kinder, Ph.D
Manager, S&T Strategy - Innovation and Energy Technology Sector
Natural Resources Canada
Jeff Kinder has over twenty years of experience in government science and in science and technology (S&T) policy in the U.S. and Canada. His experience in the U.S. includes work at the National Science Foundation, the National Academies' Committee on Science, Engineering and Public Policy, and research in applied ocean acoustics at the Naval Research Laboratory. In Canada, Jeff has worked as Senior Policy Advisor in Science and Innovation at Industry Canada and in support of the Council of Science and Technology Advisors (CSTA), the external board that advised Cabinet on the management of federal S&T from 1998-2007. He is currently Manager, S&T Strategy, at Natural Resources Canada. Jeff’s research and teaching focuses on S&T policy, government laboratories, innovation systems and science advisory mechanisms. He is the co-author with Bruce Doern of Strategic Science in the Public Interest: Canada's Government Laboratories and Science-Based Agencies (University of Toronto Press, 2007) and is working on a history of the Science Council of Canada. He holds a PhD in Public Policy, an M.A. in Science, Technology and Public Policy and a B.S. in Physics.

Jason Blackstock, Ph.D
Senior Fellow CIGI & Research Scholar
IIASA Austria
With a unique background in physics, technology and international affairs, Dr Jason J Blackstock is a leading international policy adviser and scholar on both emerging geoengineering technologies, and the interface between science and global governance institutions. A physicist by training (PhD) and trade (PPhys), as well as a graduate of the Harvard Kennedy School (MPA), Jason is the Senior Fellow for Energy and the Environment at CIGI (the Centre for International Governance Innovation, Canada) and a Research Scholar at IIASA (the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Austria), where he leads several international research projects evaluating the scientific, political and global governance implications of climate change, energy transitions, and emerging geoengineering technologies. Jason has also been elected Associate Fellow of the World Academy of Arts and Science, and is an adjunct member of faculty at the University of Waterloo’s Institute for Sustainable Energy (WISE).

1:00 pm - 3:00 pm
CSPC Supporter’s Caf (by invitation only, open to supporters and community partners)

3:30 pm - 5:15 pm
Science and Humanitarian Efforts - POSTPONED TILL 2012

Challenges for Young Researchers: Insights from the 2011 PAGSE Symposium
Fuelling Science Policy – new leaders speak out. Young scientists and engineers comprise a critically important, mobile pool of talent that stands to change the geography of knowledge in fundamental ways. Join a discussion with outstanding early career researchers from across Canada, as they present provocative views on the challenges and opportunities they face in driving the science agenda in this country over the next 25 years.
Your panelists for this session will come from the top-tier of young Canadian researchers. Prior to the conference this select group will be working together to develop the specific challenges that will be discussed. Members of this group will be identified during the session.

Moderator
Rees Kassen, Ph.D.
University Research Chair in Experimental Evolution
University of Ottawa
Despite being less than a decade into his career, Dr. Rees Kassen has quickly developed an international reputation. To the astonishment of more established colleagues, he has already published an impressive four papers in the field’s most prestigious journal, Nature. During his time at the University of Ottawa he has developed a strong independent research program and attracted more than $500,000 in research funding. In the process he has proved his strengths in designing and executing microbial experiments to test theory in ecology and evolution. Dr. Kassen manages to serve on a number of committees both at the university and in the community. His work has also attracted considerable media attention, and has been highlighted in the popular press such as CBC-Radio, the Toronto Star, Danish daily newspapers a podcast for the American Society of Microbiologists.

Arctic and Northern Science Policy and International Diplomacy
Canada’s share of the Earth’s arctic region is perhaps the largest in the world, but given the shared nature of arctic sovereignty, environmental stewardship and scientific research in this region must proceed within a spirit of international collaboration. Following on the heels of the third International Polar Year (2007-2009), this panel invites commentary from various international arctic stakeholders on the way that science and diplomacy interact and support one another in the process of researching Earth’s northern regions.

Moderator
Anita Dey Nuttall, Ph.D
Associate Director ( Research Advancement)
Canadian Circumpolar Institute, University of Alberta
Dey Nuttall's research focuses on the interface between science and politics in the Polar Regions, and in particular how a nation’s science policy and strategic interests influence and determine the development of its national Antarctic programs. She is currently developing new research on Canada’s strategy for polar science and development of the Canadian Antarctic Research Program.

David Hik, Ph.D
Professor - University of Alberta
President - International Arctic Science Committee
David Hik, Professor and Canada Research Chair in Northern Ecology in the Department of Biological Sciences at the University of Alberta, and President of the International Arctic Science Committee (IASC). From 2004-2009 he was also Executive Director of the Canadian International Polar Year (IPY) Secretariat.

His research program is focused on experimental and long-term studies of plant-herbivore dynamics and interactions in Arctic and alpine environments. For the past 20 years, most of this work has been conducted in the mountains of the southwest Yukon.

Stephanie Meakin
Science Advisor
Inuit Circumpolar Council Canada
Stephanie Meakin has a background in biology with more than 20 years experience as a policy and science advisor to various government and non-governmental organizations, including Inuit organizations at the national and international levels. She is currently the Science Advisor for the Inuit Circumpolar Council Canada and has spent eight years as lead researcher with ArcticNet on various research programs and projects.

Russel Shearer
Chair - Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program (AMAP)
& Director - Northern Science and Contaminants Research Directorate
Aboringal Affairs and Northern Development Canada
Russel Shearer is the Director of the Northern Science and Contaminants Research Directorate within Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (formerly Indian and Northern Affairs Canada). Mr. Shearer is also the Chair of the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program (AMAP) working group, which is one of six working groups that carry out the work of the Arctic Council. Additionally, Mr. Shearer serves as the Chair of the Research Management Committee for ArcticNet, which is a network of Centres of Excellence, focussed on studying the impacts of climate change within the costal Canadian Arctic. Mr. Shearer has published a number of papers on the presence and impact of contaminants within the North and works primarily under the auspices of the Northern Contaminants Program (NCP).

Roberta Burns
US Arctic Officer
US State Department
Jenkins R&D Review Panel Report Recommendations - Implications for Canadian Business
The Jenkins Report on the effectiveness of $6.5 Billion spent annually in federal programs to support business R&D and innovation, calls for a “rebalancing” away from R&D tax credits - in favour of the increased use if “direct” funding for business. It also recommends a centralization of program delivery, a dismantling and transition of key NRC Institutes and programs such as IRAP, and enhanced roles for the Business Development Bank of Canada and government procurement in supporting Canadian SMEs. Would these recommendations assist Canadian business to conduct more research and innovation activity? The panel will explore these issues.

Moderator
David B. Watters
President
Global Advantage Consulting Group Inc.
David Watters worked for 30 years in the federal government as a senior executive and Assistant Deputy Minister in a variety of Economic Ministries including Industry Canada, Treasury Board and Finance Canada. He was the Assistant Deputy Minister in Finance Canada for Economic Development and Corporate Finance, where he helped to shape the economic and innovation investments in five federal Budgets. David then established the Global Advantage Consulting Group Inc. (Ottawa) and is the President of this strategic management consulting firm. The firm provides advice to corporate, association, and government clients in Canada and abroad about strategy development, innovative business models, the design and management of commercial networks, and enhanced decision-making, particularly in the areas of new technology investments, innovation/commercialization, trade, and energy/climate change projects, programs and policy.

David holds an Economics degree from Queen’s University as well as a Law degree in corporate, commercial and tax law from Queen’s Law School. He was also an adjunct Professor at the University of Ottawa Management School for seven years teaching International Negotiation to MBA students.

Celine Bak
Partner
Russel Mitchel Group
Céline Bak is an internationally recognized author, speaker and consultant on clean technology and on innovation and commercialization. She published and authored a ground-breaking national report on clean technology and on commercialization – the 2010 SDTC Cleantech Growth & Go-to-Market Report. Also published by her firm, the 2011 Canadian Clean Technology Industry Report builds on the 2010 baseline data set for Canada’s multibillion dollar clean technology industry that Analytica Advisors projects has the potential to attain $60 billion in annual revenues by 2020.

She is the co-founder of the Canadian Clean Technology Coalition that was struck to create the conditions required to make Canada’s clean technology industry an driver of Canada’s economic and energy productivity as well as an enabler for Canada’s green house gas reduction targets. Céline sits on the Clean Tech Advisory Board for the Department of Foreign Affairs and is a technical advisor to the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy for Climate Prosperity. She was the co-chair of the 2011 Canadian Cleantech Summit and sits on the nominations committee for the Canada Clean50. She is the chair of the Canada-Brazil Working Group for Clean Technology and Green Energy. She resides in Ottawa with her husband and three daughters.

Michael Turner
Vice President, System Strategies
Wesley Clover International
Wesley Clover International, based in Ottawa, Canada, is an investment & management firm with interests in leading edge information technology & communications companies, digital media, real estate and resort properties. As a member of the executive team Michael Turner provides strategic advice and support on technology issues and government innovation policy. In addition to his work with Wesley Clover, Michael also provides consulting services in these domains as well as in the use of Information & Communications Technologies within government, in Canada and internationally. Prior to joining Wesley Clover, Michael spent much of his career with the Canadian Federal Government, most recently as a senior official accountable for executive leadership and management of ICT operations for the Canadian Federal Government’s common services agency, Public Works and Government Services (PWGSC). He also served for a time as the Departmental CIO. During this period, Mr. Turner was a key member of the team responsible for Canada’s success in implementing Internet based e-Government services for its citizens and businesses.

Mr. Turner spent 25 years with the Canadian Coast Guard prior to his responsibilities at PWGSC. While with the Coast Guard. Michael served in a series of engineering and management positions of increasing responsibility. This included representing Canada for several years on various technical committees and then the Governing Council of the U.N.’s International Maritime Organization, based in London. For several years, Mr. Turner was the Deputy Commissioner - Canadian Coast Guard. Since leaving the public service, his consulting and advisory work has included projects, workshops and presentations in Australia, S.E. Asia, Africa, Europe, India and Ottawa. He has also participated in the development and delivery of an ICT and e-Government management training program for developing country governments. In 2008, Mr. Turner was a member of the City of Ottawa’s ‘Mayor’s Task Force on e-Government’, the recommendations from which are currently being implemented.

Dan Clow, Ph.D
Director Policy, Advocacy and Alliances Development
GlaxoSmithKline (GSK)
Dr. Dan Clow leads the internal Policy Team at GSK focusing on health, industrial, pharmaceutical and biologics policy at the National level and through cross-functional efforts at the Federal, Provincial and Territorial levels. He also oversees a national field-based team serving as GSK’s point of contact for patient advocacy groups and professional organizations (including medical associations and societies). Dan completed his undergraduate and graduate degrees at Queen’s University, graduating with his Ph.D. in Pharmacology and Toxicology in 1988. His neuroscience research interests led him to subsequently complete a post-doctoral fellowship in the Department of Anatomy at the University of Hawai’i at Manoa. Upon returning to Canada in 1990 he joined the pharmaceutical industry in a medical affairs capacity. Dan joined Glaxo Wellcome (now GSK) in 1996 and spent 10 years in the Government Affairs and Private Payer arena. In 2006, he joined the Medical Division where he managed the respiratory business serving as a strategic scientific partner to the marketing division and managing the respiratory collaborative research trials with Canadian scientists and clinicians. In late 2008, he returned to the Public Affairs Division to take on the policy assignment. In 2011 his role and team was expanded to include the mandate for managing relationships with patient advocacy groups and professional organizations.

Dan is a founding member and past chair of the Group Insurance Pharmaceutical Collaborative (GIPC) and recipient of the Rogers Who’s Who in Healthcare for his work in private sector and employer-based health management. He is currently a member of both the Policy and Stakeholder Relations Committees at Rx&D.

6:00 pm - 6:30 pm
Opening Ceremonies
6:30 pm - 7:30 pm
Keynote Panel - Big Picture Perspective on Science & Innovation Policy
With continuing uncertainty about the global economy and with persistent public policy challenges that respect no borders, science and innovation policy is of increasing importance for governments and organizations across Canada and around the world. How do leaders from various perspectives view the "big picture"? What are the key challenges and opportunities in the decade ahead and how can science, technology and innovation help to address them? How can states improve the performance of their science, technology and innovation systems to ensure better health outcomes, a safe and secure environment, and sustainable prosperity for their citizens? How are macro-decisions on the state of science and innovation policy being made, and what foundations can support efficient national innovation systems.

Introductions
Dr. Suzanne Fortier
President
Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
Dr. Suzanne Fortier has served as President of the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) since January 2006. She was re-appointed to this position in November 2010. During her first five years, Dr. Fortier brought a renewed focus on excellence to the agency. Changes to NSERC’s funding structure ensure that the best researchers receive the funding they need to conduct world-class research. NSERC now engages more closely with industries to initiate research and development projects with academic partners. Dr. Fortier has also forged stronger relationships with other federal granting agencies and organizations to increase the number and scope of joint initiatives available to researchers. For example, a collaboration between National Research Council Canada, Business Development Bank of Canada and NSERC resulted in an ambitious new national initiative in nanotechnology.

Before her appointment to this position, Dr. Fortier held a number of senior research and administrative positions at Queen’s University. She joined Queen's University as an Assistant Professor in the Department of Chemistry in 1982 after holding research positions at the Medical Foundation of Buffalo and National Research Council Canada. She then served as Dean of the School of Graduate Studies, Acting Vice-Principal (Research), and Associate Dean in the School of Graduate Studies and Research before being appointed Vice-Principal (Research) in 1995. Most recently (2000-05), she was Vice-Principal (Academic).

Moderator
Véronique Morin
Science Journalist
Tele-Quebec
Véronique Morin is a journalist in both print and television with over 20 years experience who believes strongly that Science should have an important place in daily newscasts. She is currently working as science journalist for the science magazine program « Le Code Chastenay » on the public network Tele-Quebec, writing freelance magazine articles, as well as developing a documentary project. Recently (idea and research) her documentary “Time Bombs”, about Canadian veterans who have participated in atomic bomb tests, received the awards of « Best documentary” from the New York International Independent Film and Video festival, « Best Documentary » from the Canadian Association of Broadcasters, and Veronique was nominated for “Best research” at the Gemeaux awards 2008. Veronique Morin was president of the Canadian Science Writers' Association (CSWA) from 2001-2005.

She was elected the first president of the World Federation of Science Journalists (WFSJ) from 2002-2004. She also serves as a judge on numerous awards recognizing excellence in journalism.

Rémi Quirion, OC, Ph.D., CQ, FRSC
Chief Scientist & Chariman of the Board
Fonds de recherche du Québec
On September 1, 2011, Rémi Quirion, OC, PhD, CQ, FRSC, became Québec's first chief scientist. As such, he chairs the boards of directors of the three Fonds de recherche du Québec and advises the Minister of Economic Development, Innovation and Export Trade on research and scientific development issues. Until his appointment as chief scientist, Rémi Quirion was the vice-dean for science and strategic initiatives in the faculty of medicine at McGill University and senior university advisor on health sciences research. He was the scientific director of the Douglas Mental Health University Institute Research Centre, a full professor in the department of psychiatry at McGill University and the executive director of the International Collaborative Research Strategy for Alzheimer's Disease of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Professor Quirion was the first scientific director of the Institute of Neurosciences, Mental Health and Addiction (INMHA), one of Canada's 13 health research institutes.

His work helped to elucidate the roles of the cholinergic system in Alzheimer's disease, of neuropeptide Y in depression and memory and of the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) in pain and opiate tolerance. Rémi Quirion earned his PhD in pharmacology from Université de Sherbrooke in 1980 and carried out his postdoctoral training at the National Institute of Mental Health in the United States in 1983. He has over 650 publications in prominent scientific journals and is one of the most extensively cited neuroscientists in the world. He has received several awards and honours, including the Ordre national du Québec (Chevalier du Québec, CQ) in 2003, the Prix Wilder-Penfield (Prix du Québec) in 2004 and the Order of Canada (OC) in 2007. Mr. Quirion is also a member of the Royal Society of Canada.

Ian Chubb
Chief Scientist
Australian Government
Professor Ian Chubb was appointed to the position of Chief Scientist on 19 April 2011 and commenced the role on 23 May 2011. Prior to his appointment as Chief Scientist Professor Ian Chubb was Vice-Chancellor of the Australian National University from January 2001 to February 2011. He was Vice-Chancellor of Flinders University of South Australia for six years and the Senior Deputy Vice-Chancellor of Monash University for two years while simultaneously the Foundation Dean of the Faculty of Business and Economics for 16 months.

In 1999 Professor Chubb was made an Officer of the Order of Australia (AO) for “service to the development of higher education policy and its implementation at state, national and international levels, as an administrator in the tertiary education sector, and to research particularly in the field of neuroscience”. In 2006 he was made a Companion (AC) in the order for “service to higher education, including research and development policy in the pursuit of advancing the national interest socially, economically, culturally and environmentally, and to the facilitation of a knowledge-based global economy”. In 2000, Professor Chubb was awarded a Doctor of Science (Honoris Causa) from Flinders University. He was made the ACT’s Australian of the Year in 2011 for his contribution to higher education.

R. Peter MacKinnon
President, University of Saskatchewan
& member of the STIC State of the Nation Working Group
Originally from Prince Edward Island, Peter MacKinnon has lived in Saskatoon since 1975. He previously served the University of Saskatchewan as Dean of Law and Acting Vice-President (Academic) and was appointed President of the University in July, 1999. Educated at the University of Saskatchewan, Queen's and Dalhousie, Mr. MacKinnon articled in Kingston and was admitted to the Ontario Bar in 1975 and to the Law Society of Saskatchewan in 1979. He was appointed Queen's Counsel in 1990. He is currently a member of the Prime Minister’s Advisory Committee on the Public Service; a member of the Science, Technology and Innovation Council of Canada; a member of the Board of the Saskatoon Airport Authority; a former Chair of the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada and has been a Chair or member of several public service boards, councils and committees since his appointment as president.

Recent awards include honorary degrees from the Memorial University of Newfoundland and the University of Regina and the Canadian Bar Association’s Distinguished Service Award in Saskatchewan (2005). Peter MacKinnon is currently serving his third term as President and Vice-Chancellor of the University of Saskatchewan.

7:30 pm - 9:00 pm
Mingling Politics and Science Reception
9:00 pm - 10:00 pm
DUST

Thursday, November 17, 2011

7:30 am - 8:30 am
Registration & Continental Breakfast
8:30 am - 8:40 am
Welcome Address
Jim Roche
President & Chief Executive Officer
CANARIE Inc.
Jim was appointed President and CEO of CANARIE in February 2010. He is a successful entrepreneur with over twenty-five years of leadership experience, having been a founding member and General Manager at Newbridge Networks Corporation (now Alcatel-Lucent), a co-founder and CEO of Tundra Semiconductor (now IDT), the CEO of CMC Microsystems and the founder and CEO of Stratford Managers, a company he continues to lead. In addition to his corporate duties, he also serves on numerous boards and committees including the ICT Advisory Board for DFAIT, the Committee of Research Partnerships for NSERC, the Expert Panel on Business Innovation for CCA and others. He is also an Executive-in-Residence at the Telfer School of Management at the University of Ottawa and is frequently called on to speak about entrepreneurship, commercialization of innovation, and strategy development.

Jim holds a Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering from Queen’s University, where he graduated at the top of his class and won multiple scholarships. He has added to his management skills through intensive programs at Stanford, Ivey, Queen’s and elsewhere.

8:40 am - 10:10 am
Building Stronger Communities Through Innovation
How do we build innovative communities? This is a central challenge for Canada in the 21st century since innovative communities form the foundation of a prosperous country. As more than a decade of research on industry clusters has shown, a robust innovation system can have a profoundly positive impact on local communities when it translates into high quality jobs, industrial growth, new enterprises, improved public infrastructure and services and a cleaner, healthier environment. But building innovation into our communities takes the involvement of individuals and institutions across the spectrum of society. Universities, colleges, research hospitals, private companies, governments and non-profit agencies, along with the talented, creative people that work in these organizations, must be free to work together and share their knowledge and ideas. Yet fostering collaboration and knowledge exchange between different organizations, with different interests and capacities can be challenging. Successful collaboration requires time, resources, communication, shared goals, commitment and risk-taking.

A panel of leading Canadian thinkers in inter-sectoral and inter-organizational collaboration will discuss how university and college researchers can work with local businesses to translate new knowledge into new creative products and beneficial services. They will look at the role of research hospitals in contributing to both the health and wealth of local communities. And they will discuss best practices in overcoming the institutional and cultural barriers to collaboration.

Chair
Gilles G. Patry, Ph.D
President and CEO
Canada Foundation for Innovation
On August 1, 2010, Dr. Gilles G. Patry became the fourth President and CEO of the Canada Foundation for Innovation (CFI). Following a long and distinguished career as a consultant, a researcher, and a university administrator, Dr. Patry brings to the CFI a wealth of experience from both the private and academic sector .

Dr. Patry holds a B.A.Sc. and M.A.Sc. in civil engineering from the University of Ottawa, and a Ph.D. from the University of California, Davis in environmental engineering. He was an environmental engineering consultant (1971-78) before becoming professor of civil engineering at École Polytechnique de Montréal (1978-83) and then at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ont. (1983-93). Dr. Patry’s research program at McMaster led him to develop an innovative modelling concept for the simulation of wastewater treatment plant dynamics, and ultimately, to launch a Hamilton-based consulting company, Hydromantis, Inc. His research focuses on modelling, simulation and control of environmental systems.

Chair
Marie Carter, FEC, P.Eng
Chief Operating Officer
Engineers Canada
Marie is the chief operating officer of Engineers Canada. For seven years, she was the organization’s director of professional and international affairs and secretary to its Canadian Engineering Qualifications Board and International Committee. Her work includes ensuring the implementation of Engineers Canada’s Strategic Plan, which includes activities related to the development and maintenance of national qualification standards for admission to, and the practice of, professional engineering in Canada international activities to enhance the mobility of Canadian engineers. Marie also ensures proper management of resources, distribution of products and services to Engineers Canada’s members and that business operations run smoothly. Marie has also been responsible for projects to increase the recognition of foreign credentials for internationally-educated engineering graduates.

Prior to joining Engineers Canada in April 2001, Marie worked for 13 years in transportation engineering consulting and carried out various environmental assessment studies. Marie graduated with a bachelor’s degree in civil engineering from Carleton University in Ottawa in 1989.

Respondent and Facilitator
Chad Gaffield, Ph.D
President
Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council
Chad Gaffield, one of Canada’s foremost historians, was appointed president of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) on September 18, 2006. Gaffield came to SSHRC from the University of Ottawa, where he held a University Research Chair and was the founding director of the Institute of Canadian Studies. During his 20-year University of Ottawa career, he also served as vice-dean of graduate studies and on the executive committee of the board of governors. He is a former president of the Canadian Historical Association and the Canadian Federation for the Humanities and Social Sciences.

Dr. Kevin Smith
President and CEO
St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton
& St Joseph's Lifecare Centre Brantford
Dr. Smith is President and CEO of St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton and St Joseph's Lifecare Centre Brantford since 2009; and CEO of St Mary's General Hospital Kitchener-all members of the St Joseph's Health System. He is also Associate Professor in the Department of Medicine - Faculty of Health Sciences of McMaster University. Dr. Smith's experience also includes work and training in the areas of medical curricula development, management training for academic health professionals, performance and incentives models for enhanced creativity and productivity and numerous roles in both University and Teaching Hospitals. Dr. Smith is currently co-leading the Government's Emergency Department and Alternate Level of Care initiative, and is also playing a leadership role in the Premier's delegations to China. Dr. Smith also contributes as chair or member of various Provincial and National bodies as well as various private and philanthropic Boards.

Fred Morley
Executive VP & Chief Economist
Greater Halifax Partnership
Fred Morley is Executive Vice-President and Chief Economist of the Greater Halifax Partnership since 2002, an organization focused on retaining and expanding existing business and bringing new investment to Halifax. A former professor at Saint Mary’s University, Fred Morley has also served as senior economic advisor to the Government of Nova Scotia, senior policy analyst at the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council, and as senior manager at Nova Scotia Business Inc. He serves as a member of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, the boards of the International Economic Development Council in Washington DC, the Acadia Centre for Small Business and Entrepreneurship, and Saint Mary’s Business Development Centre. He holds undergraduate degrees in chemistry and economics from Dalhousie University and did graduate work at Dalhousie and Saint Mary’s University.

Fassi Kafyeke
Director, Strategic Technology
Bombardier Aerospace
Fassi Kafyeke joined Bombardier Aerospace in 1982. In 1996, he became Manager of Advanced Aerodynamics. As Chief Aerodynamicist, he was responsible for aerodynamic design and development wind tunnel testing for all Bombardier Jets (Global Express, CRJ-700, 900 and 1000, Challenger 300, C-Series. In 2007, he became Director of Strategic Technology, in charge of all engineering research and development activities of the company. He has several publications in peer-reviewed journals and conference proceedings and is the author of a book on Computational Fluid Dynamics. In 2001, he was the recipient of the Grand Prix d’Excellence of the Order of Engineers of Québec. In 1980, Dr. Kafyeke graduated from the University of Liege (Belgium) with a degree in Aerospace Engineering. The following year he completed his Master’s degree in Air Transport Engineering at the Cranfield Institute of Technology (England) and in 1994, he received his Doctorate in Mechanical Engineering (Aerodynamics) from École Polytechnique de Montréal.

Hon. Mike Harcourt
Lawyer, Community Activist, and former BC Premier
Mike Harcourt is a former Premier of British Columbia, Mayor of Vancouver and City Councillor. He is a passionate believer in the power of cities and communities to improve the human condition. As such, as a speaker, author and advisor internationally on sustainable cities, he was appointed to serve on numerous committees, namely as Chair of the Prime Minister’s Advisory Committee for Cities and Communities, Co-chair the National Advisory Committee on the UN-HABITAT World Urban Forum, and as a member of the National Round Table on the Environment and Economy. Mr. Harcourt’s exemplary career as Lawyer, Community Activist, and Politician has been honoured, with the Woodrow Wilson Award for Public Service, the Canadian Urban Institute’s Jane Jacobs Lifetime Achievement Award and the UBC Alumni Achievement Award of Distinction for contributions to British Columbia, Canada and the global community.

10:10 am - 10:30 am
Coffee Break
10:30 am - 12:00 pm
The Role of K* in Strengthening Science-Policy Integration
This fast-paced and interactive session will begin with short (~3-minute) presentations by each panelist, followed by two sets of round-table discussions among participants and each of the six panelists, and a short wrap-up segment. Knowledge translation and brokering (KT-KB) are part of an increasingly-recognized spectrum of knowledge transfer approaches that can significantly contribute to strengthened science-policy integration. The “K*” concept was first discussed at Canadian Science Policy Conference (CSPC) 2010 in Montreal and encapsulates the variety of terms used by practitioners in this field, including Knowledge Translation, Brokering, Management, Mobilization, Transfer, Adoption etc. These K* approaches recognize the need for active engagement across the science-policy spectrum, and for careful consideration of users’ information needs, preferred format, time frame and communication mechanisms. K* approaches are increasingly being adopted in a variety of fields, including health, environmental sustainability, education, agriculture and international development. Building on the successful one-day KT-KB workshop held during CSPC 2010, this year’s panel will engage the broader CSPC community and:

Provide insight into this active, emerging field;
Showcase practical and tangible examples of the value and power of KT-KB and other K* approaches in Canada and internationally;
Develop the theme of demonstrating the impacts of Knowledge Mobilization activities;
Be a waypoint for the first international K* Summit in 2012, and subsequent development of a multi-sectoral forum and White Paper for K* issues nationally and internationally.

Convenor
Alex T. Bielak, Ph.D
Senior Fellow and Knowledge Broker
United Nations University
Dr. Alex Bielak is a member of the faculty at the United Nations University and also serves as Senior Advisor to the Chair of UN-Water. As Senior Research Fellow and Knowledge Broker in the freshwater programme at the UNU’s Institute for Water, Environment and Health (UNU-INWEH, the U.N. Think Tank on Water) Alex also leads a new Knowledge Management and Mobilization (K*) initiative for the Institute. Previously Alex was Environment Canada’s first-ever Director, Science and Technology Liaison with a mission of communicating science knowledge to targeted audiences and linking science with policy development. Before that he spent over a year as A/Director General, S&T Strategies Directorate, where he set up the Directorate and led the team developing EC's new Science Plan. A NATO Scholar, he has also held senior positions with Canada’s National Water Research Institute, NGOs, and other federal and provincial government departments.

Alex holds a PhD degree in Freshwater Biology from the University of Waterloo and has served on numerous National and International Boards and Committees. Recently appointed as an Adjunct Professor in the Department of Communication Studies and Multi-Media at McMaster University, recognition of his professional and volunteer activities includes a UW Science Faculty “Distinguished Alumni Award” on the occasion of UW’s 50th Anniversary and appointment as the first Honorary Member of the Canadian Rivers Institute in 2011.

Convenor
Shannon deGraaf
Senior Science Policy Analyst, S&T Liaison
Environment Canada
Shannon joined Environment Canada’s S&T Liaison team as a Science-Policy Analyst in January 2009. Shannon’s work with S&T Liaison has focused on communicating science activities and results to various decision-making audiences including senior management, practitioners and policy communities; contributing to best practices in science-policy linkages through the development of the Strengthening Science-Policy Linkages Study Series; and highlighting the role of knowledge translation and brokering tools in federal science-based departments and agencies through the development of an Interdepartmental Compendium of KT-KB Tools. Prior to joining S&T Liaison Shannon has had more than ten years of experience in Environment Canada’s Great Lakes Program with a focus on outreach. Shannon has a degree in Environmental Studies from Brock University.

Amanda Cooper
KNAER Program Manager, Research & Knowledge Mobilization
and RSPE Research & Program Coordinator
Amanda Cooper specializes in research-practice-policy relationships. Her interests professionally and academically revolve around improving research use in public services. Currently, she is managing the Knowledge Network for Applied Education Research (KNAER), www.knaer-recrae.ca, an ambitious effort to improve knowledge mobilization in education across Ontario. Amanda has also been the coordinator for the Research Supporting Practice in Education program at OISE, www.oise.utoronto.ca/rspe, since its inception in 2007. There is growing awareness that research mediation by intermediary organizations is integral to knowledge mobilization. Amanda’s doctoral research analyzes efforts made by 44 knowledge mobilization intermediaries (third party, research brokering organizations) that facilitate linkages between research producing contexts and research using contexts to increase research use and its impact in education across Canada. She provides talks, workshops and consulting on knowledge mobilization for researchers, practitioners, policymakers, intermediaries and other organizations across sectors.

Katrina Hitchman, Ph.D
Manager of Strategic Programs
Canadian Water Network
After finishing her Honours Bachelor of Arts degree at Mount Allison University, Katrina completed her master’s and PhD degrees in Industrial and Organizational Psychology at the University of Waterloo. Katrina joined the Canadian Water Network in February 2009 to assist in the development and management of CWN partnership-based programs, particularly the evolving research consortia. Katrina conducted a comparative organizational analysis examining the organizational structure and functions of Canadian and international organizations that share CWN’s mandate of using research to inform practice and policy. As CWN continues to explore consortia-based models for putting its research to work, she will focus on the development of knowledge translation tools for researchers and research users, evaluating the success of CWN programs, and pursing opportunities to enhance CWN’s profile as a leading knowledge translation and brokering organization.

David Phipps, Ph.D
Director, Research Services & Knowledge Exchange
York University/ResearchImpact
ResearchImpact

David is responsible for the management and support of research services (research grants and contracts, research ethics, technology and knowledge transfer); participates in strategic planning; negotiates research contracts and grants, manages research data and develops research performance measurements; ensures compliance with government policies and the University mandate.

Louise Shaxson
Senior Research Fellow, RAPID
Overseas Development Institute (UK)
& Associate, Delta Partnership
Louise is a senior research fellow at the Overseas Development Institute, UK’s leading think tank on international development; and an associate of Delta Partnership, an international management consultancy company based in London. Her particular area of interest is evidence-based policymaking and the links between knowledge and policy. She has authored and provided guidance on the provision of expert scientific advice to senior policy officials, what constitutes robust evidence for policy making, advised on horizon scanning projects and has published several journal articles and book chapters relating to evidence-based policy making. She has co-authored a forthcoming book on Knowledge, policy and power in international development: a practical guide which will be published by The Policy Press/University of Chicago Press in 2012.

Over the past few years, Louise became acquainted with a group of Canadians who shared her interested in evidence-based policy and, in particular, knowledge translation and brokering. Most recently, she was involved with CSPC where she gave a presentation on the distribution of responsibility in policy delivery and relating issues at the Canadian Science Policy Conference in Montreal last October.

Global Implications of Open and Inclusive Innovation
The context of innovation is being transformed by the growing ubiquity of affordable technologies, such as mobiles, even in the most remote parts of the world. In a June 4 2011 New York Times article, Thomas Friedman indicated that “Carlson’s Law” was an important consequence of these changes: “In a world where so many people now have access to education and cheap tools of innovation, innovation that happens from the bottom up tends to be chaotic but smart. Innovation that happens from the top down tends to be orderly but dumb,” observes Curtis Carlson, the CEO of SRI International. As a result, he says, the sweet spot for innovation today is “moving down,” closer to the people, not up, because all the people together are smarter than anyone alone and all the people now have the tools to invent and collaborate.” In emerging economies, new business models and innovative forms of entrepreneurship are flourishing, particularly in the informal sectors. What can Canada learn from these innovations? How should science policies respond? This panel will attempt to inform debates about the relationship between science policy, intellectual property regimes, changing technological platforms and private sector innovation. To do so, the International Development Research Centre (IDRC), the organizer of this panel will bring together experts from Canada, Brazil, South Africa and India to discuss emerging evidence on these issues, as well as recommendations for decision-makers.
Moderator

Matthew Smith
Program Officer
International Development Research Centre, Canada
Matthew Smith oversees research on the use of information and communication technologies (ICTs) to foster sustainable development and socio- economic equity at the International Development Research Centre (IDRC), a Canadian crown corporation. Before joining IDRC, Smith did postgraduate research on the interaction between technology and society, in particular the impact of e-government systems on citizens’ trust in the government of Chile. He has published on this subject and others, including the concept of openness to broaden access and inclusion. Smith holds a PhD in information systems and an MSc in development studies from the London School of Economics and Political Science (England), as well as an MSc in artificial intelligence from the University of Edinburgh (Scotland).

Sunil Abraham
Executive Director
Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), India
Sunil Abraham is the Executive Director of the Centre for Internet and Society in Bangalore India. He founded Mahiti in 1998 which aims to reduce the cost and complexity of Information and Communication Technology for the Voluntary Sector by using Free Software. Today, Mahiti employs more than 50 engineers and Sunil continues to serve on the board. Between June 2004 and June 2007, Sunil also managed the International Open Source Network a project of United Nations Development Programme's Asia-Pacific Development Information Programme serving 42 countries in the Asia-Pacific region.

Jeremy De Beer
Associate Professor, Faculty of Law
University of Ottawa
Jeremy is an Associate Professor at the University of Ottawa's Faculty of Law. His expertise is in the area of technology and intellectual property law. He has a graduate degree in law from the University of Oxford, and degrees in business and in law from the University of Saskatchewan. His research and recent publications address topics ranging from digital copyrights to biotechnology patents, with particular emphasis on the intersection of technology, intellectual property and international development.

Pria Chetty
Associate Director
Technology and Innovation Law, PricewaterhouseCoopers, South Africa
Pria Chetty is the Associate Director, Technology and Innovation Law at PricewaterhouseCoopers in South Africa. She completed her law degree in 2000 and went on to specialise in Electronic and Intellectual Property Law . She is the founder of Technology and Innovation Law Firm, Chetty Law, in South Africa, which has provided legal and strategic advisory services to a wide range of clients including public sector agencies, NGO’s, local and internationally listed companies and South Africa’s most innovative entrepreneurs. She was identified as one of the Brightest Young Minds in South Africa and later, in 2006, featured in Maverick magazine as one of five young attorneys making their mark in legal practice in South Africa.

Science Culture, Organized and Prioritized: Three National and International Initiatives
Culture is big: annually, some 290 million citizens actively participate in the exhibitions, programs, events and outreach initiatives organized by 2,400 science centres worldwide. Other types of institutions, radio, internet, and film build further on that reach. This session will examine three recent initiatives that seek to organize, define, and take strategic advantage of the work of hundreds of diverse science engagement and knowledge creation organisations nationally and internationally. Increasingly, strategic focus among this diverse set of content and communication partners is bringing new attention to science engagement for the benefit of national and global society.
This session will examine Inspiring Australia, an initiative of the Australian government to create regional networks of diverse engagement organizations and connect them effectively with the science knowledge creators in order to better execute science engagement in that country. We will also examine a initiative to benchmark "science culture" in order to better measure future progress . And finally we will examine a global initiative by science centres to use science engagement in a truly global context.

Moderator
Tracy Ross
Executive Director
Canadian Association of Science Centres (CASC)
Tracy Ross is the Executive Director of the Canadian Association of Science Centres, the national network that serves more than 45 charitable science centres, science museums and similar organisations that inspire 8 million people annually with learning experiences in science. The association is a national platform for collaboration, networking and tackling common issues. In May 2012, the association will be holding its 10th annual conference in Ottawa hosted by the Canada Science and Technology Museums Corporation. Tracy graduated from Queen’s University at Kingston in 1996 with a B.Sc. (Hons.) in Environmental Chemistry, and from the University of Toronto in 2000 with a Master’s degree in the History and Philosophy of Science and Technology. She got her start with science centres as a host at the Ontario Science Centre where she delivered a variety of lively demonstrations, developed a new tabletop experience, and facilitated learning with visitors of all ages. She has served on the Board of Directors of the Science and Technology Awareness Network and the steering committee for National Science and Technology Week. She lives in Ottawa, where, as an avid sailor, she also serves on the Board of Directors of the Nepean Sailing Club.

Lesley Lewis
Chief Executive Officer
Ontario Science Centre
Chief Executive Officer of the Ontario Science Centre since 1998, Lesley Lewis has led a major evolution of the landmark cultural attraction. Under Ms Lewis’ leadership over the past decade, the Science Centre has significantly renewed two thirds of its public spaces focusing on embracing new audiences, engaging visitors of all ages with science, scientists and innovation as well as incorporating current science news into daily offerings. From 2000 to 2006. Ms. Lewis spearheaded the Centre’s $47.5 million Agents of Change transformation.

As CEO, Ms. Lewis has sharpened the organization’s focus on extending its brand, audience reach and relevance. The Science Centre introduced an array of programs designed to ensure accessibility to all members of the community.

She is a respected member of the international science centre community, and has been active in global forums describing the Ontario Science Centre’s evolution into a new model for public engagement with science.

Ms Lewis is an invited member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science’s Committee on Science and Technology Engagement with the Public. She also currently serves on the Board of Directors of Tourism Toronto. From 2007 to 2009, she was President of the global Association of Science Technology Centers based in Washington D.C. She was a member of the China Association for Science and Technology’s international advisory committee for a new science and technology museum in Beijing that opened in 2009 and Chair of the Fifth Science Centre World Congress which was hosted by the Ontario Science Centre in Toronto in 2008. In that capacity she led the development of the Toronto Declaration, the science centre field’s first-ever shared global statement of beliefs and goals.

Prior to joining the Ontario Science Centre, Ms. Lewis was the Executive Director of the Ontario Heritage Foundation for six years and for three years Executive Director of the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

Denise Amyot
President and CEO
Canada Science and Technology Museums Corporation
Denise Amyot is currently, President and CEO of the Canada Science and Technology Museums Corporation whose mandate is to foster scientific and technological literacy throughout the country. The Corporation and its three museums – the Canada Agriculture Museum, the Canada Aviation and Space Museum, and the Canada Science and Technology Museum – tell the stories of Canadian ingenuity and achievement in science and technology.

She has worked both in National Headquarters and in regions in several federal departments including central agencies, Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, National Defense, Natural Resources Canada, and Canadian Heritage. In her former three roles as Assistant Deputy Minister, she was respectively responsible for leading and managing leadership development programs and developing policies for employees and executives throughout the public Service of Canada, the corporate management services, as well as public affairs and ministerial services. She has worked extensively in policy and line operations in the context of programs and service delivery, in social, economic, and cultural areas. She also worked for few years with the Government of the Northwest Territories.

Ms Amyot is the former President of the Institute of Public Administration of Canada, Vice-President of the Head of Federal Agencies Steering Committee, and member of the Board of Governors at the Ottawa University and at the Algonquin College. She is the former President of the Association of Professional Executives of the Public Service of Canada and former President of the Communications Community Office. Ms Amyot has obtained a Master's degree in Education and three Bachelor degrees in Biology, in Arts and in Education.

11:30 am - 1:30 pm
CANARIE Showcase & Exhibitor Tours
12:00 pm - 12:45 pm
Lunch
12:45 pm - 1:15 pm
Special Keynote Address by the Minister of State (Science and Technology)
Join the The Honourable Gary Goodyear, Member of Parliament for Cambridge & North Dumfries, and Minister of State (Science and Technology).

Hon. Gary Goodyear
Minister of State (Science and Technology)
Member of Parliament for Cambridge & North Dumfries
1:20 pm - 2:50 pm
Funding Innovation, Measuring Societal Impacts and Informing Science Policy
A major challenge for Canadian science policy is related to what areas of science to invest in, how best to make budget allocations that will address the needs of society while benefiting the Canadian economy, and then assessing the impact of those investments. As health care costs continue to rise, there are ongoing efforts to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the health system. Research is recognized as a valuable investment to optimize the delivery and provision of health care, with nearly one quarter of Canada’s R&D spend, but is an incremental and iterative endeavor. The pathway from research to improved health and systems is neither linear nor simple. The complexity is amplified by the multitude of players involved; researchers, industry health care providers, policy makers, and the public. Research funders recognize the need for greater collaboration in providing innovative solutions to understanding how investments in health research make a difference to the health and wellbeing of Canadians. Consequently, this symposium brings together presenters from three Canadian research funding organizations, an academic Institution and one non-profit think tank.
Our panel examines methodologies used to analyze and demonstrate research impact. These methodologies are helping to elucidate and clarify the various pathways through which health research leads to societal wellbeing. The panel moderator will engage participants in the discussion with an aim to advance the science of impact assessment such that it will meet the needs of science policy and justify science spending to the public.

Moderator
Pierre Therrien
Director Market Structure & Framework Policy Analysis
Industry Canada
Pierre Therrien is Director, Market Structure and Framework Policy Analysis at Industry Canada within the Economic Research and Policy Analysis (ERPA) Branch. Prior to join ERPA, Pierre worked for several years in another sector within Industry Canada in the Science and Innovation Sector, where he led several projects related to the measurement science and innovation impact measures. Pierre also spent two years at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development in Paris, France, where he coordinated several projects to develop new policy-relevant indicators related to government public support to R&D.

Laura McAuley
Manager, Impact Assessment Unit
Canadian Institutes for Health Research
Laura McAuley, MSc. is the Manager of the Impact Assessment Unit at the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. She led the initial implementation of the CIHR impact assessment framework and now continues to lead the ongoing refinement and methodological development in this area at CIHR. Laura has worked in the area of health research evaluation for the past seven years building on previous experience working in academic health research spanning the four pillars.

Kathryn E. Graham
Director, Performance Management
Alberta Innovates - Health Solutions
Kathryn E. Graham, Ph.D. is the Director of the Performance Management Department at Alberta Innovates – Health Solutions located in Alberta. Her experience is in the development, implementation and management of evaluation frameworks and conducting evaluations of health and research at the level of the program, organization and at multi-sites. She has a Ph.D. in applied psychology from the University of Cranfield, England with a specialization in occupational psychology, measurement, evaluation and human factors.

Ghislaine Tremblay
Director of Evaluation and Outcome Assessment
Canada Foundation for Innovation
Ghislaine Tremblay is the Director of Evaluation and Outcome Assessment at the Canada Foundation for Innovation. Over more than a decade she has held a variety of leadership roles in managing S&T funding programs and brings this broad expertise to the evaluation team that she leads. In her current role, Ms Tremblay has overseen the development of the Performance, Evaluation, Risk and Audit Framework, the Overall Performance and Value for Money Audit and outcome measurement study methodology and implementation.

Eddy Nason
Director, Toronto Office
IOG
Eddy Nason is the Director of the IOG’s Toronto office and their lead on health and innovation policy work. He specializes in research evaluation, particularly focusing on ROI approaches, and research impact framework and indicator development. He has advised research funders in the UK, Netherlands, Ireland, Australia and Canada on impact evaluation.

Education and Training of Scientists
Over the past 15 years, there has been an enormous shift in the human resources performing scientific research. The training period has lengthened significantly and adjustments must be made to address the growing concerns of young scientists. Many individuals, who do not have permanent positions, share a unique set of experiences and challenges that need to be better addressed in order to avoid wasting the substantial resources invested in their education and training.
This panel aims to address two main themes:
1. Are we producing too many biomedical research trainees?
2. What careers will the large majority of highly specialized PhDs undertake and who should facilitate these transitions?
Presentations and discussion from Alan Bernstein (Founding Director of CIHR), Angela Crawley (Canadian Association of Postdoctoral Scholars), Suzanne Fortier (President of NSERC), and Olga Stachova (COO, MITACS) will be introduced and moderated by David Kent (University of Cambridge and founder of http://scienceadvocacy.org).

Moderator
David Kent , Ph.D
CIHR Postdoctoral Fellow
University of Cambridge
Dr. David Kent is a CIHR postdoctoral fellow at the University of Cambridge, UK. He currently sits on the executive of the Canadian Association of Postdoctoral Scholars and created the website The Black Hole which provides information on and analysis of issues related to science trainees in Canada. Previously, Dr. Kent served as joint coordinator for the UBC branch of the Let’s Talk Science Partnership Program (2004-07), an award winning national science outreach program. Dr. Kent grew up in St. John’s, NL, obtained a B.Sc. in Genetics and English Literature at the University of Western Ontario and completed his Ph.D. in blood stem cell biology at the University of British Columbia. He has been awarded scholarships or fellowships from the CIHR, NSERC, the Canadian Stem Cell Network, the Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research, and the Lady Tata Memorial Trust. His current laboratory research focuses on normal blood stem cells and how changes in their regulation lead to cancers.

Dr. Angela Crawley
Vice-Chair of Operations
Canadian Association of Postdoctoral Scholars
Dr. Angela M. Crawley received a B.Sc. in Microbiology and Immunology at McGill University (’99) and then earned a Ph.D.in the Dept. of Pathobiology at the University of Guelph. Her doctorate addressed the regulation of immune responses in pigs, for the eventual improvement of vaccination strategies. In 2004, Angela moved to Ottawa to work as postdoctoral fellow (PDF) in Dr. Jonathan B. Angel’s laboratory at the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute (OHRI), partnered with the University of Ottawa. Angela is researching anti-viral mechanisms of human immune response in the context of HIV infection. Dr. Crawley held a postdoctoral fellowship award from the Ontario HIV Treatment Network (OHTN). She will begin her appointment as an Assistant Scientist at the OHRI and an Assistant Professor in April 2012 (to be funded by an OHTN Junior Investigator Development Award). While a postdoc, Angela was one of the founders of the uOttawa Faculty of Medicine Postdoc Association (2006, president 2007-09) and she also founded the uOttawa Postdoc Association (2009, president 2009-10). Angela was awarded a Postdoctoral Award of Excellence by uOttawa’s Faculty of Medicine (2007) recognizing scientific achievement and community involvement. Angela is also a member of a National Postdoc Stakeholders Working Group compiling recommended policies for the fair and equitable treatment of postdocs across Canada. She has attended some postdoc-related conferences including the 7th Annual Meeting of the National Postdoctoral Association (Houston, TX, USA, 2009) and, as a former president of the Canadian Association of Postdoctoral Scholars (CAPS), was an invited speaker for at the Annual Canadian Association of Graduate Studies meeting (Toronto, Nov. 2010). Angela is currently the Vice-Chair of Operations for CAPS.

Olga Stachova
Chief Operating Officer
Mitacs
Olga Stachova joined Mitacs in October 2000 and plays a key role in the organization's success. As Chief Operating Officer, her responsibilities include oversight of the overall operations and management, responsibility for delivery strategy for all Mitacs programs, their implementation, ongoing evaluation and monitoring, as well as allocation of Mitacs resources, human resources management and oversight of budgetary expenditures.

Olga has a Master’s Degree in English and Philosophy from the University of Constantine the Philosopher in Nitra, Slovakia. Prior to emigrating to Canada, she was Senior Project Manager at Management Partners, the leading company in the Slovak HR market. She was highly successful in her role of recruiting personnel for international organizations opening subsidiaries in Slovakia.

Olga is the recipient of the 2009 Business in Vancouver Forty under 40 Award.

Dr. Alan Bernstein
Founding President
CIHR 2000-2007
Dr. Alan Bernstein is the former executive director of the Global HIV Vaccine Enterprise, an international alliance of researchers and funders charged with accelerating the search for an HIV vaccine. Previously, he served as the founding president of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (2000-2007), Canada’s national agency for the support of health research. After receiving his Ph.D. from the University of Toronto, and following postdoctoral work at the ICRF in London, Dr. Bernstein joined the Ontario Cancer Institute (1974-1985). In 1985, he joined the new Samuel Lunenfeld Research Institute in Toronto, was named its Associate Director in 1988 and then its Director of Research (1994-2000). Author of over 200 scientific publications, Dr. Bernstein has made extensive contributions to the study of stem cells, hematopoiesis and cancer. He chairs or is a member of advisory and review boards in Canada, the US, UK, and Australia. Dr. Bernstein has received numerous awards and honourary degrees for his contributions to science, including the 2007 Medaille du merite from the Institut de Recherche Clinique de Montreal, the 2008 Gairdner Wightman Award and the Order of Canada in 2002.

Dr. Suzanne Fortier
President
Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
Dr. Suzanne Fortier has served as President of the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) since January 2006. She was re-appointed to this position in November 2010. During her first five years, Dr. Fortier brought a renewed focus on excellence to the agency. Changes to NSERC’s funding structure ensure that the best researchers receive the funding they need to conduct world-class research. NSERC now engages more closely with industries to initiate research and development projects with academic partners. Dr. Fortier has also forged stronger relationships with other federal granting agencies and organizations to increase the number and scope of joint initiatives available to researchers. For example, a collaboration between National Research Council Canada, Business Development Bank of Canada and NSERC resulted in an ambitious new national initiative in nanotechnology.

Before her appointment to this position, Dr. Fortier held a number of senior research and administrative positions at Queen’s University. She joined Queen's University as an Assistant Professor in the Department of Chemistry in 1982 after holding research positions at the Medical Foundation of Buffalo and National Research Council Canada. She then served as Dean of the School of Graduate Studies, Acting Vice-Principal (Research), and Associate Dean in the School of Graduate Studies and Research before being appointed Vice-Principal (Research) in 1995. Most recently (2000-05), she was Vice-Principal (Academic).

Putting the Social in Canada’s Innovation Policy
The social sciences and human sciences matter. All of the big, "wicked" problems such as poverty, housing, immigration, security, diversity, climate change, at risk kids, Aboriginal issues, social determinants of health, to name a few, embrace issues related to social and human sciences. New solutions that address these issues are social innovations. But what's the role of social and human science research in fostering social innovations? How can the public, private, community and academic sectors collaborate on social innovation to benefit Canadians and Canadian communities?

Moderator
Graham Carr
President
Canadian Foundation of Humanities and Social Sciences
Graham Carr is President of the Canadian Federation for the Humanities and Social Sciences (CFHSS). Representing more than 85,000 faculty and students at 79 Canadian universities and 80 scholarly associations CFHSS is the national voice for university research and training in HSS disciplines. Carr is also Professor of History and Dean of Graduate Studies at Concordia University. He was previously Associate Dean of Research and Graduate Studies in the Faculty of Arts and Science. Trained at Queen's University in Kingston and the University of Maine at Orono, Carr is a specialist in North American cultural and public history. He has published in the fields of literary and music history, popular culture, cultural policy, cultural diplomacy and social memory studies. His current research focuses on Cold War cultural exchanges involving the United States, Canada and the Soviet Union.

A member of the executive of the Northeastern Association of Graduate Schools, Carr also serves on the Advisory Committee on Communications, Marketing and Programming for Canada's National Capital Commission.

Claudia Krywiak, Ph.D
Director, Partnership Development and Corporate Planning
Ontario Centres of Excellence
Claudia Krywiak is Director, Partnership Development and Corporate Planning, for the Ontario Centres of Excellence (OCE). OCE drives economic development by advancing the commercialization of publically-funded research outcomes, building industry-academic collaborations, and fostering the next generation of innovators and entrepreneurs. Claudia brings experience in developing successful partnerships to facilitate innovation and is interested in the development of new strategies that foster a culture of innovation and entrepreneurship and build partnerships between the private and not-for-profit sectors. Prior to joining OCE, Claudia held the position of Vice-President, Business Development (Ontario) at Mitacs, a national organization linking academia, industry and the public sectors to develop new tools to support the growth of Canada’s knowledge economy.

Claudia received her Ph.D. in Chemistry from the University of Toronto in 2003 and worked for Bruker BioSpin, a world leader in Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) technology, where she supported the customer base in the Canadian market and developed working relationships with industrial and academic researchers in chemistry, biochemistry, pharmaceuticals, and materials science.

Allyson Hewitt
Advisor, Social Innovation & Director, Social Entrepreneurship
Social Innovation Generation
Allyson leads the social innovation programs at MaRS including the Ontario node of the national initiative, Social Innovation Generation (SiG@MaRS). This program supports social entrepreneurs and promotes social innovation under the headings Advise! Convene! Accelerate! SiG@MaRS has also recently announced a groundbreaking Centre for Impact Investing and is working of a series of Innovation Solutions Labs to tackle complex challenges. A life long social innovator, she most recently worked at SickKids where she led Safe Kids Canada and was a passionate advocate for children. She was also the Executive Director of Community Information Toronto where she initiated 211, providing streamlined access to human service information. For this work she received the Head of the Public Service Award and several other prestigious awards for meritorious public service.

Allyson has been leading and volunteering in not-for-profit organizations for over 25 years. Her academic background is in Criminology, Law, Public Affairs, Voluntary Sector Management and Organizational development including Leading Change.

David Phipps, Ph.D
Director, Research Services & Knowledge Exchange
York University/ResearchImpact
ResearchImpact
David is responsible for the management and support of research services (research grants and contracts, research ethics, technology and knowledge transfer); participates in strategic planning; negotiates research contracts and grants, manages research data and develops research performance measurements; ensures compliance with government policies and the University mandate.

2:50 pm - 3:10 pm
Coffee Break
3:10 pm - 4:40 pm

GPS Genome Canada - Genomics and Regulatory Science
This panel is the final event in Genome Canada’s 2011 GPS series: Where Genomics, Public Policy and Society Meet, dedicated to facilitating a dialogue between federal policymakers and researchers exploring issues at the interface of genomics and its ethical, environmental, economic, legal and social aspects (or GE3LS). Under the overarching theme of “Translational Genomics,” ad the range of activities that help “move genomics out of the laboratory and into the market, the clinic, or society at large,” the 2011 series previously considered intellectual property, as well as other means to optimize the impact of genomic research beyond commercialization.

This panel will turn its attention to “regulatory science” and the policy questions that arise at the interface of science and regulations when assessing scientific and technological applications that result from advances in genomics, from a safety, efficacy or quality lens and from the perspective of other relevant considerations. The panel discussion will begin with the presentation of a draft policy brief commissioned by Genome Canada and prepared Drs. Bruce Doern and Peter Phillips, two leading Canadian science policy scholars, followed by invited commentaries from policy-makers and private sector representatives. The audience will be invited to participate in a plenary discussion to help refine the policy brief.

Moderator
Karine Morin
Director, National GE3LS Program
Genome Canada

As Genome Canada’s Director, National GE3LS Program, Karine Morin oversees activities related to the ethical, economic, environmental, legal and social (GE3LS) aspects of genomics research. Prior to joining Genome Canada, Karine was a Senior Ethics Policy Advisor at the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR). She also conducted research on ethical, legal and social issues related to genomics at the University of Ottawa’s Institute of Science, Society and Policy.

Karine worked in the US for several years as the Director of Ethics Policy at the American Medical Association, and previously as an Ethics and Health Policy Associate at the American College of Physicians. Before leaving Canada, she worked for the Commission of Inquiry on the Blood System in Canada (Krever Commission). Karine holds a Masters in Law (LLM) from the University of Pennsylvania and is a graduate of McGill University School of Law, where she obtained a joint degree in civil (B.C.L.) and common law (LL.B). Over the years, she has published widely in bioethics and law, and has taught as an adjunct at several universities in the US and Canada.

Bruce G. Doern, Ph.D
Professor, Researcher, Author, Consultant
Carleton University, School of Public Policy and Administration (retired)
Dr. Bruce Doern is the author of over 70 books and monographs and numerous other articles and studies on Canadian and comparative public policy and regulatory governance in areas such as food and health, biotechnology, science and innovation policy, government labs; environmental policy; energy policy; and consumer policy. He has recently completed a book (with Prof. Michael Prince) on Three Bio-Realms: Biotechnology and the Governance of Food, Health and Life in Canada (University of Toronto Press, in press). He is presently the co-editor of How Ottawa Spends, the Carleton University School of Public Policy and Administration’s annual review of national priorities and fiscal policy (McGill-Queen’s University Press). He recently served as the CIBC Scholar-in-Residence at the Conference Board of Canada. He also served as Director of the Carleton Research Unit on Innovation, Science and Innovation (CRUISE) at Carleton University.

He is a consultant and advisor to numerous federal and provincial departments and to international bodies such as the OECD on innovation, science, regulatory and other governance issues. He was an advisor to the 2004 federal External Advisory Committee on Smart Regulation. As Emeritus Professor, he teaches global governance in the Politics Department at the University of Exeter in the UK and he is Distinguished Research Professor in the School of Public Policy and Administration at Carleton University.

Peter W.B. Phillips
Professor of Public Policy
Johnson-Shoyama Graduate School
University of Saskatchewan
Dr. Peter Phillips is Professor of Public Policy in the Johnson-Shoyama Graduate School of Public Policy at the University of Saskatchewan, in Saskatoon, Canada. He earned his Ph.D. in International Political Economy at the London School of Economics and practiced for 13 years as a professional economist and senior policy advisor in Canadian industry and government. At the University of Saskatchewan, he has held the Van Vliet Research Chair, created and held an NSERC-SSHRC Chair in Managing Technological Change, was a founding member and director of the virtual College of Biotechnology and was founding director of the graduate school of public policy.

He has had visiting appointments at the LSE, the OECD, the European University Institute and the University of Western Australia, is associate editor of AgBioForum, a leading on-line journal, was a member of the NAFTA Chapter 13 expert panel on GM maize in Mexico and was a founding member of the Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee. He has been a member of the Board of Directors of the Canadian Agri-food Policy Institute, the Estey Centre for the Study of Trade, Law and the Economy, and Ag West Bio Inc., which operates a biotech venture fund.

His current research focuses on governing transformative innovation, including regulation and policy, innovation systems, intellectual property management, trade policy and decision systems. He is co-lead and principal investigator of a $5.4 million Genome Canada project entitled Value Addition through Genomics and GE3LS (VALGEN) which runs 2009-13 and has been an applicant and investigator on more than 15 peer reviewed grants worth more than $150 million. He has been author or editor of eight books—his latest, Governing Transformative Technological Innovation: Who’s in charge? was published by Edward Elgar in 2007—and more than 70 journal articles and book chapters.

Dr. Vratislav Hadrava, Ph.D
Director, Regulatory Affairs
Pfizer Canada inc.
Vratislav Hadrava obtained his MD diploma at Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic and PhD degree from Department of Medicine, Division of Experimental Medicine at McGill University, Montreal, Canada. He completed his postgraduate research training at the Neurobiological Psychiatry Unit at Department of Psychiatry, McGill University. He has published articles in peer reviewed journals in the domain of hypertension, vascular smooth cell proliferation, mechanism of action of antidepressants and anxiolytics and clinical psychopharmacology.

Vratislav Hadrava initiated his career in pharmaceutical industry in 1995 at Pfizer Canada and has held positions of increasing responsibilities in areas of Medical Affairs, Clinical Research and Regulatory Affairs.
He is currently Director, Regulatory Affairs at Pfizer Canada.

Vratislav Hadrava collaborated in numerous projects with clinical researchers from academia and Pfizer international, mainly in the area of mental health disorders. He acquired broad experience in clinical development and commercialization of new medicines and has developed a particular interest in the regulatory and pharmacovigilance aspects of pharmaceutical medicine.

Over the last years he has participated in several initiatives such as Health Canada/CIHR sponsored National Placebo Working Committee (2002-2004), Expert Advisory Committee on the Vigilance of Health Products (2007-2009) and Drug Safety and Effectiveness Network Advisory Committee (2009-2010).

Kwasi Nyarko, Ph.D
Regulatory Science Advisor
OFFICE OF POLICY AND INTERNATIONAL COLLABORATION
Health Canada
Kwasi A. Nyarko, Ph.D, is currently Regulatory Science Advisor, Office of Policy and International Collaboration, Biologics and Genetic Therapies Directorate, Health Canada. At Health Canada he has also worked with the Marketed Health Products Directorate with a unit responsible for post-market surveillance for biological products, including blood. Dr. Nyarko obtained his doctorate in Biomedical Sciences from the University of Guelph, Ontario, Canada. Kwasi has extensive experience in the development of science-based policies, guidance documents for industry, as well as development of national standards and regulations related to biologic and genetic therapies for human use. Dr. Nyarko is actively involved in the development of regulatory frameworks for a wide range of biological products regulated by BGTD such as the regulatory frameworks for vaccines, radiopharmaceuticals, pharmacogenomics, and plant molecular farming products. Dr. Nyarko has been involved in projects at the national and international levels and was instrumental in the development of the regulatory framework for subsequent entry biologics (biosimilars).

Erika van Neste
Innovation and Growth Policy Division
Strategic Policy Branch
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada

The Impact of Investments in Innovation Intermediaries
Governments and businesses around the world invest in innovation intermediaries that help a diverse range of firms of different ages, sizes, and endowments innovate and succeed. Heightened concern for transparency and accountability has meant that these enabling organizations and programs report on a range of metrics, possibly including their impact on client and member firms. In this panel we explore the state of the art of the assessment of innovation intermediary impact from a range of perspectives: Canadian and European, practitioner and academic, ICT and biopharmaceutical industries. Panel members will consider what is proven, possible, desirable, and to be avoided in terms of impact assessment methodologies, and the degree to which different constituencies seek, avoid, are provided with, ignore, and use assessments of intermediary impact. The objective is an improved understanding of an issue that is central to innovation intermediary purpose and the ability of intermediaries to contribute to the innovation systems of which they are a part.

Moderator
Nobina Robinson
CEO
Polytechnics Canada
Nobina Robinson was appointed Chief Executive Officer of Polytechnics Canada in May 2009. Polytechnics Canada is a national alliance of Canada’s leading research-intensive, publicly funded colleges and institutes of technology. Mrs. Robinson held progressive appointments in the federal government and non-profit sectors since 1990. She began her public service career in 1990 when she joined the Treasury Board Secretariat as a management trainee. Two years later, she became a Foreign Service Officer and was posted as a political officer to the Canadian Embassy in Havana from 1994 to 1997. From 1998 to 2002, Mrs. Robinson led FOCAL, a policy institute on Canada’s relations with the Americas. Before joining Polytechnics Canada, Mrs. Robinson was the Ottawa-based Senior Government Relations Advisor for Seneca College, responsible for federal advocacy for one of Canada's largest colleges. Mrs. Robinson has a B.A. from Amherst College, an M.A. from Oxford University (Commonwealth Scholar 1985-1988) and has pursued post-graduate studies at Yale University. In October 2010, Mrs. Robinson was named to the Expert Panel undertaking the Review of Federal Support to Research and Development.

Mario Thomas, Ph.D
Senior Vice President
Ontario Centres of Excellence
Dr. Mario Thomas is an accomplished senior executive with impressive international credentials in the management of innovation. With over 30 years in leadership roles directing corporate development and commercialization, he creates remarkable value for all stakeholders. Mario Thomas brings extensive experience filled with achievements driving successful development collaborations and financial ventures. Dr. Thomas was promoted to Senior Vice-President, Ontario Centres of Excellence in June 2010. Before being appointed Managing Director of the Centre for Commercialization of Research at the Ontario Centres of Excellence in April 2009, Dr. Thomas was Partner in the venture firm T2C2 Capital. His previous experiences include CEO and co-founders of two start-up companies; senior level positions in business development, marketing and scientist. He is the founding chairman of the International Commercialization Alliance. He holds a PhD in chemistry and a BSc from Université Laval in Quebec City, as well as a diploma in business administration from École des Hautes Études Commerciales of Université de Montréal. He is also a Chartered Director with the ASC designation in board governance. Dr. Thomas brings an in-depth background in board level functions both as a board member and in managing board relations as an executive.

Margaret Dalziel
Associate Professor, School of Managment, University of Ottawa
& VP Research of The Evidence Network
Margaret Dalziel is an associate professor of innovation and entrepreneurship at the Telfer School of Management of the University of Ottawa, and VP Research of The Evidence Network. Margaret joined the University of Ottawa in 2001 with 15 years experience in technology development and research management at McGill University and the Canadian Space Agency. Her current research focuses on the assessment of interventions to promote innovation, and on describing the architecture of the economy in terms of inter-industry relations. With generous support from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, her research has resulted in some 60 articles including publications in academic journals such as Research Policy, the Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, and the British Journal of Management. During 2008-2009 Margaret was a visiting professor at Zhejiang University in Hangzhou, China.

Raine Hermans, Ph.D
Head, Unit for Strategic Intelligence
Tekes (Finland)
Raine Hermans is the Head of Unit for Strategic Intelligence since January 2010. He started with Tekes as a Director of Regional Networks at Tekes in September 2007. The Regional Networks consist of 14 technology development departments all over in Finland. One of his most important future challenges is to coordinate synchronizing the distinctive regional strategies together and with the one of Tekes’. Raine acted as the visiting professor (managerial economics of biotechnology) at the Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University, Illinois USA, from 2006 to 2007. Raine has also led a group of multidisciplinary corporate and industry analysts for several years with Etlatieto Ltd and ETLA, the Research Institute of the Finnish Economy. Raine has a Ph.D. degree in industrial engineering and management (Helsinki University of Technology) and a master’s degree in economics (University of Helsinki). He has published several articles in international journals and edited academic books. The most recent articles are related to technology management and economic forecasting.

Natalie E. Dakers
CEO
Centre for Drug Research and Development
Natalie E. Dakers is a leading figure in the Canadian biotechnology industry and currently serves as the Chief Executive Officer of the Centre for Drug Research and Development (CDRD), an innovative organization in British Columbia with a mandate to address the commercialization gap between early-stage technologies arising out of university-based research and investment opportunities. Under Ms. Dakers’ leadership, CDRD has signed affiliation agreements with major research institutions in Canada and forged important strategic relationships with Pfizer Canada and Genome British Columbia. With its over 20,000 square feet in specialized lab space and more than $12 million invested in state-of-the-art equipment, CDRD has attracted over 70 employees and 260 investigators. To date, CDRD has raised and secured approximately $74 million in funding and was named a Centre of Excellence for Commercialization and Research (CECR). Ms. Dakers is active in a number of business and scientific organizations, including Past Chair of BC Biotech (now LifeSciences British Columbia), the association supporting and representing the province’s biotech, medical device and life sciences community. Currently, Ms. Dakers is a board member of the Canada Foundation for Innovation (CFI), BIOTECanada and the International Science and Technology Partnership Canada (ISTP Canada). Previously, Ms. Dakers also served on the Boards of Genome Canada, Genome BC, and the Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research. Ms. Dakers is an Adjunct Professor in UBC’s Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences and a member of the Council of Canadian Academies’ Expert Panel on Business Innovation. Ms. Dakers received a Peak Award for Performance and Excellence in 2004. In 2009, Ms. Dakers was the recipient of BIOTECanada’s Gold Leaf Award for Industry Leadership.

Using Science Policy to Improve Health Outcomes in the North
The Canadian North has become a focus for politicians and researchers alike within recent years. This increased attention has not only helped to reignite Canadians’ awareness of the North, it has also shed light on certain disparities. Many Northerners, especially Aboriginal people, suffer from poorer health in comparison to other Canadians. This panel will explore the current health challenges in the North, and discuss how science policy can be used to help improve the situation. Overall, the goals of this panel are to:

Raise awareness about health issues in the North and the challenge of addressing those issues
Show how building up the scientific presence within the North will help to improve health outcomes among Northerners
Reiterate the notion that scientific work cannot take place in isolation – rather it must be a collaborative activity which is engaged in by many different, yet inter-connected, communities
Reaffirm the need for governments, communities, and academia to work together.

Moderator
Sandra Lister
Manager, Science Policy Coordination
Health Canada
Sandra Lister is the Manager of the Science Policy Coordination Unit (SPCU) within the Policy, Planning and Coordination Division of Health Canada's Strategic Policy Branch. The SPCU provides senior management with strategic analysis and advice on complex, horizontal and multi-dimensional S&T and science policy issues. Ms. Lister oversees the secretariat to the departmental Director General Science Committee and the Northern Health Evidence Sub-Working Group, which is responsible for leading the Health Portfolio’s contribution to the Northern Strategy. Additionally, Ms. Lister is an active member on several working groups which support the Federal S&T Strategy, the Federal Integrated Northern S&T Strategy (FINeST) and the Canadian High Arctic Research Station (CHARS).

Dr. Pertice Moffitt
Nurse Educator
Aurora College
Dr. Pertice Moffitt is a nurse educator in the undergraduate program at Aurora College, Yellowknife Campus, Yellowknife, NT; an Adjunct Professor with Dalhousie University; and, as well, she also teaches graduates students at Athabasca University. Additionally, Dr. Moffitt is the Manager of the Health Research Programs for Aurora Research Institute at the North Slave Research Centre in Yellowknife. Dr. Moffitt's research interests are with Circumpolar Health, Cultural Diversity and Women's Health utilising the qualitative methods of ethnography, photovoice and fourth generation evaluation.

Dr. Kue Young
Professor
Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto
Dr. Kue Young is a professor in the Dalla Lana School of Public Health at the University of Toronto and TransCanada Chair in Aboriginal Health & Well-being. He is President of the International Network for Circumpolar Health Research and a former co-chair of the Arctic Council’s Human Health Expert Group. Much of Dr. Young's professional career has been devoted to northern and Aboriginal health research, with a major focus on the prevention of diabetes and cardiovascular diseases. In 2010 he was appointed Member of the Order of Canada for "his contributions and commitment to advancing the health and well-being of Indigenous peoples, notably as a leading scholar in the field of Aboriginal health research.”

Christopher Cornish
Regional Director, Policy, Planning, and Evaluation
Health Canada - Northern Region
Christopher Cornish is the regional Director of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation for Health Canada’s Northern Region. Northern Region is responsible for delivering on Health Canada’s mandate in the three northern territories, managing and administering health promotion and disease prevention programs, the Non-Insured Health Benefits program for First Nations and Inuit, and the Territorial Health System Sustainability Initiative. Northern Region also serves as the departmental link on circumpolar health and research activities and plays an instrumental role in supporting the Government of Canada’s Northern Strategy. Prior to joining Health Canada, Mr. Cornish served in various policy roles at Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada.

Sarah Kalhok Bourque
Manager, Northern Science and Contaminants Research
Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada
Sarah Kalhok Bourque is the Manager of Northern Science and Contaminants Research with Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada. In this capacity, Sarah Kalhok Bourque manages the Northern Contaminants Program (NCP), established in 1991. Prior to this, Sarah Kalhok Bourque was part of the core team that developed Canada’s Program for the International Polar Year (IPY), which was designed along policy-relevant themes of “Climate change impacts and adaptation” and “Health and well-being of Northern communities”, and she was subsequently Manager and Science Manager of the Government of Canada Program for IPY. Now based in Ottawa, she used to call the North her home while working for the Aurora Research Institute in Inuvik, Northwest Territories. Her perspective on northern/Arctic science and policy comes from program experience at the local, national and international level.

4:40 pm - 6:00 pm
Sponsor Showcase & Networking
6:00 pm - 7:00 pm
Keynote Panel - Science and Politics in Canada
This is a non-partisan and cross party discussion, among former scientists and current politicians, on the interface between science and government. The panel will discuss:

The barriers and potential solutions for greater interaction between the scientific and political communities in Canada
How to encourage and facilitate the greater participation of scientists in politics.

Introductions
Pierre Meulien, Ph.D
President and CEO
Genome Canada
Pierre Meulien was appointed President and CEO of Genome Canada in 2010. Prior to this appointment, Dr. Meulien served as Chief Scientific Officer for Genome British Columbia from 2007 to 2010 where he promoted the organization’s ongoing scientific strategy, focusing on the science of genomics, proteomics and bioinformatics within the larger realm of biotechnology and life sciences. Facilitating the translation of genome based technologies into end user communities across many life science sectors was also a key responsibility.

From 2002 to 2007, Dr. Meulien served as the founding CEO of the Dublin Molecular Medicine Centre (now Molecular Medicine Ireland) which linked the three medical schools and six teaching hospitals in Dublin to build a critical mass in molecular medicine and translational research. The Centre managed the Euro 45 Million “Program for Human Genomics” financed by the Irish government and was responsible for coordinating the successful application for the first Wellcome Trust funded Clinical Research Centre to be set up in Ireland.

For over 20 years, Dr. Meulien has managed expert research teams with a number of organizations, including Aventis Pasteur in Toronto (Senior Vice President of R&D), and in Lyon, France (Director of Research). He also spent seven years with the French biotechnology company Transgene in Strasbourg, France as a research scientist and part of the management team. Dr. Meulien’s academic credentials include a PhD from the University of Edinburgh and a post-doctoral appointment at the Institut Pasteur in Paris.

Marc Garneau
Former Astronaut
MP for Westmount Ville-Marie, Quebec
Marc Garneau has served his country his entire professional career, beginning with the Canadian Navy and then as an astronaut and President of the Canadian Space Agency , and now in political life. Garneau resigned from the Canadian Space Agency to run under the Liberal banner in Vaudreuil–Soulanges in 2006. After the last federal elections, he remained very involved in politics and played a determining role in the Liberal Renewal Commission by drafting its Science and Technology position paper. He also helped draft a number of resolutions aimed at clarifying the Canadian mission in Afghanistan, the resolution of fiscal unbalance and the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol.

Hon. Hélène LeBlanc
MP for LaSalle-Emard, Science and Technology Critic
Hélène is an agronomist and project manager for the Conseil d’assainissement et d’aménagement du ruisseau Lacorne.
Hélène has taught French in Vancouver and Ottawa and was an interpreter/guide for the Canada Museums of Science and Technology Corporation in Ottawa. She was also an assistant to persons suffering from Alzheimers for the organization Baluchon Alzheimer and an agro-environment officer with the Fédération de l’Union des producteurs agricoles de l’Outaouais-Laurentides.
Hélène has a Bachelor’s degree in education from the University of Ottawa and a Bachelor of Science degree in agriculture and environment from McGill University.

Dr. Kellie Leitch
MP for Simcoe Grey
Dr. Kellie Leitch is the Member of Parliament for Simcoe-Grey and Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, and to the Minister of Labour. Prior to her election on May 2, 2011, Dr. Leitch was an orthopaedic paediatric surgeon at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto. Dr. Leitch was also an Associate Professor at the University of Toronto, Chair of the Ivey Centre for Health Innovation and Leadership, and Director of the Health Sector MBA program at the Richard Ivey School of Business, University of Western Ontario. Dr. Leitch received the Order of Ontario in 2010 for her work advocating for children. Dr. Leitch was selected as one of Canada's Top 40 Under 40 for her work in both medicine and business in 2005. Dr. Leitch previously served as Chair of the Expert Panel for the Children's Fitness Tax Credit in 2006, which made recommendations to the Honourable Jim Flaherty, Minister of Finance, regarding the best ways to implement the tax credit designed to encourage health and fitness among Canadian children and youth. In 2008, Dr. Leitch authored the report entitled: "Reaching for the Top: A Report by the Advisor on Healthy Children & Youth". The report is a "call to action" for government and industry on key issues affecting Canadian children and youth.
Dr. Leitch earned her Doctorate of Medicine from the University of Toronto in 1994, MBA from Dalhousie University in 1998, completed the Orthopaedic Surgery Residency Program in 2001 at the University of Toronto, and became a Fellow of Paediatric Orthopaedics at the Children's Hospital of Los Angeles/University of Southern California in 2002.

As a volunteer, Dr. Leitch served as a council member on the NRC (National Research Council of Canada), a Board member of Genome Canada, a Director on the YMCA (GTA) board of directors, Vice President of CANFAR (Canadian Foundation for AIDS Research), and is the founder of The Sandbox Project. In addition, Dr. Leitch hosts an annual golf tournament to raise funds for the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation.

Reza Moridi, Ph.D
Ontario MPP - Richmond Hill
An award-winning scientist, engineer, educator, business leader and community activist who has lived in Richmond Hill since 1991, Reza Moridi was first elected to the Ontario Legislative Assembly in 2007. Upon his election, Reza was appointed by Premier Dalton McGuinty as the Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities. He was also appointed to the Cabinet Committee on Economy, Environment and Resources Policy. Prior to his election, Reza was the Vice-President and Chief Scientist of the Radiation Safety Institute of Canada. His 17 year career at this Institute provided him with a thorough understanding of the nuclear industry of Canada as well as the application of radiation and nuclear materials in a large variety of industry and health care sectors. Over the years, Reza has contributed significantly to the understanding of nuclear materials, radiation and radiation safety by the public, students, educators and workers in Canada. In recognition of his contributions, the Canadian Nuclear Society presented Reza with the Education and Communication Award in 2001.

In recognition of Reza’s outstanding contributions to the profession of Health Physics (radiation protection), the US Health Physics Society presented Reza with the Fellow Award in 2002. For his original contribution to physics and engineering, Reza was elected as Fellow of the UK Institute of Physics (1986) and Fellow of the UK Institution of Engineering and Technology (1992). Education, energy, innovation, environment, health and prosperity are key issues of interest to Reza.

7:00 pm - 9:00 pm
Genome Canada Reception - Induction of 2011 Members to the Canadian Science and Engineering Hall of Fame
Friday, November 18, 2011
7:30 am - 8:30 am
Continental Breakfast
8:30 am - 8:40 am
Opening Statement of the Day: International Year of Chemistry

Bernard West, Ph.D
President/Chair of the Board
Westworks Consulting/Ontario BioAuto Council
Bernard West holds a BSc and a PhD in chemical engineering from the University of Manchester where he also taught for 6 years. In 2008 he was President and CEO of CANSOLV Technologies of Montreal, and was previously President and COO, Canada Colors and Chemicals Limited. Prior to that, he had 30 years of experience in the chemical industry with Rhone-Poulenc, Imperial Oil [ Esso ] and Polymer Corporation.

Bernard has also been very active in industry associations and industry-government bodies; member of the Board of the Canada’s Chemical Producers Association (Chair 1995–1997), Chair of The Chemical Institute of Canada, Chair of the Society of Chemical Industry–Canadian Section, member of the Board of the National Association of Chemical Distributors (Washington, D.C.).

He is currently; Chair of the Board of Ontario BioAuto Council, Co-Chair of the Sustainable Chemistry Alliance, Co-Chair of the Canadian Green Chemistry and Engineering Network, and Chair of the Advisory Board of the Institute for Chemical Process and Environmental Technologies in the National Research Council of Canada. He is an associate member of the IUPAC Committee on Chemical Industry representing Canada and a member of the board of Life Sciences Ontario.

8:40 am - 10:10 am
Drivers of Innovation in the Chemical-Related Industry Sector
In its 2011 Brief to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance, the Partnership Group for Science and Engineering (PAGSE) states that “a highly skilled workforce is an essential component of the innovation pipeline. Canada has done well to improve its capacity to train the next generation of researchers and innovators. Clearly we are on our way to building the next generation of cutting-edge researchers that will fuel the innovation pipeline. However employment prospects for highly skilled workers are bleak. A large part of the problem is that businesses in Canada invest very little in research and development (R&D), so they have little need to hire highly skilled workers. Canadian graduates have trouble finding good jobs, especially R&D jobs in industry”.
This session will explore the factors that drive industrial research and development in several of Canada’s largest chemical-related trade sectors. What are the strengths and weaknesses of our national and provincial science, economic and other related policies and regulations that attract or hinder research investments in Canada? Does research have to be carried out in Canada, in all cases, in order for the country to benefit? Are our industry / academic partnerships and commercial centres working - and producing results?
Moderator

Avrim Lazar, Ph.D

CEO & President
Forest Products Association of Canada
Avrim Lazar is President & CEO of the Forest Products Association of Canada, since Jan. 1, 2002 and he is chair of the Advisory Committee on Paper and Wood Products (ACPWP) to the United Nations. Mr. Lazar has held senior policy positions in the government of Canada in the Ministries of Justice, Agriculture, Environment and Human Resource Development. During this period he was responsible for national policy in areas as diverse as climate change, biodiversity, child poverty, employment insurance and labor force training.

Mr. Lazar was Chair of the Committee of the Whole of the Second UN Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity in 1995. He also chaired the National Business Association Roundtable and is the Past-President of the International Council of Forest and Paper Associations (ICFPA). Mr. Lazar taught high school in Vancouver and Zambia from 1969 to 1973. Over the years, Mr. Lazar has given many courses in the graduate studies programs at the University of Ottawa and Carleton University. Mr. Lazar holds degrees in science and education, including a B.Sc (1968) from McGill University, a B.Ed (1970) and a PhEd in Ed (1976) from the University of Ottawa.

Craig Crawford
President & CEO
Ontario BioAuto Council
Craig has served on numerous government and industry committees and non-profit boards that have advocated support for biobased industries in both Canada and the United States. He has acted as a consultant to the federal and Ontario governments on the bioeconomy and wrote a framework for developing biobased industries in Canada. He has been actively involved in identifying research and business opportunities in the new bioeconomy for more than a decade.

Craig is currently the President and CEO of the Ontario BioAuto Council. The Council’s vision is to make Ontario a global leader in the manufacture of automobile parts, construction materials and packaging from biological feedstocks. Its mission is to unite Ontario’s largest economic sectors (i.e. agriculture, forestry, oil, chemical, manufacturing and automotive), research community and government around viable strategies aimed at building a province-wide bioeconomy.

David Yake, Ph.D
Director - Corporate Process Innovation, Research & Business Development
DuPont Canada
David Yake has more than 31 years of global R&D, business, sales and marketing leadership with DuPont. He received his MS and Ph.D in Chemical Engineering from Iowa State University in 1980. He served six years with DuPont in Asia as regional business and marketing manager and director of the company’s Chemical Solutions business, leveraging broad based open innovation across the region to establish a sustainable growth platform. During the last five years David has lived in Canada and led the Research and Business Development Centre in Kingston, Ontario, and the DuPont Center for Process Innovation - a global corporate leveraged technology based business that specializes in developing and scaling-up technology solutions to commercial level. In Canada, the organization’s key role is to identify key growth opportunities and collaborate with global businesses to commercialize innovative solutions that meet market needs.

Dave Collyer
CEO & President
Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers
David Collyer was appointed President of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) on September 15th, 2008, after serving as President and Country Chair for Shell in Canada. In his current position, Mr. Collyer is responsible for leading CAPP’s activities in education, communications and policy / regulatory advocacy on behalf of its members representing over 90% of the upstream petroleum production in Canada.

During his 30 year career tenure with Shell, Mr. Collyer held a broad range of technical, business and senior leadership roles. These included positions in conventional oil and gas, oil sands, marketing and transportation and downstream commercial marketing, as well as cross-business roles such as strategy and planning, communications and sustainable development. He also participated in a two year Executive Exchange assignment with the federal government in Ottawa.

Mr. Collyer holds a petroleum engineering degree and an MBA from the University of Alberta, and belongs to a range of professional affiliations including the Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists, and Geophysicists of Alberta (APEGGA) as well as the Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE). He has also been a member of a number of not-for-profit boards.

10:10 am - 10:30 am
Coffee Break
10:30 am - 12:00 pm
How do we build resilient communities in the face of climate change?
The science is complex, the picture is daunting, the impacts all too real. A global challenge, climate change is creating environmental, economic and social upheaval, particularly in coastal and northern communities.
What strategies are available to those communities to mitigate and adapt to climate change and its impact on their ecosystems? Are there governance and policy hurdles hindering the development and implementation of such strategies? Can and will local actions make a difference? As part of the conference’s “Exploring the True North Strong and Free: Reflections on Northern Science Policy” theme, this panel will engage in an inspiring conversation on community activism, sustainability and resilience in Canada’s northern communities.

Moderator
James Baxter
Founding Editor and Publisher
iPolitics
Over the past 25 years, Baxter has been an award-winning sportswriter, political journalist, bureau chief and editorial writer. A third-generation public affairs journalist, Baxter’s work covering politics, first in Ottawa and then in Alberta, earned him a prestigious Nieman Fellowship at Harvard University in 2008, where his studies focused on the future of media businesses and the role of the press in democracy. Born and raised in Ottawa, he holds degrees in international relations, journalism, and media administration. He lives in Ottawa with his wife, Sarah, and three young children, coaches football and soccer, and is an exuberant skier.

Frances Abele
Academic Director of the Carleton Centre for Community Innovation
Professor of the School of Public Policy and Administration, Carleton University
Dr. Abele has written widely on Canadian public policy and the northern political economy, publishing over 80 books, articles, book chapters and technical reports. With a northern research career stretching back thirty years, she is the author of an oft-consulted study of employment training in the Northwest Territories (Abele 1989) and numerous articles and technical reports on northern economic and political issues. She is an expert on federal northern policy, publishing regularly on this theme, and on the implications for the federation of governance innovations pursuant to the modern treaties. Abele is co-author and co-editor of the first comprehensive examination of northern development policy to include a balanced complement of authors from northern and southern Canada (Abele, Courchene, St-Hilaire and Seidle, 2009). As deputy director of research for the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples in the 1990s, Abele was responsible for the Commission's research on the North, and portions of the work on governance and economy. She has worked in partnership with northern organizations in Canada and abroad, ranging from the North-West Academy of Public Administration, Murmansk, Russia to community governments in Canada, where she currently collaborates with the Hamlet of Igloolik and community partners in Deline.

Gordon McBean
Professor, Joint Appointment with Geography and Political Science
& Research Chair at the Institute of Catastrophic Loss Reduction, University of Western Ontario
Professor, Joint Appointment with Geography and Political Science
Dr. Gordon McBean received his B.Sc. in Physics and Ph.D. in Oceanography from the University of British Columbia and a M.Sc. in Meteorology from McGill University. He was a scientist in Environment Canada from 1970 to 1988 when he was appointed Professor and Chair of the Atmospheric Science Program at the University of British Columbia. In 1992, he was appointed Head, Department of Oceanography. From 1994 to 2000, he was Assistant Deputy Minister responsible for the Meteorological Service of Environment Canada. He was appointed to his present position in July 2000. Dr. McBean's research interests are in atmospheric and climate sciences, ranging in scope from the natural sciences of the phenomena to the policies of governments and responses of people to them. He is undertaking new research on the changing climate and weather systems in the Arctic, and investigating the role of science in changing government policies. An area of interest is the changing occurrence of extreme weather events with climate change, their influence on public systems and strategies for adaptation. In addition to his activities at UWO, Dr. McBean is active nationally and internationally. He is Chair of the Board of Trustees of the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences and a member of the scientific committee for the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska, the Board of the International Institute for Sustainable Development, the Northern S&T Committee, and the Canadian Committee for the International Polar Year. He was a lead author for the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment. Earlier in his career he participated in the first Polar Experiment planning meeting and as chair of the World Climate Research Programme helped create the Arctic Climate System Study (ACSYS). He has received the Patterson Medal for distinguish contributions to meteorology by a Canadian and is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada, the Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society and the American Meteorological Society.

Ian Mauro
Canada Research Chair in Human Dimensions of Environmental Change
Mount Allison University
Ian Mauro is a Canada Research Chair in "human dimensions of environmental change" at Mount Allison University, in New Brunswick. He is both a researcher and filmmaker, with a PhD in environmental science, and his work focuses on hunter, farmer and fisher knowledge regarding environmental change, specifically issues related to food security and global warming. As part of his doctorate, he co-directed "Seeds of Change" (www.seedsofchangefilm.org), a highly controversial film that was banned from being released by the University of Manitoba, and created one of the largest academic freedom battles in Canada. For his postdoctorate, Mauro teamed up with Zacharias Kunuk and Igloolik Isuma Productions to develop "Inuit Knowledge and Climate Change", the world's first Inuktitut language film on the topic. The film is available for free on our website (www.isuma.tv/ikcc). This upcoming year, Mauro will be collaborating with Sheila Watt-Cloutier - acclaimed Inuk climate change advocate and Nobel Prize nominee - who will be working on her forthcoming book as a Visiting Scholar at Mount Allison. Ian can be contacted through email at imauro@mta.ca.

Jamal Shirley
Manager, Research Design and Policy Development
Iqaluit Research Centre, Nunavut Research Institute
Jamal Shirley is Manager of Research Design at the Nunavut Research Institute in Iqaluit. He grew up in Rankin Inlet, Nunavut, and has lived in Iqlauit since 1997. An advisor to researchers working in the social, natural and biological disciplines in Nunavut, Jamal contributes to research design, data collection, analysis, and public outreach for a wide range of studies. He has served on the advisory board for the Arctic Storm Studies Project, and as a member of Canada’s National Committee for International Polar Year. As a member of the Nunavut Government’s Sustainable Development Advisory Group Jamal contributes to the development of policy and strategies relating to resource development, climate change adaptation, land use planning, and wildlife management in Nunavut. Jamal also works directly with Nunavut community groups to develop research proposals and identify funding and partnerships.

What do some of the fastest growing S&T Firms in Canada think about Canada's Innovation Policy?
The policy community has no shortage of indicators and creative ideas to support more innovative economies and high quality services to and opportunities for Canadians. The challenge, rather, is to determine the right mix of indicators to monitor for a desired outcome in a particular sector, and the right approach to policy development and implementation for the same sector outcomes. This panel will set out to identify the most influential policies and gaps in policy for fast-growing S&T firms in Canada. The discussion would explore issues of incentives, trade, HQP, innovation strategy and partnerships as they are influenced by policy and implemented through management practice. The panelists will be invited to explore one or two of these issues to a greater depth that speaks to specific policy and management linkages.
The panelists represent some of the fastest growing S&T companies in Canada, moderated by Dr. Charles Davis, Research Chair in Media Management and Entrepreneurship at Ryerson University, and of the Innovation Systems Research Network.

Moderator
Charles Davis
Professor
Ryerson Unversity's School of Radio and Television Arts
Charles Davis is a professor in Ryerson Unversity's School of Radio and Television Arts (Faculty of Communication and Design) and is cross-appointed with the Entrepreneurship and Strategy Department in the Ted Rogers School of Management. He currently teaches and conducts research on management and policy in industries that produce experience goods - with special interest in innovation and new product development in the software and content layers of mediated creative industries. He is currently involved in research projects on media product innovation, media labour, media industry clusters, audience responses to media offerings, corporate governance of innovation, and digital entrepreneurship. His recent graduate and undergraduate teaching includes courses in media management, new product development, political economy of media industries, audience analysis, innovation in experience-producing industries, cultural economy, and media entrepreneurship. He teaches in Ryerson's MA in Media Production program, in the Ryerson/York MA/PhD program in Communication and Culture, and in Ryerson's MBA/MSc in Management of Technology and Innovation program.

David Arthurs
President
Hickling Arthurs Low
Dr. David Arthurs is the President of Hickling Arthurs Low (HAL). David specializes in economic analysis, policy development, and strategic planning for public sector science and technology organizations. David has a BASc in Mechanical Engineering from the University of Waterloo, an MBA from the University of Ottawa, and a PhD from the School of Business at Queen's University

Curtis VanWalleghem, MBA, BEng, PMP
Chief Executive Officer
Hydrostor Inc
Mr. VanWalleghem currently leads energy storage start-up Hydrostor Inc. Curtis has spent the last 10 years helping companies set and execute on their strategy. Prior to Hydrostor, he was Sr. Manger in Deloitte's Corporate Strategy Consulting Practice where he advised some of the top energy companies in Canada and around the globe. He has also held positions at Bruce Power, Celestica Inc, and CIBC.

Nicolas Morgan
Vice-President, Business Development and Marketing
Morgan Solar
Nicolas Morgan is a co-founder of Morgan Solar, and leads the company’s Business Development and Marketing efforts. He holds a Bachelor of Social Science in Anthropology and a post-graduate degree in Applied Information Technology. Before coming to Morgan Solar at the start of 2008, Nicolas spent two years in Spain as a senior manager for FON Technologies, a Web 2.0 start-up. At FON, Nicolas coordinated the activities of business development teams in Europe, North America and Asia. Prior to this, Nicolas worked at Ernst & Young as a risk management and business process advisor to the Ontario electricity sector.

Glen Martin
President and COO
Pod Generating Group
Glen has over 20 years experience in early-phase project development in space and high technology sectors. Most recently he served as co-founder and Senior Adviser in Business Development at ProtoStar Limited, a satellite operator focused on direct-to-home satellite television services in Asia. Prior to co-founding Pod Generating Group, Glen worked with NASA, Motorola, Hughes and Raytheon on advanced space systems and international business development. He previously worked for McDonnell Douglas Space Systems Company, Boeing Canada and Rolls-Royce Canada. He holds a Bachelor of Technology in Aerospace Engineering from Ryerson University and an MBA from the University of Southern California.

Reaching out with Big Science
The public often learns of developments in science in the media distilled from press offices at peer-reviewed journals or universities. In a few cases, research institutions such as the Mayo Clinic and CERN have also developed a reputation for being seen as authoritative sources of science news and information for the public. In recent years, the Canadian research landscape has grown to feature a number of ‘big science’ facilities. These institutions, such as TRIUMF, Ocean Networks Canada, the Canadian Light Source, SNOLab and the Perimeter Institute, conduct research at the forefront of science – often at the convergence of science disciplines and with a scope and scale that is larger than traditional research institutions in government or the academy. In addition to research, all of these laboratories also engage in a number of forms of public engagement and outreach, ranging from media relations to classroom education. In a media landscape where science reporting is becoming increasingly fractured, what role do Canada’s big science facilities have in being sources of science news, information and education?

Moderator
Matthew Dalzell
Communications Coordinator
Canadian Light
Matthew Dalzell is the Communications Coordinator and Staff Writer at the Canadian Light Source, Canada’s national synchrotron facility in Saskatoon. His role includes media relations, strategic communications and telling stories about the science done at the CLS as an embedded science writer. One of the items on his ‘bucket list’ was fulfilled soon after starting at the CLS in 2004: appearing on CBC radio’s Quirks and Quarks. Matt earned a M.Sc. in Geology, specializing in palaeontology, as well as bachelor degrees in Science and Education, all from the University of Saskatchewan. He taught high school in Saskatoon and rural Saskatchewan, and spent several years on full-time service with the Royal Canadian Navy as a reserve staff officer and instructor. Matt is also chair of lightsources.org, an international communications collaboration of synchrotrons and other high-energy light source facilities.

John Matlock
Director, External Relations & Public Affairs
Perimeter Institute
John Matlock is the Director of External Relations and Public Affairs, Perimeter Institute for Theoretical physics. John and his team are responsible for a wide range of Perimeter Institute's strategic communications and relationships. Since 2004, John has led a wide range of activities, including special events with Stephen Hawking, the award winning "Quantum Tamers" documentary (viewable in sixty countries), and the successful "Quantum to Cosmos: Ideas for the Future" festival, reaching over one million on-site, online and via television. Prior to joining Perimeter, John was an award winning news producer in both the CTV and CBC news organizations. In transferring his skills to science communications, he has guided others in a successful "rule of three" - tied to content, conversation and coordination.

Penny Park
Executive Director
Science Media Centre of Canada
Penny Park is the Executive Director of the Science Media Centre of Canada, with extensive hands-on experience in radio and television science journalism. From 1980 to 1995, she worked as a producer and senior producer with Quirks and Quarks, the award-winning weekly science program on CBC radio. Since 1995, Penny has been with the Discovery Channel, where she helped develop the show now called Daily Planet. Originally from Montreal, she first earned a BA from the University of New Brunswick, studying linguistics, followed by a B.Sc (honours) in biology from the University of Guelph, graduating there in 1980.

Tim Meyer, Ph.D
Head of Strategic Planning & Communications
TRIUMF
Dr. Timothy I. Meyer is Head of Strategic Planning and Communications at TRIUMF, Canada’s national laboratory for particle and nuclear physics. He coordinates interactions with elected officials, stakeholders, the general public, and the media. Tim oversaw preparation and successful approval of the laboratory’s five-year plan 2010-2015 and played a role in Canada’s national discussions about producing medical isotopes using accelerators. He came to TRIUMF in late 2007 from the U.S. National Academies in Washington, D.C., where he served as an expert in science and public policy as a senior program officer at the Board on Physics and Astronomy. Dr. Meyer joined the U.S. National Academies after earning his Ph.D. in experimental particle physics from Stanford University. Tim has been recognized for excellence in public-policy analysis and communication strategies. In 2010, he chaired a strategic communications review of the U.S. DOE’s premier plasma and fusion science laboratory managed by Princeton University. When not working, Tim reads pulp fiction on his Kindle, plays volleyball, and follows his gourmet-chef wife around the kitchen to wash the dishes.

Jay Ingram
Science Broadcaster and Writer
Jay Ingram was the host of Discovery Channel Canada’s Daily Planet from the first episode in January, 1995 to June, 2011. Daily Planet is the only hour-long, prime-time daily science show in the world. Prior to joining Discovery, Jay hosted CBC radio’s national science show, Quirks and Quarks, from 1979 to 1992. During that time he won two ACTRA awards, one for best host, and several Canadian Science Writers’ awards. He wrote and hosted two CBC radio documentary series and short radio and television science stories for a variety of programs. He was a contributing editor to Owl magazine for ten years, and wrote a weekly science column in the Toronto Star for twelve. Jay has also written eleven books - which have been translated into twelve languages - and is working on more.

Jay has received the Sandford Fleming medal from the Royal Canadian Institute for his efforts to popularize science, the Royal Society’s McNeil medal for the Public Awareness of Science and the Michael Smith award from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council. He is a Distinguished Alumnus of the University of Alberta, has received five honorary doctorates and is a member of the Order of Canada.

12:00 pm - 12:45 pm
Lunch
12:45 pm - 12:55 pm
Luncheon Address - PIPSC

Gary Corbett
President
Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada
Gary Corbett brings over 30 years of experience in the public and private sectors to his role as President of the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada (PIPSC). Mr. Corbett represents 60,000 members including more than 23,000 scientists, researchers and regulators who work in government departments, agencies and laboratories.

A former employee of Natural Resources Canada, Gary worked as a scientist conducting operational research in the coal mining industry in Cape Breton. Relocating his family to Ottawa following the close of the coal industry in 1998, he focused his attention on policy development as it pertains to the role of public science and evidence-based decision-making.

As National Vice-President and then President of the Institute, Gary Corbett has ensured that PIPSC is actively engaged in the search for solutions to the challenges facing Canadian science. He initiated and chaired successful Science Policy Symposiums in 2007 and 2010. Mr. Corbett is also strongly committed to advocating on behalf of Canada's public science and its public scientists.
1:00 pm - 1:30 pm
Keynote Luncheon Address
1:30 pm - 3:30 pm
Examining the Prospects of a Canadian Science Policy Centre

The original agenda was published in the CSPC website, follow it here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/canadian-science-policy-conference

'What Security Breach?' The Unchanging Tone of UIDAI's Denials

Admin — 2018-09-19T14:14:53Z

This week brought with it another instance of Aadhaar déjà vu. The narrative is now eerily familiar to people with even a passing acquaintance with the matter.

The article by Karan Saini was published in the Wire on September 12, 2018

A security vulnerability in the Aadhaar ecosystem comes to light, usually through civil society stakeholders or the media. The Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) issues a standard denial, refuses to publicly acknowledge that it has to course-correct and fix the problem, and the public waits for the process to repeat.

Following a three-month-long investigation by Huffington Post into the known and documented problem of cracked Aadhaar enrolment software, several security experts from within the country and elsewhere were able to conclude that the authenticity of entries within the Aadhaar database was likely compromised to an unknown extent. This was a direct result of a patched version of the enrolment software with stripped security features being circulated and used by potential hostile actors – among others.

The patched software bypasses several crucial security features of the enrolment client and could have also been used to get around the biometric authentication which legitimate enrolment operators would have to undertake before attempting to add new entries to the database.

The UIDAI responded to this report with a statement which is nearly identical to many of the authority’s previous press releases on alleged security incidents.

In its statement, the UIDAI said that “the claims made in the report about Aadhaar being vulnerable to tampering leading to ghost entries in Aadhaar database by purportedly bypassing operators’ biometric authentication to generate multiple Aadhaar cards is totally baseless”.

The statement which was issued by the authority seems straightforward but is actually cryptic in its very nature. The story published by Huffington Post did not categorically assert that the software bypass was being used ‘to generate multiple Aadhaar cards’, while the authority’s statement specifically refuted this claim.

This is, sadly, not new. The Aadhaar authority has always purposely misinterpreted what is actually being alleged in critical stories, and then presented their interpretations in their statements of rebuttal, which essentially amount to irresponsible dissemination of misleading information.

For instance, the UIDAI ignores that even without the issue of cracked enrolment software, there are already many proven cases of ghost entries in the database, including that of a Pakistani ISI spy as well as an Uzbek national involved in illegal sex-trade in the country. Both of these persons held real, valid Aadhaar cards which were issued to them under false identities.

The UIDAI also states that enrolments are verified at their backend system in order to prevent any such false entries from finding their way into the database. Given this, the question arises – how did these highlighted cases of false entries make it through the supposed checks and balances in place to the point where Aadhaar numbers for these persons were issued (and delivered)?

Similar events took place when in March 2018, ZDNet broke the story of an application programming interface (API) hosted on the website of utility provider Indane Gas, which could have been abused by hackers to steal information such as full names, Aadhaar numbers, names of linked banking institutions as well as details of the specific utility provider which a person uses for a major chunk of the population.

The UIDAI statement at the time baldly claimed that there was no breach of its central database (what is called the ‘CIDR’) and that biometric data were safe. The only problem? Neither of these issues were asserted or even hinted at in the original story.

Reporters from the publication had attempted to reach out to UIDAI repeatedly – and that too through several mediums of communication, such as phone, email and even direct messages to the official UIDAI Twitter account – all to no avail.

“We tried to contact UIDAI by phone and email after we learned of the Aadhaar data leak. We eventually sent all the details in a Twitter DM message — but only because UIDAI wouldn’t offer […] an email address to send this data leak issue to,” posted Zack Whittaker, the reporter who had broken the story for ZDNet, as a tweet on his public Twitter account.

This was not the first time the authority had done such a thing (and neither was it the last, as we see with the Huffington Post story), as witnessed in the January 2018 incident with the Tribune; where the UIDAI did not respond to the paper’s attempts at communication at all before publication and later used it to state that no security incident had taken place altogether.

Reporters from the Huffington Post had also attempted to reach out to UIDAI prior to publication of the story; attempts at communication which the UIDAI willingly left unanswered. After UIDAI’s rebuttal, the Huffington Post published a statement of their own in which they asserted that they stood by the claims made in their story, while also making it known that the UIDAI had never responded directly to any of their communication.

The UIDAI’s most recent statement deploys a bizarre array of security jargon including buzzwords such as “full encryption”, “access control” and “tamper resistance” – without providing any elaboration on what any of these things would help prevent with regard to the issues raised in the media report.

This obfuscation is very troubling, and particularly so for those people who do not actively follow news regarding the troubles of the programme or other media organisations that are not equipped to understand the nuances of security reporting. For both groups of people, the statements issued by the UIDAI would be enough of an assertion to lead them to believe that all is well with the project and that anyone saying otherwise is an “unscrupulous element” with “vested interests”.

After the first few incidents, the authority’s cookie-cutter response seems to be part of the playbook through which they seek to protect their image: by retaining the ability to publicly deny an incident, even if it has already taken place; which is done by never confirming (or even acknowledging) an issue before publication. This is presumably done out of fear of the reputational damage which would inevitably be caused by admittance of a compromise or fault on their part.

Consider what happened with the Tribune breach report. The UIDAI officially denied it (even though some of their lower-level officials were quoted in the story), filed an FIR against the journalist. When the dust settled down, a prominent business newspaper ran a story which strangely enough quoted anonymous officials who highlighted the steps that were taken to fix the problem.

The UIDAI understands that ‘the first step in solving a problem is to recognise that it does exist’. Acknowledging problems within the Aadhaar project would be catastrophically damaging for the authority as well as the public’s perception of them. This is why we are always presented with almost indistinguishable statements of rebuttal and denial from the UIDAI, which too are never backed with any evidence.

Seeing as how the UIDAI’s statements almost always end up backfiring, their decision to employ a social media agency to monitor the internet for chatter on Aadhaar starts to make a little sense. For a while now, the authority has wished to undertake mass digital surveillance through social media and other online forums in order to track “top detractors” of the Aadhaar scheme and counter them to effectively “neutralise negative sentiments” surrounding the project.

This move, however, was challenged by petitioner Mahua Moitra who saw it as “an attempt by the State to overreach the jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in matters where the legality of social media surveillance and Aadhaar itself is under challenge”.

For now, the next time we are hit with a sense of déjà vu when it comes to an Aadhaar-related security incident, we should see through the UIDAI’s statements for what they truly are: hopeless attempts at damage control for a system that is crumbling at its very foundation.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-wire-karan-saini-september-12-2018-what-security-breach-the-unchanging-tone-of-uidai-denials

'We Need to Proactively Ensure that People Can't File Patents Representative of the Creativity of a FOSS Community'

rohini — 2015-09-27T11:51:50Z

Rohini Lakshané attended “Open Innovation, Entrepreneurship, and Our Digital Culture” in Bangalore on August 13, 2015. Major takeaways from the event are documented in this post.

Speakers: Prof. Eben Moglen, Keith Bergelt, and Mishi Choudhary; Panel discussion moderator: Venkatesh Hariharan. See the event page here. The organizers republished Rohini's report on their website.

Prof. Eben Moglen on FOSS and entrepreneurship

The culture of business in the 21^st century needs open source software or free software because there is one Internet governed by one set of rules, protocols and APIs that make it possible for us to interact with each another. The Internet made everybody interdependent on everybody else. Startup culture needs free and open source software (FOSS) because startups are an insurgency, a guerrilla activity in business. The incumbents in a capitalistic world dislikes competition and detests that existing resources, such as FOSS, enable insurgents to circumvent some of the steep curve that they had to climb in order to become incumbents.
Hardware is developing in ways that make the idea of proprietary development of software obsolete. There is no large producer of proprietary software that isn't also dependent on FOSS. Microsoft Cloud is based on deployments that do not use Windows but are based on FOSS. The era of Android as a semi-closed, semi-proprietary form of FOSS is over. Big and small companies around the world are exploiting the open source nature of Android.
Free software is a renewable resource not a commodity. Management is needed to avoid over-consumption or destruction of the FOSS ecosystem. Software is to the 21^st century economic life what coal, steel, and rare earth metals were at the end of the previous century.
FOSS turned out to be about developing human brains. It turned out to be about using human intelligence in software better. Earlier universities, engineering colleges and research institutions were the greatest manufacturers and users of FOSS. Now businesses of all sizes are.
When Richard Stallman and Prof. Eben Moglen set out to make GPL free, they initiated a large public discussion process, the primary goal of which was to ensure that individual developers have as much right to talk and to be heard as loudly as the largest firms in the world. At the end of the negotiation process, 35 or 36 of the largest patent holders in the IT industry accepted the basic agreement to be a part of the commons. --- Incumbents like people to pay for a seat at the table. Paying to have an opinion is a pretty serious part of the landscape of the patent system.

Prof. Eben Moglen on Digital India

Every e-governance project that the Indian government buys should use FOSS. The very nature of the way the citizens and governments interact can come to be mediated by software that people can read, understand, modify, and improve. An enormous ecosystem will come up -- a kind of public–private partnership (PPP) in the improvement of governance and government services, which is far more useful than most other forms of PPP conceptualised in the developed world in the 20^th century.
Everybody has a stake in the success of this policy. Several corporations are working against this policy as they once stated that they do not need FOSS.
The biggest market for both making and consuming software in the world is in India, because the science done here will dominate global software making, which in turn will define how the Internet works, which in turn will define society. One can't develop the largest society on earth by reinventing the wheel. The government is going to understand that only the sharing of knowledge and the sharing of forms of inventing would enable the largest society in the world to develop itself freely and take its place in the forefront of digital humanity.
If every state government's data centre across India is going to be turned into a cloud, one state might have VMWare, another might have AWS, and so on, it would be disastrous. To prevent this, all e-governance activities of every state government and federal agency in India could be conducted in one, big, homogeneous Indian cloud. This would enable utility computing across the country for all citizens, which would also make room for citizen computing to happen. When one moves towards architectures of omnipresent utility computing with large amounts of memory flatly available to everybody, one is going to be describing a national computing environment for a billion people. We can't even begin to model it until we start accomplishing it.
Prof. Eben Moglen's ambition is that there comes a time not very long from now when basic data science is taught in Indian secondary schools. The software is free and all the big data sets are public. A nation of a 100 million data scientists rules the world.

Keith Bergelt on the Open Invention Network

Over the past 10 years, Open Invention Network (OIN) has emerged as the largest patent non-aggression community in the history of technology. It has around 1,700 participants and is adding almost 2 participants every day. In the last quarter, OIN had approximately 200 licensees.
There is now a cultural transformation where companies are recognising that where OIN members collaborate, they shouldn't use patents to stop or slow down progress. Where members compete, they choose to invent while utilising defensive patents publications. What we are doing is a patent collaboration and a technical collaboration that exists in major projects around the world.
OIN has been making a major effort since January 2015 to spend more time in India and China to be able to ensure that the technological might and expertise represented in the two countries can be a part of the global community, and that global projects can start here. “We can expect to leverage the expertise of the community to be able to drive innovation from here [India and China]. It's not about IBM investing a billion dollars a year since 1999 and having some birthright to driving the open source initiatives around the world or about Google or Red Hat or anyone else. You have the ability to impact major changes and we want to be able to support you in the name of freedom of action as participants.”

Panel Discussion

Patent Wars and Innovation

In the past 5 to 7 years, patent wars in the handset segment of the information technology (IT) market have wasted tens of billions of dollars on litigation, and on raising the price of patent armaments. This patent litigation was purely an economic loss to the IT industry and it contributed nothing. If the patent system strangles invention, non-profit groups, non-commercial bodies, free software makers, and start-ups cannot invent freely.
Defensive patent publications, such as those made by IBM, lead to the gross underestimation of the inventive power and output of the company. People are struggling to find something to evaluate the productive output of an entity – startup, micro-industry or macro-industry. Patents are being used inappropriately and it's part of the corruption of the patent system. Any venture capitalist (VC) who believes that either the innovative capacities or the potential success factors of a start-up are tied to its patents should know that there are only a minuscule number of cases where patents are the differentiator. The differentiators required in order to sustain business are how smart the people are, how quickly they innovate, and how quickly they are able to adapt to complex situations. We see a trend in the US of not equating patents with innovation. The core-developer and hacker communities are largely anti-patent.
However, the flip side is that if the FOSS communities do not patent defensively, i.e., acquire and publish patents for their inventions in order to prevent others from getting patents in one jurisdiction or another, patent trolls will eventually encroach on the communities' inventive output. The only people making money out of this whole process are lawyers. It is slowing down the uptake of technology by creating fears and doubts in the system.
FOSS communities didn't qualify everything produced in the 23 years of (Linus') Linux, which would have let the service serve as stable prior art, preventing other people from filing patents. We can debate what is patentable subject matter in general or whether software should be patentable, but in the meantime if we can be proactive and file everything that we have in defensive publications and make it accessible to the patent and trademark offices here and around the world, we will have far fewer patents. We need to be activists in making sure that people can't file patents that are representative of the creativity of a community.
The Chinese government has instituted a programme designed to produce defensive publications in order to capture all the inventiveness across their industries, to be able to ensure that the quality of what ultimately gets patented is at least as high.
The US has a massive repository called ip.com, which is with every patent examiner of the USPTO.
India does not grant software patents as per section 3(k) of the Indian Patents Act, but that doesn't mean that no software patents are being granted. One of the empirical studies conducted by the Software Freedom Law Centre (SFLC) in India shows that 98.3% of the [telecom and computing technology] patents granted till 2013 went to multinational corporations. Almost none of the assignees are Indian.
In the context of the ongoing patent infringement law suits filed in the Delhi High Court by Ericsson [link]: The Delhi High Court has had a reputation of being very pro-intellectual property from the beginning.
Also, there is pressure from trade organisations. In August 2015, Ericsson along with ASSOCHAM invited the Director General of the Competition Commission of India to present a paper about why patents are good. It is essential to determine how the rules of conflict of interest apply here. This is exactly what the pharmaceutical industry would do. The only bodies who would object are Doctors Without Borders (MSF) or some local organisations who realise that high priced patented drugs is not what India needs and that we do not need to have the same IP policy as the US or Japan. We only need a different policy.
The Special 301 Report of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) is a big sham, and it suggests that India doesn't have strict enforcement of IP law. India does, unlike China.
Accenture has been granted a software patent in India. The patent is about an expert present in a remote location transferring knowledge to somebody who is listening in another location. Universities offering MOOCs, BPOs, and many other services would fall under such a patent. SFLC spent four years trying to fight this patent. The first defence of Accenture's battery of lawyers was that they won't use the patent.
Patents of very low quality are being bought at very high prices. The tax system or the subsidy system for innovation regards all patents as equal. This is a pricing failure and that should be corrected by other forms of intervention. The pendulum has already begun to swing the other way. Alice Corp was the third consecutive and unanimous ruling by the US Supreme Court that abstract ideas are not patentable. Patent applications pertaining to business methods and algorithms are increasingly being rejected by the USPTO after the ruling.

Prof. Eben Moglen on Facebook:

Facebook is a badly designed technology because there is one Man in the Middle who keeps all the logs. The privacy problem with Facebook is not just about what people post. It's about surveillance and data mining of web reading behaviour. It is a social danger that ought not to exist. I have said since 2010 is that we can't forbid it; let's replace it. It means bringing the web back as a writeable medium for people in an easy way. What I see as next-generation architecture could just as well be described as Tim Burners Lee's previous generation architecture.

You have to be able to trust the Internet. If you can't, you are going to be living in the shadow of govt surveillance, corporate surveillance, the fear of identity theft, and so on. We need to be able to explain to people what kind of software they can trust and what kind they can't. Distributed social networking will happen; it's not that difficult a problem.

An example of federated networking is Freedombox, a cheap hardware doing router jobs using free software in ways that encourage privacy. The pilot project for Freedombox has been deployed in little villages in Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka. These routers don't deliver logs to a thug in a hoodie in Menlo Park.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/we-need-to-proactively-ensure-that-people-cant-file-representatives-of-the-creativity-of-a-foss-community

'Privacy Matters', Ahmedabad: Conference Report

praskrishna — 2011-04-04T04:45:49Z

On 26 March 2011, civil society, lawyers, judges, students and NGO’s, gathered together at the Ahmedabad Management Association to take part in 'Privacy Matters' – a public conference organised by Privacy India in partnership with IDRC and Research Foundation for Governance in India (RFGI) — to discuss the challenges of privacy in India, with an emphasis on national security and privacy. The conference was opened by Prashant Iyengar, head researcher at Privacy India and Kanan Drhu, director of RFGI. Mr. Iyengar explained Privacy India’s mandate to raise awareness of privacy, spark civil action, and promote democratic dialogue around privacy challenges and violations in India. RFGI is a think tank established in 2009 which aims to research, promote, and implement various reforms to improve the legal and political process in Gujarat and across India. ‘Privacy Matters – Ahmedabad’ is the third conference out of the eight that Privacy India will be hosting across India. The next conference will take place in Hyderabad on 9 April 2011. It will focus on human rights and privacy.

The keynote speech, delivered by Usha Ramanathan, focused on links not often made between privacy and social phenomenon.

Ms. Usha Ramanathan opened the conference by examining the links not often made between privacy and personal security, between databases and national security, and the centrality of dislodging privacy in projects of social control. In her presentation she spoke about the inverse relationship between national and personal security, making the point that an important part of privacy is the ability of an individual to secure their own person. Today, because national security follows a policy of ubiquitous surveillance, it is almost impossible for an individual to secure their person from the state. Ms. Ramanathan also traced the beginnings of ubiquitous surveillance to the increasing global fear of terrorism, and the national break down of the criminal justice system in India. Instead of looking to the roots of terrorism and the roots of failure in the criminal justice system, the Indian State has responded to both these factors by superimposing a system of surveillance on top of the existing rule. Consequently, the state has become pan-optical — closely following the movement of its entire population. The state has been able to achieve this level of surveillance through technology, which it has used to create identifiers for its population. The use of technology by the state mediates a link between corporate interest and state interest. Thus, by facilitating the easy and ubiquitous creation of identifiers and surveillance, technology is changing the idea and the nature of privacy. For example, it is now important that a privacy law allows for individuals to protect and secure their identity, something that every individual has and every individual controls, while regulating the creation and external use of identifiers — something that is used by another (not you) to distinguish a person from the rest of the population.

Questions to Consider

How can privacy legislation work to positively regulate the use of technology by the government, so that invasion of privacy does not consequently become state policy?

How can privacy legislation distinguish between and work to protect an identity while regulating the creation and use of personal information as identifiers?

Session I of the Conference featured a Judicial Perspective of Privacy and a Presentation on the Connections between Privacy and the Federal Income Tax Regime in India.

Privacy and the Constitution

J N Bhatt, the former Chief Justice of Gujarat and Bihar, and currently the head of the Gujarat State Law Commission, spoke about privacy as a fundamental right that has been written into articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Important points from his presentation include:

As privacy is already a recognized fundamental right, the question at hand is not if there is a right to privacy, but instead how can the right to privacy be best proliferated.

Within the question of how a privacy can best be proliferated, is a question about rights and duties. Wherever there is a right to privacy there is also a corresponding duty to privacy — as rights and duties are interdependent.

Though privacy has been recognized as a fundamental right in India, when looking at the actual assertion of the right, it is important to be aware of the cultural realities of India. India is a country with 39 per cent of her population living below the poverty line, with an even lower literacy rate, and there is a direct connection between the assertion of civil liberties, an individual’s civic sense, and education.

When looking at how to best proliferate the right to privacy, governance and common law, a methodology to reach the poorest of the poor should be laid out first.

Questions to Consider

What is the best way to proliferate the right to privacy ?

What legal structures need to be in place to ensure that the poor can assert their right to privacy?
What social structures need to be in place to ensure that the poor can assert their right to privacy?

Privacy and the Indian Tax Regime

Professor Amal Dhru, visiting professor from the Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad and a practicing Chartered Accountant spoke on the connections between privacy and the federal income tax regime in India. In his presentation he explained how the information collected by the federal income tax regime in India can be both useful in holding a citizen accountable, and invasive of one’s personal privacy if mis-used. Important points from his presentation include:

The Indian tax regime highlights the tension between public interest as tax evasion is considered an exception to the right to privacy as it is a matter of public interest.

There is a lack of confidence in the existing banking and tax system in India. For example in the business sector, Indian investors have deposited over 700 billion dollars abroad as they are given complete privacy and security over their money.

Though there is a lack of confidence in the current banking and tax system, a tighter law is not necessarily the solution. For example, studies have found that tighter tax regimes lead to greater evasion, while looser tax regimes have higher compliance rates.

On April 1, 2011 the new tax codes for India will be implemented. The reform will give enormous power to tax offices, and as the tax authorities will become equipped to do taxes smarter – this will come at a cost to citizen’s privacy.

Questions to Consider

Just as a tighter tax law leads to a higher percentage of tax evasion, will a tight privacy law simply lead to greater numbers of privacy violations?

What creates public confidence in a law?

Should a privacy legislation be responsible for defining the public good?

Should privacy protection of tax-related information be incorporated into a privacy legislation or contained only in tax law?

To what extent should tax authorities be allowed to investigate potential tax evasion i.e., one’s computer, house or e-mail?

How does one balance the private vs. the public good?

Session II of the Conference focused on National Security and Privacy, and Cultural Conceptions of Privacy

National Security and Privacy

In the second session on Privacy and National Security, Colonel Mathew Thomas spoke on privacy and national security. Colonel Thomas is a management consultant and activity leader for development centers and has held top positions in the Indian Army, and the Defence Research and Development Organisation, where he headed the missile manufacturing facility. Sharing his personal experiences in the army he explained the connection between privacy and national security. Important points from his presentation include:

National Security is often not an internal threat, but instead an external threat.

There is a connection between the increase in surveillance and liberalization of Government.

More surveillance does not bring more security.

Foreign software poses as a threat to national security.

Greater security is gained through intelligent use and analysis of data.

A strong national security plan should not rely solely on surveillance of its citizens. Instead national security should be brought about through strong economic policies, non-reliance on foreign software, neutrality in foreign policy, fair trade policies, rural development and prevention of migration to cities, and having a politically honest and accountable governance.

Questions to Consider

Is it effective for privacy to be compromised in the name of anti- terror laws?
Can the development and distribution of indigenous software protect national privacy?
How can strong economic policies indirectly protect an individual's privacy?
How can a strong foreign policy protect an Indian citizen's privacy when it is stored or sent abroad?

Privacy as a Cultural Construct

Gagan Sethi from the Centre for Social Justice, Ahmedabad shared his opinion on privacy. Important points from his presentation include:

Privacy is a cultural construct that changes with context, perspective, and time.
When considering a privacy policy it is important to create a policy that does not strictly define what privacy is and what it is not, but instead create a policy that defines and promotes a common respect for human dignity.

Questions to Consider

If a privacy policy is developed to promote a common respect for human dignity – will it be effective?

Can you develop a policy that has a loose definition and mandate, but has strong legal teeth?

Session III of the Conference focused on Minority Identities and Privacy, Prisoner Rights, and Cyber Security.

Privacy and Minority Identities

Bobby Kuhnu, a lawyer and activist, presented in the third session on Privacy, Minority Identities, and Security. In his talk Mr. Kuhnu through the use of three examples examined the ideological underpinnings of the discourse on privacy and its bearings on socially marginalized identities in the context of the Indian State and the constitutional right to privacy. Important points from his presentation include:

In India, names can be sensitive and personal information like one’s religion, family, caste, and background can all be known through a name.
Because of the sensitivity of a person’s name, many people do not feel safe or comfortable in their own identity.
Reservation lists and public postings of information, can and have been used to discriminate and violate another’s privacy.

Questions to Consider

Should a privacy legislation requirement throughout institutions and government bodies that names should not be publicly displayed to the point of identification?
What is the most effective way of legally protecting an individual from discrimination based on their name?

Perspectives of Privacy

In the last portion of the day, Yash Sampat and Aditya Yagnik spoke on the origins of privacy and privacy in the cyber world. Vimmi Surti spoke on prisoner's rights and privacy and Ramswaroop Chaudhary presented on minority identities in South Asia and privacy. Important points from their presentation include:

Internet has led to an increase in privacy violations.
The result of privacy infringements is often the deprivation of individuals from safe access to services availed to them.
When looking at privacy as the protection of human dignity, prisoner’s rights are violated through overcrowding in prisons, poor health, and poor sanitation.

Questions to Consider

Are there legal mechanisms that can be put in place to ensure the least amount of deprivation to services when an individual’s privacy is invaded?

To what extent should prisoners be availed the right to privacy?

The concluding session was a time for discussion and opinion sharing

From the closing session, and the above sessions many themes and questions pertaining to privacy came out that will need to be addressed when considering the way forward for a privacy legislation including:

Regulation of ubiquitous surveillance in the name of national security
Regulation over public display of names and personal information
The need to distinguish between identity and identifier.
The need to protect an individual's identity while regulating the production and use of identifiers.
Privacy rights and prisoners: what does the right to privacy mean to a prisoner, i.e., clean facilities and health care.
Can the right to privacy be a platform for individuals to claim sanitary/safe working and living conditions.
Recognize the changing nature of privacy rights in a technological society.
Privacy implications of biometric usage.
Creation of a definition of when privacy rights will supersede identification needs.
How can government institutions, like the tax department, incorporate and protect the right to privacy with the collection of large amounts of data for more efficient services.
Privacy and the family

Download the report and agenda here [pdf - 452kb]

Also see Matthew's presentation [powerpoint file 116kb]

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/privacy/privacy-matters-report-from-ahmedabad

'India wants core internet infrastructure'

praskrishna — 2014-05-05T10:29:30Z

India wants "core internet infrastructure" to be part of an international legal system that would accommodate governments, civil society and other stakeholders. In typical Indian diplomatic style, its position can be interpreted to mean everything and nothing.

The article by Indrani Bagchi was published in the Times of India on April 24, 2014. Sunil Abraham is quoted.

An MEA team led by Vinay Kwatra, joint secretary told the Net Mundial in Brazil on Thursday, "The elements of India's approach on internet governance respond to its growing complexity and rests in supporting the dynamism, security and openness of a single and un-fragmented cyberspace. We also support innovation, and robust private sector investments to augment internet's continuing growth and evolution."

The Indian position is essentially an MEA position, because there has been little prior inter-agency consultation certainly in the government. In fact, while the MEA had decided upon its team almost a month ago, the Department of Information Technology only woke up last week.

It was only on Friday that the nodal ministry for IT-related issues even agreed to send a team to Brazil on Monday — the same team that the MEA was sending. If nothing else, sources said, this only highlighted the lack of seriousness within the Indian system.

In Brazil, Kwatra said internet should have a democratic governing system, involving everyone, which would essentially mean creating a parallel international system. The internet is essentially owned and led by the US, controlled by the fact that the overwhelming number of root servers are situated in that country. But after the Edward Snowden leaks on

NSA surveillance, the US' intentions and practices have come under a cloud.

While India does not want the status quo to continue, there is no clarity whether India favours a multilateral or a multi-stakeholder system. India, like China, wants a strong state presence in the decision making process of internet governance, because "it is used for transactions of core economic, civil and defence assets at national level and in the process, countries are placing their core national security interests in this medium." On the other hand, it wants unfettered access to knowledge and technology as a nation-building and governance tool.

Additionally, India wants non-governmental stakeholders to be properly audited "there should also be a clear delineation of principles governing their participation - including their accountability, representativeness, transparency, and inclusiveness. Clearly, it makes it even more important that we define the multistakeholderism."

There is a crying need for India to clearly define the future it expects to thrive in.

Sunil Abhraham of the Centre for Internet and Society in Bangalore says India should take the lead in defining new internet rules, keeping its future in mind. "We could use patent pools and compulsory licensing to provide affordable and innovative digital hardware to the developing world. This would ensure that rights-holders, innovators, manufactures, consumers and government would all benefit ... We could explore flat-fee licensing models like a broadband copyright cess or levy to ensure that users get content at affordable rates and rights-holders get some royalty from all internet users in India.

This will go a long way in undermining the copyright enforcement based censorship regime that has been established by the US. When it comes to privacy - we could enact a world-class privacy law and establish an independent, autonomous and proactive privacy commissioner who will keep both private and state actors on a short lease. Then we need a scientific, targeted surveillance regime that is in compliance with human rights principles. This will make India simultaneously an IP and privacy haven and thereby attract huge investment from the private sector, and also earn the goodwill of global civil society and independent media." This is more than the Indian government has thought of.

While no binding decisions are expected from Brazil this week, the high profile event is expected to trigger a high level debate on possible reforms. India, say officials, need to hone its position to come up with concrete proposals. This is imperative, after the US made two crucial decisions on internet governance this year.

In March the US announced by September 2015 it would give up oversight of the Internet Corporation for Assigned of Names and Numbers (ICANN), a non-profit group based in California that assigns domain names. But the US is clear it will not hand over control to any organization that can be controlled by any other country. This week, the US' FCC has dealt a body blow to the concept of "net neutrality" (which essentially functions on the premise that access to the internet is the same for everyone) by allowing companies like Disney and Google to pay for premium internet speeds. Countries like China, Russia, Saudi Arabia (maybe even Iran) seek to control net access for their citizens as a measure of political control. Second, cyber offensives by countries who are ramping up capacity in these fields could take over internet governance structures if they are not crafted carefully enough. On the flip side, as Sunil Abraham of the Centre for Internet and Society puts it, "The US censorship regime is really no better than China's. China censors political speech - US censors access to knowledge thanks to the intellectual property (IP) rightsholder lobby.."

If the US is relinquishing control over ICANN, the next global battle is likely to be over who takes over that mantle. Which, in turn, makes it important to get net governance right. At least China has a plan — it wants the UN to take control. India wants a bit of this and a bit of that, without actually giving it a shape, which makes it impossible for India to shape the future of the debate.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/the-times-of-india-april-24-2014-india-wants-core-internet-infrastructure

'I feel the pain of having nowhere to go': A Manipuri Trans Woman Recounts Her Ongoing Lockdown Ordeal

Santa Khurai — 2020-06-22T11:42:39Z

"My life and work in Bengaluru came to an abrupt halt with the COVID-19 outbreak and lockdown this March. We no longer had jobs and were forced to plan our departure from the city." -- As told to Santa Khurai, Manipur-based queer and Nupi Manbi activist, artist and writer. Compiled by Aayush Rathi, a cisgender, heterosexual man, and researcher with Centre for Internet and Society, India. This account is part of an ongoing CIS research project on gender, welfare and surveillance in India, and is supported by Privacy International, UK.

Originally published by Firstpost, June 20, 2020.

In 2015, I left my home state of Manipur for Bengaluru.

My name is Sarik*; I prefer to be known as Siku. I am a Nupi Manbi (trans woman).

Other Nupi Manbi had told me that Bengaluru is tolerant of transgender individuals, and that it is easy to find decent, well-paying jobs here. I contacted friends who had already moved here and relocated with their help.

Immediately, I found work at a fabric dyeing factory. The salary meant I could send some money home, my family was able to invest some of the funds in a monthly marup [revolving informal credit collective], and I was able to dream of someday having enough to buy a piece of land in Manipur.

I wasn’t to know at the time that just five years later, the happiness and hope would both prove fleeting.

***

I grew up in a small locality of Imphal East District, the youngest of three siblings. My mother had passed away, my father is a priest and story-teller, and my older brother worked as a traditional cook. As a result, our lives were fairly hand-to-mouth.

The frequent shifting of homes was very difficult for me, but I had no choice in the matter. I used to earn money by assisting other transgender friends in their tailoring works. While I worked hard in order to set aside enough money to own a small piece of land, it proved impossible with my meagre earnings.

After years of struggle, I decided to move to a big city with the aspiration to earn more.

***

My life and work in Bengaluru came to an abrupt halt with the COVID-19 outbreak and lockdown this March.

We no longer had jobs and were forced to plan our departure from the city. The Manipur government had announced measures that would allow stranded citizens to return to the state, so we began the formal process for our repatriation.

On 14 May 2020, three of us left Bengaluru in a special train that was organised for returnees to Manipur. Four days later, we were in Manipur.

When we reached Imphal, all returnees were first assembled at Modern College in Porompat, Imphal East. From there, we were sent to our respective constituencies to be quarantined. In the process, I was separated from my friends.

I was taken to Wangkhei Girl School as my permanent address falls under this constituency. At the quarantine centre, I was allocated a room shared by six other men. All the inmates were also sharing a toilet. This made me very uncomfortable; my body was undergoing changes due to hormonal effects.

In my discomfort, I reached out to transgender activist Santa Khurai, highlighting the need to set up a separate quarantine centre for transgender people. She immediately created a WhatsApp group for all the transgender people housed at different quarantine centres, keeping us updated about a separate quarantine centre for us. On the evening of 20 May, we rejoiced on seeing photos of the quarantine centre set up for transgender people. That night was the end of my terrible stay at the common quarantine centre.

***

On 21 May, I was shifted to the quarantine centre for transgender people at Ideal Blind School, Takyel. There, I was reunited with two of my friends. We stayed there for 17 days, receiving support from Santa Khurai through telecounseling. Before the quarantine period concluded, we were tested for COVID-19. We did not receive the results, but were advised to go back home. We were provided an acknowledgment in the form of a medical document. The relatives and parents of the other two trans girls had come to pick them up, but since my family doesn’t own a vehicle and it was not possible to hire on, I called a transgender friend to drop me home. I could sense some animosity in the neighbourhood, and decided not to step out from the house.

On the morning of 4 June, local governing bodies and clubs including Meira Paibi [a women’s rights group] thronged my house. A large crowd gathered in the temple shed. The club and Meira Paibi leader called my family members out and we were made to sit in the middle of a large group of people. They asked me to produce the result of the COVID-19 test, and I showed the acknowledgement given to us at the quarantine centre. People in the crowd passed the paper to each other disapprovingly, arguing that I hadn’t been declared COVID negative. One of the local club leaders called the police and doctors. The doctor who was in charge of the facility for transgender persons responded to the call, and validated my discharge from quarantine.

After few hours, even the police arrived and said that I could stay at home. However, the locals pressured the cops into taking my family — including my frail father who is in his 80s — to the police station.

***

We were finally allowed to leave the police station after several rounds of interrogation. My father, my brother (along with his wife and son) were taken back home by the police, while I was separately dropped off at a hotel in Gandhi Avenue, Thangal Bazar. I was advised to check in the hotel at around 3 pm; the charge was Rs 1,000 per day. When I asked the man who would pay for the room, he said, “Let’s see. At least you will be safe to stay here as the locals didn’t accept you coming home. You stay here until the test result come out.”

I called Santa in desperation, who consoled and reassured me. In the meantime, I had also called my sister to ask if some clothes could be brought for me. Her response alarmed and frightened me: My sister told me that my family were not being allowed to enter the house. The gate had been locked and they were instructed to stay at a quarantine centre as they were exposed to me. The news shocked me and made me desperate in wanting the test result to come out expeditiously, so that it would at least prevent any further hardships for my family.

Now I’m staying at the hotel. I fear going back to the house, the hostility of the locals, my family being attacked, my old father being forced to stay at a quarantine centre. I feel the pain of having nowhere to go. It is also infuriating to think that this could have been completely avoided had the officials not been in a haste to make us leave the quarantine centre, and had let us stay till the actual test results were received.

* Name changed to protect identity.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/raw/a-manipuri-trans-woman-recounts-her-ongoing-lockdown-ordeal-covid19

'Free Speech and Media in South Asia: Human Rights Concerns in a Globalizing World'

praskrishna — 2013-11-08T05:33:22Z

A seminar organized by the Programme in Comparative Media Law and Policy, Centre for Socio-Legal Studies, University of Oxford, in collaboration with the Centre for Media and Governance, National Law University, Delhi. Chinmayi Arun is one of the speakers.

Click to read the original published by Oxford University Press here

Speakers:

Salil Tripathi, English PEN

Defending Freedom of Expression in India

Emrys Shoemaker, London School of Economics

Mobile Communication and Internet Regulation in Pakistan: Mapping Social Implications

Chinmayi Arun, National Law University, Delhi

Privacy and Surveillance

Kumaravadivel Guruparan, University College London

Digital Media as Part of the Sri Lankan State's 'Counter-insurgency' Programme

Chair: Nicole Stremlau, PCMLP

This panel discussion will explore contemporary issues that envelop both the digital and the traditional media in South Asia. It will look at the effects of surveillance, prior restraints on speech, intermediaries and other key factors on the public sphere. It will also consider, in this context, the relationship of the traditional media with the Internet. This discussion will take place in the backdrop of evolving democratic engagement in India, and the constitutional jurisprudence that attempts to keep pace with it and with developments in communication technology. It will offer comparative perspectives from other countries grappling with similar concerns.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/university-of-oxford-october-25-2013-free-speech-and-media-in-south-asia